Yep, I'm excited to read all the ding-dongs who think another person's life is less important than their property. There's a pretty strong correlation between "If someone enters my property, I have carte blanche to take their life" and being an absolute waste of genetic resources.
If a person is going to trespass for nefarious purposes, they also think that possessions are more important than their own life, potentially. Or does responsibility only go one way ?
The responsible are always being further burdened by the irresponsible. Somehow people are able to make the honest person who's home was invaded and security threatened into the bad guy and the thief(?), rapist(?), serial killer(?) into a victim.
You must be looking at this from the criminal sympathizer perspective. Most would argue that if the criminal valued their well-being, they wouldn't be there in the first place. They know the risks, and fortunately for them, with the way the legal system is set up in Canada the risks aren't very great unless you run into one of these old cantankerous bastards that are tired of being taken advantage of and not seeing any real Justice.
The theft in rural communities is out of control, and there's nothing the police can do to stop it because they can't be everywhere at once, and when they do finally catch up to them, they just get released and do it again.
It was only a little over a month ago that an oil field battery nearby was struck by Thieves for the umpteenth time who this time went as far as trying to knock down power poles to steal the copper, it cost them over $50,000 to rewire the plant again, and the thieves came back only a month later and in a larger crime spree involving three vehicles loaded with criminals breaking into numerous businesses and farms in a single night in addittion to the plant with three separate exchanges of gunfire, and the farmers pursuing them for for over 100km all the while trying to get in contact with 911 who was not picking up their calls for over an hour.
In the country you really are on your own, the police only ever show up long after the fact, and if you don't run these pricks off with a good show of force, there's a good chance they'll return.
It's not only in the country where you're on your own. If you're in a city and there's no immediate threat to life, forget about the cops ever showing up.
I’m excited to hear about how the youths were law abiding kids who were on his property to collect bottles for their hockey team.
I don’t believe in randomly shooting anyone who enters your property however I would rather see an 84-year old shoot an intruder than read another story about a couple criminals who killed a senior while out on bail for some other violent offense.
The story has very few details so I guess we’ll wait to see what really happened.
This guy's property is like 4 acres of auto junkyard. If you look at posts in the last day or two of Edmonton Reddit, you'll find satellite imagery of the property. It is very clearly associated with crime. In fact many others who lived at this property in the last couple of years have been charged with all kinds of criminal enterprise. It needs to be shut down; is absolutely associated with a lot of the car theft happening
It’s like how the last time a gang banger was offed by a farmer in Saskatchewan everyone who started screaming racism conveniently left out the detail that a loaded firearm was in between the knees of the POS who got a bullet in the back of their head. (Btw I don’t buy the hang fire excuse. That’s what his defence had to come up with because killing with a firearm in self defence in said circumstances isn’t legal in Canada).
Small point, but, killing with a firearm in self defence can be legal. The bar would be quite high to prove you were in mortal danger, and then to prove your guns were properly stored and such. But, it's not expressly illegal to defend yourself with lethal force, even with a firearm.
>That’s what his defence had to come up with because killing with a firearm in self defence in said circumstances isn’t legal in Canada
There is no legal difference between killing in self-defence with a firearm and killing in self-defence with anything else. "Killing in self-defence" is not legal if it is not actually in self-defence or if, in all the circumstances, it is not objectively reasonable.
I'm excited to read all the ding-dongs who think their life is less important then someone else's property. Protect your property or it becomes the norm to steal. If you don't discipline your kids someone else will eventually do it for you. Also, the older you get, the less of a deterrent life in prison becomes.
> "If someone enters my property, I have carte blanche to take their life"
There needs to be some sort of middle ground between the above and "leave your keys by the door to let them steal your car"...
You'd think so, but this thread is overflowing with garbage people claiming they'd absolutely feel justified killing someone for petty theft.
I've come to realise over the past decade or so that right wingers are generally only capable of viewing issues in absolute binary outcomes, completely devoid of any nuance or middle ground. There's no "A and B are both bad, but A is much worse and warrants a stronger response than B," it's just "A and B are bad and warrant an extreme response."
I'm a left leaning centrist.
I think a stance between where you are at and a 'castle doctrine' (like in some US states) needs to be found. I think the idea of 'leave your keys by the front door so thieves have easy access and wont assault/murder you for them' is absurd. I also think that US 'stand your ground' laws are also absurd and have no place here.
Where's the compromise in our laws and morals between these two (IMO) extermes?
I do not condone violence, but if the youth decided they were willing to put themselves in danger for the crime they decided to do… then THEY are responsible for deeming their lives less important than the man’s property
I do value my property more than the life of a random stranger, yes.
The thing you're conveniently forgetting is that it only matters if the random stranger forces me to make that choice.
This is the dumbest, most Canadian bullshit I’ve ever heard.
If somebody breaks into your home or onto your property, there is a real chance that they intend to harm you. Should your life be worth less than theirs? People who think like this are the reason you’re thrown in jail if you make any attempt to defend yourself from a violent attacker.
God, I’m so tired of all the self righteous people in this country.
>If somebody breaks into your home or onto your property, there is a real chance that they intend to harm you.
Someone wandering onto your ten acre rural property is just a bit different than someone taking a crowbar to your back door, but sure, a lethal response is totally equally justified in either scenario...
Oh yeah, definitely shoot for the face then, that's just as bad as breaking into your house to rape and murder your family.
Fuck me, y'all don't even have a shred of self awareness, do you.
Right... like those cases in the US of the "shoot first, ask questions later" crowd... and all of the big talkers that are basically just dudes itching to kill someone and just *waiting* for someone to step onto their property to give them an excuse for "legal murder." Like the Redditors that lament the illegality of booby traps because they want to setup a shotgun pointed at their door whenever they leave the house. smh
I mean, why couldn't you have been the lost person (in NY State?) driving up to that dude's house where he just unloaded into their car... when all they wanted was to ask for directions? You find this completely reasonable, no?
I don’t agree with that. Obviously there are nuances. If you bludgeon somebody to death the second they step on your lawn, that should be a crime - which it often is in the US, even with castle doctrine.
But if somebody breaks into your house at night and you have no idea what their motive is, the whole “possessions can be replaced” idea becomes pretty useless. In situations like that, your life should be worth defending.
Well, what do you mean by "another person", and "important"?
In objective terms, all humans are polluting the planet, causing the mass extinction of millions of species, and generally ruining our world while killing each other in the process. In that sense, we all add negative value to the world and are probably worth less than inanimate material.
If you want to pretend that humans are "important" due to our extraordinary ability to band together and ruin things with great efficiency, then okay. Under that delusion, I guess we'd have to assign value to life based on the balance of good vs evil that a person does for other people around them. A person that does more harm than good to members of society (like breaking into homes or stealing vehicles, for example) adds negative value. This is true for some, but not necessarily any "other person".
And then there's the consideration that people spend their entire lives slaving away to build their homes and populate them with things they cherish. These are people who have earned wealth by adding value to society. The thought that these folks should not have the right to defend their homes from people who have not earned that privilege, who have *not* added value, is not right.
So, regarding the person stealing a truck - is their life worth less than a truck? Maybe. I guess it depends if they'll ever do honest work long enough to earn one themselves. Is their life worth less than the principle that people who earn the right to property should have the right to defend it against thieves? I think yes. Absolutely. Why wouldn't it be?
Do you not think we should draw the line somewhere? That some things are just simply unacceptable? And what makes a human life so important, when humans have built entire industries around raising other life for slaughter? A human life has value simply because it's a "human" life? That's not an answer. Especially when we do the damage that we do.
