Saskatchewan farmer caught on video confronting trespassing snowmobilers
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Yep, really.
From your own article:
"In Texas (c), the law for using deadly force in defense of property is not new and is very broad. Texas law says a person is justified in using deadly force if they reasonably believe that this is necessary and the only way to prevent a serious crime such as burglary or theft or to prevent someone from fleeing with stolen property from your home or property."
That's what I just said.
The guy was not using deadly force... he had a gun.. he did not use it did he. He used his foot and kicked a crappy snowmobile, unless a foot is now deadly force.
The gun was only a deterrent against escalation of assault buy two individuals who were breaking the law by trespassing.
If the two attacked the man, or try and take his firearm away from him... then he could be considered in fear for his life.. and shoot the trespassers.
Or if the two snowmobilers tried to steal his Alpaca.. then he could shoot.
Sorta reminds me, need to go to the Pawn Shop to see if they have any guns for sale..
I never said he did. I was responding to petros's cowboying.
Here's a little advice, free for nothing. Try reading the f*cking thread (RTFT) before you stick your oar in. You'll look less stupid.
I agree completely. I completely approve of what Saskatchewan Sal did here. I've done the same.
Careful, stick your oar into this thread could be considered hazardous.. carry a shotgun.
Say I was just responding to your completely inaccurate statement...
It's already been demonstrated.. watch the video. What you are calling Deadly Force is a boot.
You seem quite passionate about your stand here so let me jump in with a few questions...and a comment. Question one from your statement here, we are speaking about the guy in the video who approached the two skidoo boys...are you saying from your observation of the video that you would have shot these young boys to save your wheat?
In my estimation a redneck is someone who is over reactive without putting any thought into the consequence of his action. Buddy in the video did just that.
Yes I would say you would be a redneck bumpkin in the city if you belted somebody who was doing donuts on your lawn with their motor vehicle if you did not attempt to resolve the issue peacefully first.
Wouldn't you?
The law:
25(1) No person shall operate a snowmobile over any privately owned land,
whether enclosed or not, without the consent of the owner or occupant of the land.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of any private land outside of a city,
town, village or hamlet unless there are signs at least 30 centimetres in length
and 25 centimetres in width prominently placed at each corner of the land and at
intervals not exceeding 800 metres along the boundaries of the land bearing the
words “SNOWMOBILES PROHIBITED”, “NO TRESPASSING” or words or
symbols to a like effect.
whether enclosed or not, without the consent of the owner or occupant of the land.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of any private land outside of a city,
town, village or hamlet unless there are signs at least 30 centimetres in length
and 25 centimetres in width prominently placed at each corner of the land and at
intervals not exceeding 800 metres along the boundaries of the land bearing the
words “SNOWMOBILES PROHIBITED”, “NO TRESPASSING” or words or
symbols to a like effect.
The land owner admitted on air that he had no signs or gates. The onus is on land owners who don't want people on their property to clearly mark it as such.
Though the nice legislators in Saskatchewan made sure that the land owners wouldn't be liable in civil matters:
25(6)An owner or occupant of land who does not post his land in accordance with
subsection (2) shall not, for the purposes of determining civil liability, be considered
to have implicitly consented to the entry upon his land by a person who is driving or
riding on a snowmobile or being towed by a snowmobile.
subsection (2) shall not, for the purposes of determining civil liability, be considered
to have implicitly consented to the entry upon his land by a person who is driving or
riding on a snowmobile or being towed by a snowmobile.
Laws in Canada are different than in the excited states but the same thought applies.
These people didn't just happen to stray onto the farmers land they just did it cause
they could. He confronted them. As Petros says they could have been destroying a
mans winter wheat. If I caught someone on the land here potentially destroying my
farm I'd slap him up side of the head and I'm a pretty easy going guy. I remember one
person who moved their vehicle or they would have had bin forks run through the side
of it. I have no use for many snowmobilers either they just trespass without a bit of
consideration and whine when people won't put up with it. I say one for the farmer here.
These people didn't just happen to stray onto the farmers land they just did it cause
they could. He confronted them. As Petros says they could have been destroying a
mans winter wheat. If I caught someone on the land here potentially destroying my
farm I'd slap him up side of the head and I'm a pretty easy going guy. I remember one
person who moved their vehicle or they would have had bin forks run through the side
of it. I have no use for many snowmobilers either they just trespass without a bit of
consideration and whine when people won't put up with it. I say one for the farmer here.
You really think the just-us system would really do anything to cityots ruining a farmer's crops?
I see it as a situation where justice delivered in a timely manner is most appropriate. OTH the farmer could have called the cops and said someone was firing a machine gun on his property and they might have left the doughnut shop. If the weather was OK.