No, pretty clear the youths were recent immigrants, funded by Russia, attempting to steal this man's truck both due to the housing crisis and their support of Hamas. This probably wouldn't have happened if the City hadn't displaced their homeless encampment recently or if the province had not cut off their free safe supply of Rohypnol. The man was justified in shooting them under naval law, but should not have used weapons imported illegally from the United States and we should note this is part of a disturbing trend of trans shooters. His French accent is suspect, which might indicate he's a plant, but police should continue investigating potential gravesites on his property and whether or not he visited Epstein's island.
I met a 92 yr old in jail, first time, there because he shot at a "tax collector". That generation has a hard time reconciling the idea that you can't just shoot at people because they are on your property.
You're asking "who are these twits with guns?" after saying that you'd personally shoot them yourself.
You're literally no different than those "twits" and you don't even realize. Your mindset for shooting them is the exact same mindset they have for shooting anyone else.
I got into a Facebook argument trying to explain the concept of municipal right of way (aka how the city owns the first few meters of your property) to an old man. He insisted he was going to shoot any city employee who dared touch his land.
In the use of force continuum, lethal force is always the last step. There is just no logic in going from:
1. Steps on "my" grass
2. ?
3. I use lethal force
Someone physically just being there doesn't count as you being threatened by grevious bodily harm or death.
Another good acronym, maybe will help your nect FB argument lol:
AIM
Ability
Intent
Means
If they don't have all three, is there really a threat?
Also some people seem to think retaliation is self defense , like if someone punches you and then starts running away or leaving you have the right to execute them like um no that's not how self defense works in a court of law 🤣💀
Those same people will also claim that "all life is precious" "abortion is murder" "murder is bad" ..."unless you step on my property" 😅🤣
I'm all for self defense and think gun laws in Canada are way too strict but some people are fucking out of their minds with how quick they are to want to shoot someone and not just shoot, outright kill
If you train , one in each knee cap wil stop most intruders unless they're on drugs and also have a gun but how often does that even happen in fkn Canada of all places lmfao
Most shootings here are gang on gang violence or a bystander gets hit by a stray
But in America god forbid you are a colored door to door salesmen in the wrong neighborhood with some cranky old guy
I remember seeing a video of this one old guy execute both of his neighbors over a dispute in winter shot the wife and husband while they were still on their own property , over a petty argument , that shit is so common in America and people will defend it like absolute imbeciles
>If you train , one in each knee cap wil stop most intruders unless they're on drugs and also have a gun but how often does that even happen in fkn Canada of all places lmfao
This is a terrible decision. If you are at the point you've decided you need to use legal force to defend yourself, you shoot to kill, center mass. It's not like the movies; people don't stop immediately upon getting shot twice.
As a rural property owner I can understand peoples fear and distrust of trespassers.
Call 911 and hope the arrive in 24hrs, or let thieves steal your stuff.
Rock salt, pepper spray and other non lethal deterrents should be legal for protection of one’s property and person.
Shooting an unarmed person is not justified. We will continue to see these happen and rural crime continues to skyrocket, and the police do less and less.
Oh but I did see three officers doing radar and pulling people over today, but that fresh pile of garbage and furniture, or the 2 break-ins they still have not responded to those can wait.
My uncle has a barn/shed within eye sight of the highway. Over covid the amount of wannabe "pickers" and thieves led him to replace it with a metal one. He uses trail cams because people are still snooping around constantly.
Possession of a prohibited weapon, unsafe use, are all crimes they could charge you with.
Just like using pepper spray on a human is an offence.
I don’t know if anyone has been charged for rock salt, but I would be damn scared to shoot it at a person. Seen it destroy barn sides once or twice.
Double barrelled shotgun isn't a prohibited weapon (yet).
It should be noted that rock salt, pepper spray, stun guns and the like are not non-lethal weapons.
They are properly, and correctly categorized as "less lethal". People absolutely can and do die if they are hit with them the wrong way, or with the wrong combination of health problems or freak accidents.
Unfortunate. I had to watch a guy steal from a neighbors patio. If he's armed, I wasn't and I'm dead. Just out walking my dog. If I stop him and he gets so much as sprained finger, I go to jail. It's lunacy.
That can happen anywhere, not just in a rural area. If everyone starts carrying weapons because they fear being attacked in their house, out walking their dog, etc. then you end up with a lot of people getting hurt or killed because people panic, overreact, or are just looking to instigate or elevate a situation out of some sociopathic idea of playing an protector or avenger.
That is just totally and completely untrue. We Canadians are allowed to use force to defend property or to protect ourselves or others up to and including killing the assailant.
[Self-Defence - Detailed Examination of New Section 34 of the Criminal Code - Bill C-26 (S.C. 2012 c. 9) Reforms to Self-Defence and Defence of Property: Technical Guide for Practitioners (justice.gc.ca)](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/rsddp-rlddp/p5.html)
Then take up the issue with the municipality and/or province.
Do you understand how police funding models work?
Traffic units have funding specified for that function. And police officers that work in those units wont be going outside their mandate
I don’t think you really understand how most hamlets will have 3-4 officers for thousands of square kilometres. Regardless of political party waiting for police in a rural area is a joke.
Hell even in a 0.1 mil population city center I bet police would take 5-10 minutes.
Castle doctrine is essentially already the law in Canada (it doesn’t mean you can shoot anyone for trespass, but it means you don’t have a duty to retreat in your own home). People misinterpret what that means though, you still can’t escalate straight to lethal force. It’s also a federal matter, as is firearm storage and safe use laws
And that’s EXACTLY where they need to focus their campaign. Let rural people protect their livelihood. And make them partners in any upcoming legislation affecting them. Show farmers you can work FOR them.
If you had decent insurance rates it wouldn’t matter. Society wants us to insure ourselves. Nobody’s insurance premium should ever go up because the bookies at the insurance company price that in that a random certain amount of us in a certain area are going to be victims of property crime. The insurance company tried jacking my rates up after claiming $25k on a $2 million dollar policy. I complained and they saw it my way. Their underwriters have never sent me a letter explaining their position on property crime and insurance rates. I’ve asked three separate times. No answer. Don’t let them jack your rates after a theft claim.
I had a home break-in the police would not have responded and told me to go to a station to file a complaint until I inform them a firearm was stolen. Suddenly they had time to send officers out to respond.
Turns out after collecting prints another evidence, the fellow that broke into my house, was out on probation and parole for B&E
Insurance deemed my policy high-risk, and dropped me after paying out my claim
That’s a poor excuse for high risk. Defaming you like that to the industry can’t be within the law. When you separate their conduct from the policy it becomes a different matter.
I have $2500 deductible on my collision insurance because first I have to be the guy that fucks up and second i can’t really afford to replace the car.
Anything under $2500 I always get repaired myself.
Uh yeah. Of course they had fucking time for that. Someone comes in and steals a gun, they want to lock that the fuck down.
They steal random *not dangerous to society at large* possessions that arent going to hurt people? That what insurance is for.
Preventing that guy from hurting others with your gun shoulf be their first and highest priority. Getting your TV back is not. Theres an apples to nukes difference here
It objectively is a dangerous weapon. Is it as dangerous relative to other firearms? No. But it is a hell of a lot more dangerous than the PlayStation and jewelry stolen.
All it takes is a single shot to kill someone, and 3 seconds to reload and do it again.
So yes. Dangerous.
Also, it should have had the bolt/carrier removed if stored that way. And the fact that you didnt mention that it was rendered inoperable by legally prescribed means means it likely wasnt. Someone doing it that way would likely mention it when they mentioned the theft to minimize the severity of the theft.
Well. It was deactivated,
and even if it wasn’t, a non restricted firearm, stored unloaded with a trigger-lock on a rack is legal.
Or in the case of a farm that non restricted firearm can be stored loaded and ready for predator control that is ongoing. Not that I would leave a firearm out of my safe.
The point is the police don’t care and rural
Owners feel scared and helpless, there will be an increasing number of these incidents including Colton boushie
You should probably go to jail when you shoot someone on your property. And when you fuck around on someone's property, bad things can and will happen. Both can be true.
If you read exactly what I wrote, I said shooting someone unarmed just cause it on your property is not justified
I said the changing of laws to allow for non-lethals should be changed
Yeah I saw like 6 opp officers doing traffic work driving across Ontario back to Toronto only time in the last 3 years I’ve seen police doing anything. Holy shit I watch a carjacking happen right in front me with a cop across the street and the cop just basically watched. Not until multiple people started yelling at the officer did he actually get off his ass and light up his cherries.
The problem is a collision of very different worlds.
The thief thinks it fine to steal things. That is their world.
The rural person doesn’t ever steal anything. Theft is about the same as rape/murder. We really don’t different (all are horrible and beyond imagination).
So when a rural person is confronted with a thief they have no baseline. If they are a thief they can easily be a rapist/murderer and therefore will be dealt with accordingly,
Basically if you are a thief avoid rural properties or you will get shot because you don’t understand the culture.
You make it sound like rural property owners are uneducated buffoons
What can be true for some is not true for all
Some of us are highly educated left-leaning, and don’t wanna shoot someone just cause they came on our property. We just don’t wanna be the victims of crime and have no recourse cause the police won’t respond.
Apparently the fifteen and sixteen year old were looking at junked cars on the property at about 9:00pm, so with enough visibility to see that they were there and to get an idea what they were up to.
A quick look at maps using an address supplied from one of the articles puts it about 20 minutes from an RCMP office in St. Albert using regular road speed, presumably closer to 10 minutes if, say, speeding to a probable emergency. It's about 35 minutes from the centre of Edmonton.
I mean clearly the only reasonable response was to come to a conclusion, step outside and summarily end the life of at least one of them. It's hardly a good thing for someone to be digging through a pile of someone's garbage, but most kids who screw up have a harder time learning their lesson when they've been murdered by territorial hoarders.
In other news, sometimes I receive packages as late as 10:00pm. I'd hate to find out that a neighbour was looking out for me.
Seriously. If fifteen year old me lived near a large rural property with a shitload of old vehicles parked all over it, I'd absolutely want to wander through just to look at all the cool shit. But according to some absolute psychopaths in this thread (many of whom I'm certain would've done the same as kids), trespassing is basically the same as rape and murder in terms of what level of response is warranted.
The apologists who are asking questions like "did he shoot to disarm?" are also being disingenuous.
If I have a hammer, it's rated on its ability to enable me to bang something, with features like shock absorption and weight. If I buy a x-acto knife, then it's rated on its ability to cut with precision, while a steak knife is rated on its ability to cut steaks and other food. A gun isn't rated on its ability to disarm people. It's designed to fire accurately at a target at lethal speed. The differentiator is whether the ammunition can penetrate the surface of the target and how efficiently it can ki\*\* its target.
The only thing that the person firing the gun controls is the aim; they cannot control the actions of the target, so they must assume that anything fired is going to have a lethal result.
It isn't even dark at 9:00... couple kids poking around some busted ass cars with plenty of light is no reason for one of them to end up dead.
If you statement is true hopefully the old man goes to jail for a long time.
I generally believe rehabilitation works but also recognize that it doesn't for some people.
Given the version of evens given by the person I original responded to I think this case more of the latter and I kind of hope he lives to 110 and spends his last days in jail.
I don't blame him for being the victim of theft. However theft doesn't escalate to deadly force.
Especially when it's away from the person who nevertheless takes to executing teenage trespassers.
I went non-contact with my father years ago, and I don't live in Alberta anymore, so I have no idea what my father is doing. However, he is such an angry man I worry every time I see a headline from Alberta that a crazy old man did something horrible it's going to turn out to be him. Luckily as far as I know he's not by st Albert, so it's probably not him... This time.
A scary part of this news story breaking is seeing how many people have been influenced by American laws and culture. So many people saying he has a right to defend his property, to shoot someone stealing. Nope. Not in Canada. In Canada he only has the right to shoot someone if there was really threat to his life or severe bodily harm - where staying in his home and locking the door, calling the police isn’t an option. Unless these teenagers were actively trying to kill or cause severe injury - shooting someone on your property is against the law. It doesn’t really matter if you think it’s warranted. It’s against the law.
I've started checking the comment history of users posting shitty takes, and beyond the usual /r/canada_sub, /r/conspiracy noise, some of them also regularly post in numerous different city/province subreddits leading me to suspect they're paid astroturfers posing as a local "grassroots" population. Seems to happen every time there's an article posted about guns, COVID, or LGBTQ+ rights.
Kids trespass on rural properties for a multitude of reasons. Cutting through a field to get somewhere faster, looking for a place to ride their dirtbikes, chasing a loose goat/horse/dog, boredom, looking for a place to vape without their parents seeing them, or just wanting to be where their parents won't see them for a while, bottle drive for their sports team, or asking for directions. Maybe looking to tell the property owner that they ran off the road, and broke the fence, and don't want any livestock to get loose.
I've had personal experience dealing with quite a few of those reasons, either as a kid or a property owner.
Nuh-uh! If someone enters my property FOR ANY REASON, I should have the moral and legal license to end their life!
Edit: /s because some dipshits in this thread literally think that.
Sounds like there are a bunch of abandoned vehicles parked there. Fifteen year old me would've been all over that like a fat kid on a birthday cake and I doubt many of the people excusing the trigger happy old fart wouldn't have also been keen on exploring such a place as a teenager, but I guess trespassing warrants a lethal response these days.
Walking up from the gate to ask for help with their flat tire?
(I know, likely not. However it has equal merit to treaspassing, with the information currently available)
Tresspassing or not, theres no Castle Doctrine in Canada, and approaching people with a firearm makes him the instigator, not the victim. (If any charges would be laid against the youths, the crimes would be listed but not necessarly their names. Media would eat that up.)
So, I have to assume at this time you are making a joke as your username suggests.
they might get there. it's not uncommon to "save" the more serious charges until the police/Crown have a more complete file. especially with a charge like attempted murder, where you have to show intent.
Yes, really hard to understand what happened based on the limited info, but obviously wrong to even brandish a firearm, let alone shoot the kid, unless being actually attacked.
He fired in their direction.
Warning Shot: *bang into the air* I have a gun, run away or I will shoot you
Putting a bullet near your target to scare them into not moving or following your directive is not a warning shot. Thats a threatening shot .
Missing that shot and hitting a kid cause you are 84 and your hands are shaking?
Im not saying thats exactly what happened. I will say its happened before.
The gun was pointed towards something that was a alive, the mechanism responsible for controlling the hammer fired, resulting in the projectile ejecting in the direction the barrel was pointed at with lethal force. The result was that the previously living target was rendered no longer alive.
The gun functioned precisely as designed.
Edit: I was replying to a comment asking if the shot was an attempt to disarm the kid. The purpose of a gun is not to disarm. Disarming as a concept assume that the target won't move and that the person attempting to disarm has the ability to call that shot.
Does mandatory minimum sentencing work? No. Does corporal punishment work? No. Does the death penalty work? No.
Does letting criminals have free reign to terrorize rural Albertans with no consequences work? Apparently not.
"Property theft is a victimless crime"
"Just leave your car key outside of the front door because it's insured!"
Until people can't even afford insurance because the insurance companies either refuse to ensure vehicles in your postal code or charge astronomical premium which makes auto insurance inaccessible but property theft is a victimless crime.
We don't have enough details to make judgements.
It's hard being in rural areas where police response can be anywhere from 20 minutes to upwards of 1-2 hours.
It's easy to say there are other options but in the moment fear and adrenaline will drive anyone's actions.
Once while driving home on a rural road, I came across a baby calf on the wrong side of the fence.
I drove into the nearest yard to let them know they or a neighbor had a cow out. I could have startled the homeowner, being a strange vehicle.
Gun owners need to practice restraint. And not let adrenaline get the best of them - or they shouldn’t be gun owners.
I feel if these kids were armed, it would hopefully have been mentioned in the article.
I've had similar half the time when I've gone onto a strangers farm (for emergencies etc.) I've been either threatened and one time they let their dog out on me. Didn't even say hello or ask why I was there. My vehicle broke down near their property and I had no cell signal so I was kind of just hoping for some sort of help.
It wouldn't take a lot for two 16 y/o to overpower an 84 yo man. We don't know if they were threatening him, or if they had some other kind of instrument in hand.
We won't know until they release more details on how the altercation started and the eventual Court case happens.
Article states he approached them with firearm, not that he went and got one in response to any visible or verbal threat.
That may be the journalist not having particulars, but Id say if they had weapons, that would ne mentioned because the youths would be charged with weapons offenses as well. Though we may not be privy to names, that at least would have to be recorded publically amd have media access.
That’s not how self defence is analyzed. There in effect has to be, objectively, no other option for the person but to use force to defend themselves. If you go outside when you hear bump in the night, self defence is basically negated because you had the option to stay inside and/or call the cops.
> police response can be anywhere from 20 minutes to upwards of 1-2 hours
Honestly, it's probably not much better even in many urban areas. I've waited about that long when calling the police on people breaking into the neighbors house.
It’s curious why the police didn’t release any details? If they leave the out all the details we will just get speculation. For example, it’s a very different scenario if he shot 2 people stealing from his property at 2am than if he shot his own grandkids at the 2pm.
Another article states they were checking out the old junked cars on his property at 9pm. Still very much bright as day. While that’s still not a whole lot of info, sounds like they were harmless.
Even that small detail makes a difference. Frankly it’s egregious and reckless to bring your gun out at 9pm to meet someone likely wanting to do business with you. He deserves to be in jail if that’s the case.
Right now they are likely just going from statements given, and haven't had the chance to verify, dismiss, or uncover any additional information. It would take more than a couple of days to do a full investigation.
So we are just supposed to watch some degenerate walk onto our property and steal our stuff and do nothing about it? Not gunna happen. More info is needed in the article to make an educated judgement on what happened but im not going to feel bad for people that got hurt sneaking onto a property unannounced.
Two young offenders, most likely upstanding citizens were only trying to see if his vehicles had keys in them, or if the quad would start. Certainly not up to mischief and certainly without prior.
What is an 84 year old to do? He can't wait for them to hit him. Just letting these miscreants steal your things isn't viable either. If we started shooting more thieves they probably wouldn't be so brazen.
>What is an 84 year old to do?
Lock your door?
[What you dont do is get your gun out from safe, unlock your trigger guard then go to another room where your ammo is stored to load the ammunition,](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/section-5.html?wbdisable=true) then walk outside and instigate a fucking conflict with them!
A warning shot would of been the call to make, but these home owners should not always have to assume these ppl are just stealing from them and not trying to hurt them or pull some other shit
Given the scant details, this one is going to be a real Rorschach test of a news story.
Nailed it
Yep, I'm excited to read all the ding-dongs who think another person's life is less important than their property. There's a pretty strong correlation between "If someone enters my property, I have carte blanche to take their life" and being an absolute waste of genetic resources.
If a person is going to trespass for nefarious purposes, they also think that possessions are more important than their own life, potentially. Or does responsibility only go one way ?
The responsible are always being further burdened by the irresponsible. Somehow people are able to make the honest person who's home was invaded and security threatened into the bad guy and the thief(?), rapist(?), serial killer(?) into a victim.
You must be looking at this from the criminal sympathizer perspective. Most would argue that if the criminal valued their well-being, they wouldn't be there in the first place. They know the risks, and fortunately for them, with the way the legal system is set up in Canada the risks aren't very great unless you run into one of these old cantankerous bastards that are tired of being taken advantage of and not seeing any real Justice. The theft in rural communities is out of control, and there's nothing the police can do to stop it because they can't be everywhere at once, and when they do finally catch up to them, they just get released and do it again. It was only a little over a month ago that an oil field battery nearby was struck by Thieves for the umpteenth time who this time went as far as trying to knock down power poles to steal the copper, it cost them over $50,000 to rewire the plant again, and the thieves came back only a month later and in a larger crime spree involving three vehicles loaded with criminals breaking into numerous businesses and farms in a single night in addittion to the plant with three separate exchanges of gunfire, and the farmers pursuing them for for over 100km all the while trying to get in contact with 911 who was not picking up their calls for over an hour. In the country you really are on your own, the police only ever show up long after the fact, and if you don't run these pricks off with a good show of force, there's a good chance they'll return.
It's not only in the country where you're on your own. If you're in a city and there's no immediate threat to life, forget about the cops ever showing up.
I’m excited to hear about how the youths were law abiding kids who were on his property to collect bottles for their hockey team. I don’t believe in randomly shooting anyone who enters your property however I would rather see an 84-year old shoot an intruder than read another story about a couple criminals who killed a senior while out on bail for some other violent offense. The story has very few details so I guess we’ll wait to see what really happened.
This guy's property is like 4 acres of auto junkyard. If you look at posts in the last day or two of Edmonton Reddit, you'll find satellite imagery of the property. It is very clearly associated with crime. In fact many others who lived at this property in the last couple of years have been charged with all kinds of criminal enterprise. It needs to be shut down; is absolutely associated with a lot of the car theft happening
> s absolutely associated with a lot of the car theft happening proof? its trivially easy to make a claim like that
It’s like how the last time a gang banger was offed by a farmer in Saskatchewan everyone who started screaming racism conveniently left out the detail that a loaded firearm was in between the knees of the POS who got a bullet in the back of their head. (Btw I don’t buy the hang fire excuse. That’s what his defence had to come up with because killing with a firearm in self defence in said circumstances isn’t legal in Canada).
Small point, but, killing with a firearm in self defence can be legal. The bar would be quite high to prove you were in mortal danger, and then to prove your guns were properly stored and such. But, it's not expressly illegal to defend yourself with lethal force, even with a firearm.
>That’s what his defence had to come up with because killing with a firearm in self defence in said circumstances isn’t legal in Canada There is no legal difference between killing in self-defence with a firearm and killing in self-defence with anything else. "Killing in self-defence" is not legal if it is not actually in self-defence or if, in all the circumstances, it is not objectively reasonable.
I'm excited to read all the ding-dongs who think their life is less important then someone else's property. Protect your property or it becomes the norm to steal. If you don't discipline your kids someone else will eventually do it for you. Also, the older you get, the less of a deterrent life in prison becomes.
> "If someone enters my property, I have carte blanche to take their life" There needs to be some sort of middle ground between the above and "leave your keys by the door to let them steal your car"...
You'd think so, but this thread is overflowing with garbage people claiming they'd absolutely feel justified killing someone for petty theft. I've come to realise over the past decade or so that right wingers are generally only capable of viewing issues in absolute binary outcomes, completely devoid of any nuance or middle ground. There's no "A and B are both bad, but A is much worse and warrants a stronger response than B," it's just "A and B are bad and warrant an extreme response."
I'm a left leaning centrist. I think a stance between where you are at and a 'castle doctrine' (like in some US states) needs to be found. I think the idea of 'leave your keys by the front door so thieves have easy access and wont assault/murder you for them' is absurd. I also think that US 'stand your ground' laws are also absurd and have no place here. Where's the compromise in our laws and morals between these two (IMO) extermes?
Well, I'm not an American but I consider my possessions representitive of my time spent working. I've traded my life for what you're stealing.
I do not condone violence, but if the youth decided they were willing to put themselves in danger for the crime they decided to do… then THEY are responsible for deeming their lives less important than the man’s property
I do value my property more than the life of a random stranger, yes. The thing you're conveniently forgetting is that it only matters if the random stranger forces me to make that choice.
[удалено]
This is the dumbest, most Canadian bullshit I’ve ever heard. If somebody breaks into your home or onto your property, there is a real chance that they intend to harm you. Should your life be worth less than theirs? People who think like this are the reason you’re thrown in jail if you make any attempt to defend yourself from a violent attacker. God, I’m so tired of all the self righteous people in this country.
>If somebody breaks into your home or onto your property, there is a real chance that they intend to harm you. Someone wandering onto your ten acre rural property is just a bit different than someone taking a crowbar to your back door, but sure, a lethal response is totally equally justified in either scenario...
what about a 4 acre fenced property with no trespassing signs posted?
Oh yeah, definitely shoot for the face then, that's just as bad as breaking into your house to rape and murder your family. Fuck me, y'all don't even have a shred of self awareness, do you.
those guys aren't innocents that wandered into the area by mistake
Right... like those cases in the US of the "shoot first, ask questions later" crowd... and all of the big talkers that are basically just dudes itching to kill someone and just *waiting* for someone to step onto their property to give them an excuse for "legal murder." Like the Redditors that lament the illegality of booby traps because they want to setup a shotgun pointed at their door whenever they leave the house. smh I mean, why couldn't you have been the lost person (in NY State?) driving up to that dude's house where he just unloaded into their car... when all they wanted was to ask for directions? You find this completely reasonable, no?
I don’t agree with that. Obviously there are nuances. If you bludgeon somebody to death the second they step on your lawn, that should be a crime - which it often is in the US, even with castle doctrine. But if somebody breaks into your house at night and you have no idea what their motive is, the whole “possessions can be replaced” idea becomes pretty useless. In situations like that, your life should be worth defending.
Given the lack of details, you’re making an awful lot of assumptions here.
Some random skid trying to fuck with my house and stuff? Better goddamm believe I value that more than their well-being.
Well, what do you mean by "another person", and "important"? In objective terms, all humans are polluting the planet, causing the mass extinction of millions of species, and generally ruining our world while killing each other in the process. In that sense, we all add negative value to the world and are probably worth less than inanimate material. If you want to pretend that humans are "important" due to our extraordinary ability to band together and ruin things with great efficiency, then okay. Under that delusion, I guess we'd have to assign value to life based on the balance of good vs evil that a person does for other people around them. A person that does more harm than good to members of society (like breaking into homes or stealing vehicles, for example) adds negative value. This is true for some, but not necessarily any "other person". And then there's the consideration that people spend their entire lives slaving away to build their homes and populate them with things they cherish. These are people who have earned wealth by adding value to society. The thought that these folks should not have the right to defend their homes from people who have not earned that privilege, who have *not* added value, is not right. So, regarding the person stealing a truck - is their life worth less than a truck? Maybe. I guess it depends if they'll ever do honest work long enough to earn one themselves. Is their life worth less than the principle that people who earn the right to property should have the right to defend it against thieves? I think yes. Absolutely. Why wouldn't it be? Do you not think we should draw the line somewhere? That some things are just simply unacceptable? And what makes a human life so important, when humans have built entire industries around raising other life for slaughter? A human life has value simply because it's a "human" life? That's not an answer. Especially when we do the damage that we do.
No, pretty clear the youths were recent immigrants, funded by Russia, attempting to steal this man's truck both due to the housing crisis and their support of Hamas. This probably wouldn't have happened if the City hadn't displaced their homeless encampment recently or if the province had not cut off their free safe supply of Rohypnol. The man was justified in shooting them under naval law, but should not have used weapons imported illegally from the United States and we should note this is part of a disturbing trend of trans shooters. His French accent is suspect, which might indicate he's a plant, but police should continue investigating potential gravesites on his property and whether or not he visited Epstein's island.
The game is the game.
In a game where there can only be losers, you've somehow won.
You can not lose if you do not play - Martha Daniels
Why did you say that name? - Batman
Whoa whoa whoa Russia are our friends now get with the MAGA
You won't see any of this in our new 15 min cities the overlords are building. Kony 2012!
Infowars
You forgot how JT assisted him!
Impressively creative.
Well done Sir/Madam/Both or Neither.
Well, some of the comments below say all you need to know.
This article has pretty much no details beyond the headline.
I met a 92 yr old in jail, first time, there because he shot at a "tax collector". That generation has a hard time reconciling the idea that you can't just shoot at people because they are on your property.
It’s not the generation it’s the mindset
The lead poisoning mindset
[удалено]
We should just encourage them to visit one another... unannounced...
You're asking "who are these twits with guns?" after saying that you'd personally shoot them yourself. You're literally no different than those "twits" and you don't even realize. Your mindset for shooting them is the exact same mindset they have for shooting anyone else.
Haha right! This guy is completely brain dead
Oh… you’re one of those….
I got into a Facebook argument trying to explain the concept of municipal right of way (aka how the city owns the first few meters of your property) to an old man. He insisted he was going to shoot any city employee who dared touch his land.
In the use of force continuum, lethal force is always the last step. There is just no logic in going from: 1. Steps on "my" grass 2. ? 3. I use lethal force Someone physically just being there doesn't count as you being threatened by grevious bodily harm or death. Another good acronym, maybe will help your nect FB argument lol: AIM Ability Intent Means If they don't have all three, is there really a threat?
Also some people seem to think retaliation is self defense , like if someone punches you and then starts running away or leaving you have the right to execute them like um no that's not how self defense works in a court of law 🤣💀
The threat is to their ego - and that's the base of their entire personality and worldview
They must have watched too many American movies
If your 92 years old and have been living in Canada that long and don’t understand the gun rules still idk man should probably go to jail lol
Those same people will also claim that "all life is precious" "abortion is murder" "murder is bad" ..."unless you step on my property" 😅🤣 I'm all for self defense and think gun laws in Canada are way too strict but some people are fucking out of their minds with how quick they are to want to shoot someone and not just shoot, outright kill If you train , one in each knee cap wil stop most intruders unless they're on drugs and also have a gun but how often does that even happen in fkn Canada of all places lmfao Most shootings here are gang on gang violence or a bystander gets hit by a stray But in America god forbid you are a colored door to door salesmen in the wrong neighborhood with some cranky old guy I remember seeing a video of this one old guy execute both of his neighbors over a dispute in winter shot the wife and husband while they were still on their own property , over a petty argument , that shit is so common in America and people will defend it like absolute imbeciles
>If you train , one in each knee cap wil stop most intruders unless they're on drugs and also have a gun but how often does that even happen in fkn Canada of all places lmfao This is a terrible decision. If you are at the point you've decided you need to use legal force to defend yourself, you shoot to kill, center mass. It's not like the movies; people don't stop immediately upon getting shot twice.
lol Watch out, we got John Wick over here shooting kneecaps
That generation has a hard time believing their 2nd amendment isn’t the right to bear arms, instead it states everyone has fundamental freedoms
As a rural property owner I can understand peoples fear and distrust of trespassers. Call 911 and hope the arrive in 24hrs, or let thieves steal your stuff. Rock salt, pepper spray and other non lethal deterrents should be legal for protection of one’s property and person. Shooting an unarmed person is not justified. We will continue to see these happen and rural crime continues to skyrocket, and the police do less and less. Oh but I did see three officers doing radar and pulling people over today, but that fresh pile of garbage and furniture, or the 2 break-ins they still have not responded to those can wait.
My uncle has a barn/shed within eye sight of the highway. Over covid the amount of wannabe "pickers" and thieves led him to replace it with a metal one. He uses trail cams because people are still snooping around constantly.
A dog that doesn’t like unannounced visitors, and a fence with proper warning signs. Seems to be the only solution, gates get broken.
Shooting Rock Salt?!? Which One of the Winchester's are you?
The kind that now struggles to shot a gopher.
We used to have a farmer chase us off with rock salt all the time when we were little.
Has anyone ever been charged for firing rock salt at trespassers? I don't mean theoretically
Possession of a prohibited weapon, unsafe use, are all crimes they could charge you with. Just like using pepper spray on a human is an offence. I don’t know if anyone has been charged for rock salt, but I would be damn scared to shoot it at a person. Seen it destroy barn sides once or twice.
Double barrelled shotgun isn't a prohibited weapon (yet). It should be noted that rock salt, pepper spray, stun guns and the like are not non-lethal weapons. They are properly, and correctly categorized as "less lethal". People absolutely can and do die if they are hit with them the wrong way, or with the wrong combination of health problems or freak accidents.
Frozen paintballs outta a gun turned all the way up would definitely get the job done being hit by those hurts like hell
That would be an assault charge at the very least. You can't just attack people even if they are on your property.
Unfortunate. I had to watch a guy steal from a neighbors patio. If he's armed, I wasn't and I'm dead. Just out walking my dog. If I stop him and he gets so much as sprained finger, I go to jail. It's lunacy.
That can happen anywhere, not just in a rural area. If everyone starts carrying weapons because they fear being attacked in their house, out walking their dog, etc. then you end up with a lot of people getting hurt or killed because people panic, overreact, or are just looking to instigate or elevate a situation out of some sociopathic idea of playing an protector or avenger.
Oh, this was in the city.
That is just totally and completely untrue. We Canadians are allowed to use force to defend property or to protect ourselves or others up to and including killing the assailant. [Self-Defence - Detailed Examination of New Section 34 of the Criminal Code - Bill C-26 (S.C. 2012 c. 9) Reforms to Self-Defence and Defence of Property: Technical Guide for Practitioners (justice.gc.ca)](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/rsddp-rlddp/p5.html)
If only there were ways to protect your property that don't involve taking another person's life. 🤔
The officers running radar are likely in dedicated Traffic Units. Which the provinces and municipalities will pay for
They were a peace officer, an RCMP officer and a sheriff. Don’t care who’s pays. The fact they are generating revenue instead of policing is my issue.
Then take up the issue with the municipality and/or province. Do you understand how police funding models work? Traffic units have funding specified for that function. And police officers that work in those units wont be going outside their mandate
Traffic policing is policing. You just don't like it because you can imagine yourself being subjected to it.
Photo radar is a cash grab. It does nothing to deter speeding. Therefore it’s a genuine call to action to abolish that practice of “policing”
https://www.sudbury.com/local-news/angry-about-speed-trap-cameras-well-they-work--8443676 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://docs.legassembly.sk.ca/legdocs/Legislative%2520Committees/TSC/Tableddocs/TSC%25202-27%25283%2529%2520SGI%2520-%2520BC%2520Impacts%2520of%2520Photo%2520Radar.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiOteXZ9omHAxXDo44IHTVRDCk4ChAWegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2qwJFwXzerZYoHOQioIiie https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/photo-radar-makes-significant-impact-in-reducing-speed-study-shows/article_7d466609-adcd-5e5e-8714-974b4e09b518.html https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11531693_Speed_and_safety_effect_of_photo_radar_enforcement_on_a_highway_corridor_in_British_Columbia https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.alberta.ca/system/files/custom_downloaded_images/trans-ate-program-review.PDF&ved=2ahUKEwi5jZzO94mHAxU9po4IHXpcAYgQFnoECBgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw145vaOq1hknpBFMLuNKkbs ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
You guys keep voting UCP, You get what ya pay for.
I don’t think you really understand how most hamlets will have 3-4 officers for thousands of square kilometres. Regardless of political party waiting for police in a rural area is a joke. Hell even in a 0.1 mil population city center I bet police would take 5-10 minutes.
I 100% do not vote UCP. And roughly 35 to 40% of the writing around me also don’t vote UCP.
> of the writing around me *riding
Nothing in the comment indicated a vote for the UCP. Don't be a dick
If the NDP fight to let me keep my rifles and allow for some castle doctrine, I'll vote for them.
Castle doctrine is essentially already the law in Canada (it doesn’t mean you can shoot anyone for trespass, but it means you don’t have a duty to retreat in your own home). People misinterpret what that means though, you still can’t escalate straight to lethal force. It’s also a federal matter, as is firearm storage and safe use laws
And that’s EXACTLY where they need to focus their campaign. Let rural people protect their livelihood. And make them partners in any upcoming legislation affecting them. Show farmers you can work FOR them.
They should build moats with this liftey bridges
If you had decent insurance rates it wouldn’t matter. Society wants us to insure ourselves. Nobody’s insurance premium should ever go up because the bookies at the insurance company price that in that a random certain amount of us in a certain area are going to be victims of property crime. The insurance company tried jacking my rates up after claiming $25k on a $2 million dollar policy. I complained and they saw it my way. Their underwriters have never sent me a letter explaining their position on property crime and insurance rates. I’ve asked three separate times. No answer. Don’t let them jack your rates after a theft claim.
I had a home break-in the police would not have responded and told me to go to a station to file a complaint until I inform them a firearm was stolen. Suddenly they had time to send officers out to respond. Turns out after collecting prints another evidence, the fellow that broke into my house, was out on probation and parole for B&E Insurance deemed my policy high-risk, and dropped me after paying out my claim
That’s a poor excuse for high risk. Defaming you like that to the industry can’t be within the law. When you separate their conduct from the policy it becomes a different matter.
Insurance companies are parasites on society If I didn’t require insurance for a mortgage, I wouldn’t bother carrying it
I have $2500 deductible on my collision insurance because first I have to be the guy that fucks up and second i can’t really afford to replace the car. Anything under $2500 I always get repaired myself.
Uh yeah. Of course they had fucking time for that. Someone comes in and steals a gun, they want to lock that the fuck down. They steal random *not dangerous to society at large* possessions that arent going to hurt people? That what insurance is for. Preventing that guy from hurting others with your gun shoulf be their first and highest priority. Getting your TV back is not. Theres an apples to nukes difference here
Keeing him from harming others should always be the priority, which is why even stealing a TV should be taken seriously.
From a crime prevention perspective, 100% But once the crimes done, theres not a lot the cops can do but collect data.
Yes the single shot pull bolt 22 that lived over the mantle. What a dangerous weapon.
It's still reasonable to assume that whomever stole a firearm is not going to mount it over their own mantle, happily ever after, the end.
Yes but a deactivated one. Point stands. Police don’t respond to rural property crimes with any expediency if at all.
It objectively is a dangerous weapon. Is it as dangerous relative to other firearms? No. But it is a hell of a lot more dangerous than the PlayStation and jewelry stolen.
All it takes is a single shot to kill someone, and 3 seconds to reload and do it again. So yes. Dangerous. Also, it should have had the bolt/carrier removed if stored that way. And the fact that you didnt mention that it was rendered inoperable by legally prescribed means means it likely wasnt. Someone doing it that way would likely mention it when they mentioned the theft to minimize the severity of the theft.
Well. It was deactivated, and even if it wasn’t, a non restricted firearm, stored unloaded with a trigger-lock on a rack is legal. Or in the case of a farm that non restricted firearm can be stored loaded and ready for predator control that is ongoing. Not that I would leave a firearm out of my safe. The point is the police don’t care and rural Owners feel scared and helpless, there will be an increasing number of these incidents including Colton boushie
I'm surprised that the police didn't search your house and arrest you for having a firearm that was stolen.
Guaranteed this never happened. Lol And your understanding of insurance seems to be somewhere between very poor and deliberately ignorant.
You should probably go to jail when you shoot someone on your property. And when you fuck around on someone's property, bad things can and will happen. Both can be true.
If you read exactly what I wrote, I said shooting someone unarmed just cause it on your property is not justified I said the changing of laws to allow for non-lethals should be changed
Oh I'm agreeing with you.
The second part of what you said is not true. Those crimes are not prosecuted, or at least, not to the point of deterrence.
Yeah I saw like 6 opp officers doing traffic work driving across Ontario back to Toronto only time in the last 3 years I’ve seen police doing anything. Holy shit I watch a carjacking happen right in front me with a cop across the street and the cop just basically watched. Not until multiple people started yelling at the officer did he actually get off his ass and light up his cherries.
The problem is a collision of very different worlds. The thief thinks it fine to steal things. That is their world. The rural person doesn’t ever steal anything. Theft is about the same as rape/murder. We really don’t different (all are horrible and beyond imagination). So when a rural person is confronted with a thief they have no baseline. If they are a thief they can easily be a rapist/murderer and therefore will be dealt with accordingly, Basically if you are a thief avoid rural properties or you will get shot because you don’t understand the culture.
You make it sound like rural property owners are uneducated buffoons What can be true for some is not true for all Some of us are highly educated left-leaning, and don’t wanna shoot someone just cause they came on our property. We just don’t wanna be the victims of crime and have no recourse cause the police won’t respond.
You’re delusional if you think rural people don’t steal.
Apparently the fifteen and sixteen year old were looking at junked cars on the property at about 9:00pm, so with enough visibility to see that they were there and to get an idea what they were up to. A quick look at maps using an address supplied from one of the articles puts it about 20 minutes from an RCMP office in St. Albert using regular road speed, presumably closer to 10 minutes if, say, speeding to a probable emergency. It's about 35 minutes from the centre of Edmonton. I mean clearly the only reasonable response was to come to a conclusion, step outside and summarily end the life of at least one of them. It's hardly a good thing for someone to be digging through a pile of someone's garbage, but most kids who screw up have a harder time learning their lesson when they've been murdered by territorial hoarders. In other news, sometimes I receive packages as late as 10:00pm. I'd hate to find out that a neighbour was looking out for me.
Seriously. If fifteen year old me lived near a large rural property with a shitload of old vehicles parked all over it, I'd absolutely want to wander through just to look at all the cool shit. But according to some absolute psychopaths in this thread (many of whom I'm certain would've done the same as kids), trespassing is basically the same as rape and murder in terms of what level of response is warranted.
The apologists who are asking questions like "did he shoot to disarm?" are also being disingenuous. If I have a hammer, it's rated on its ability to enable me to bang something, with features like shock absorption and weight. If I buy a x-acto knife, then it's rated on its ability to cut with precision, while a steak knife is rated on its ability to cut steaks and other food. A gun isn't rated on its ability to disarm people. It's designed to fire accurately at a target at lethal speed. The differentiator is whether the ammunition can penetrate the surface of the target and how efficiently it can ki\*\* its target. The only thing that the person firing the gun controls is the aim; they cannot control the actions of the target, so they must assume that anything fired is going to have a lethal result.
It isn't even dark at 9:00... couple kids poking around some busted ass cars with plenty of light is no reason for one of them to end up dead. If you statement is true hopefully the old man goes to jail for a long time.
Let's say he is there for a good time not a long time. at 84
I generally believe rehabilitation works but also recognize that it doesn't for some people. Given the version of evens given by the person I original responded to I think this case more of the latter and I kind of hope he lives to 110 and spends his last days in jail.
This place was raided a couple of ti,es investigating stolen cars too
I don't blame him for being the victim of theft. However theft doesn't escalate to deadly force. Especially when it's away from the person who nevertheless takes to executing teenage trespassers.
No there were stolen cars on the property
“You miss 100%of the shots you don’t take.” The Great One.
I went non-contact with my father years ago, and I don't live in Alberta anymore, so I have no idea what my father is doing. However, he is such an angry man I worry every time I see a headline from Alberta that a crazy old man did something horrible it's going to turn out to be him. Luckily as far as I know he's not by st Albert, so it's probably not him... This time.
A scary part of this news story breaking is seeing how many people have been influenced by American laws and culture. So many people saying he has a right to defend his property, to shoot someone stealing. Nope. Not in Canada. In Canada he only has the right to shoot someone if there was really threat to his life or severe bodily harm - where staying in his home and locking the door, calling the police isn’t an option. Unless these teenagers were actively trying to kill or cause severe injury - shooting someone on your property is against the law. It doesn’t really matter if you think it’s warranted. It’s against the law.
You can really tell who's drinking that American gun-nut kool aid, damn. I'm glad some of you have more regard for human life.
I've started checking the comment history of users posting shitty takes, and beyond the usual /r/canada_sub, /r/conspiracy noise, some of them also regularly post in numerous different city/province subreddits leading me to suspect they're paid astroturfers posing as a local "grassroots" population. Seems to happen every time there's an article posted about guns, COVID, or LGBTQ+ rights.
So why were they trespassing on his property?
It sounds like the old guy had a bunch of older vehicles(not functional) sitting on his property and they were looking at the vehicles.
Kids trespass on rural properties for a multitude of reasons. Cutting through a field to get somewhere faster, looking for a place to ride their dirtbikes, chasing a loose goat/horse/dog, boredom, looking for a place to vape without their parents seeing them, or just wanting to be where their parents won't see them for a while, bottle drive for their sports team, or asking for directions. Maybe looking to tell the property owner that they ran off the road, and broke the fence, and don't want any livestock to get loose. I've had personal experience dealing with quite a few of those reasons, either as a kid or a property owner.
Nuh-uh! If someone enters my property FOR ANY REASON, I should have the moral and legal license to end their life! Edit: /s because some dipshits in this thread literally think that.
Sounds like there are a bunch of abandoned vehicles parked there. Fifteen year old me would've been all over that like a fat kid on a birthday cake and I doubt many of the people excusing the trigger happy old fart wouldn't have also been keen on exploring such a place as a teenager, but I guess trespassing warrants a lethal response these days.
Walking up from the gate to ask for help with their flat tire? (I know, likely not. However it has equal merit to treaspassing, with the information currently available) Tresspassing or not, theres no Castle Doctrine in Canada, and approaching people with a firearm makes him the instigator, not the victim. (If any charges would be laid against the youths, the crimes would be listed but not necessarly their names. Media would eat that up.) So, I have to assume at this time you are making a joke as your username suggests.
They wouldn't list the names even if they were commiting a crime. The Young Offenders act would stop it
Thats what I mean. It woukd say something like, 'one youth was charged with X and another youth was charged with Y' The media still eats that up
Bigger question is why did he attempt to end the life of a child
Kinda sounds like they went out of their way to avoid charging him with attempted murder.
they might get there. it's not uncommon to "save" the more serious charges until the police/Crown have a more complete file. especially with a charge like attempted murder, where you have to show intent.
There's always the possibility that charges get added or dropped as the investigation brings new information to light.
Very few details, tough to justify shooting anyone that young especially if they were un-armed.
Yes, really hard to understand what happened based on the limited info, but obviously wrong to even brandish a firearm, let alone shoot the kid, unless being actually attacked.
I mean if he comes out with the gun without any reason to believe they’re attacking him, then he’s the instigator
[удалено]
He fired in their direction. Warning Shot: *bang into the air* I have a gun, run away or I will shoot you Putting a bullet near your target to scare them into not moving or following your directive is not a warning shot. Thats a threatening shot . Missing that shot and hitting a kid cause you are 84 and your hands are shaking? Im not saying thats exactly what happened. I will say its happened before.
The gun was pointed towards something that was a alive, the mechanism responsible for controlling the hammer fired, resulting in the projectile ejecting in the direction the barrel was pointed at with lethal force. The result was that the previously living target was rendered no longer alive. The gun functioned precisely as designed. Edit: I was replying to a comment asking if the shot was an attempt to disarm the kid. The purpose of a gun is not to disarm. Disarming as a concept assume that the target won't move and that the person attempting to disarm has the ability to call that shot.
That’s a great answer, but unfortunately has little to nothing to do with the question asked.
In the UK, crossing a property respectuflly is legal.
"Right to roam" We could still learn a few things.
Theres actually a really cool term for it that I cant remember.
True, unfortunately not in Canada though
Pretty sure this isn't always true.
Does mandatory minimum sentencing work? No. Does corporal punishment work? No. Does the death penalty work? No. Does letting criminals have free reign to terrorize rural Albertans with no consequences work? Apparently not.
Well the death penalty does kinda work, can’t re-offend when you’re dead. Can’t 100% guarantee that the right person is executed 100% of the time.
Reminds me of a Simpsons episode "we tried doing nothing... and it didn't work."
"Property theft is a victimless crime" "Just leave your car key outside of the front door because it's insured!" Until people can't even afford insurance because the insurance companies either refuse to ensure vehicles in your postal code or charge astronomical premium which makes auto insurance inaccessible but property theft is a victimless crime.
We don't have enough details to make judgements. It's hard being in rural areas where police response can be anywhere from 20 minutes to upwards of 1-2 hours. It's easy to say there are other options but in the moment fear and adrenaline will drive anyone's actions.
Once while driving home on a rural road, I came across a baby calf on the wrong side of the fence. I drove into the nearest yard to let them know they or a neighbor had a cow out. I could have startled the homeowner, being a strange vehicle. Gun owners need to practice restraint. And not let adrenaline get the best of them - or they shouldn’t be gun owners. I feel if these kids were armed, it would hopefully have been mentioned in the article.
I've had similar half the time when I've gone onto a strangers farm (for emergencies etc.) I've been either threatened and one time they let their dog out on me. Didn't even say hello or ask why I was there. My vehicle broke down near their property and I had no cell signal so I was kind of just hoping for some sort of help.
That was very kind of you to help out the baby calf!
It wouldn't take a lot for two 16 y/o to overpower an 84 yo man. We don't know if they were threatening him, or if they had some other kind of instrument in hand. We won't know until they release more details on how the altercation started and the eventual Court case happens.
Article states he approached them with firearm, not that he went and got one in response to any visible or verbal threat. That may be the journalist not having particulars, but Id say if they had weapons, that would ne mentioned because the youths would be charged with weapons offenses as well. Though we may not be privy to names, that at least would have to be recorded publically amd have media access.
That’s not how self defence is analyzed. There in effect has to be, objectively, no other option for the person but to use force to defend themselves. If you go outside when you hear bump in the night, self defence is basically negated because you had the option to stay inside and/or call the cops.
I dunno I still think I won’t shoot unarmed teenagers for trespassing
or not even responding at all.
> police response can be anywhere from 20 minutes to upwards of 1-2 hours Honestly, it's probably not much better even in many urban areas. I've waited about that long when calling the police on people breaking into the neighbors house.
Unless they're trying to actively break into your house or attack you. You should probably just lock your door and call the police.
It’s curious why the police didn’t release any details? If they leave the out all the details we will just get speculation. For example, it’s a very different scenario if he shot 2 people stealing from his property at 2am than if he shot his own grandkids at the 2pm.
Another article states they were checking out the old junked cars on his property at 9pm. Still very much bright as day. While that’s still not a whole lot of info, sounds like they were harmless.
Even that small detail makes a difference. Frankly it’s egregious and reckless to bring your gun out at 9pm to meet someone likely wanting to do business with you. He deserves to be in jail if that’s the case.
Right now they are likely just going from statements given, and haven't had the chance to verify, dismiss, or uncover any additional information. It would take more than a couple of days to do a full investigation.
You can't legally do either of those things.
Probably because the person who was shot was underage and the investigation still ongoing.
Probably touted about his second amendment rights when arrested
Heard he tried to murder his neighbour's kids who were just hanging out bored lolol. He will need some protection if left out on bail.
So we are just supposed to watch some degenerate walk onto our property and steal our stuff and do nothing about it? Not gunna happen. More info is needed in the article to make an educated judgement on what happened but im not going to feel bad for people that got hurt sneaking onto a property unannounced.
Probably another "flat tire"
So pathetic that are laws are designed to go after the home defender and not the intruder.
So pathetic that people think their property is more important than other people's lives.
Two young offenders, most likely upstanding citizens were only trying to see if his vehicles had keys in them, or if the quad would start. Certainly not up to mischief and certainly without prior. What is an 84 year old to do? He can't wait for them to hit him. Just letting these miscreants steal your things isn't viable either. If we started shooting more thieves they probably wouldn't be so brazen.
>What is an 84 year old to do? Lock your door? [What you dont do is get your gun out from safe, unlock your trigger guard then go to another room where your ammo is stored to load the ammunition,](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/section-5.html?wbdisable=true) then walk outside and instigate a fucking conflict with them!
Gun the children down in cold blood, I say! Murder anyone you vaguely suspect of touching your stuff! More guns will fix this!
Gross
A warning shot would of been the call to make, but these home owners should not always have to assume these ppl are just stealing from them and not trying to hurt them or pull some other shit