Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum

Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum (http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Brian Knight legal defence fund (http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=30734)

slipbobber 04-01-2009 10:02 PM

Brian Knight legal defence fund
 
By now most people have probably heard of the events that happened on his Tees area farm. As a result of the event Brian has been charged with 7-8 different charges when he should be given a metal for protecting what is his property. A legal defence fund has been set up at the ATB. Transit # 856-219-1186485-01. Account #856-1186485-01. Its funny how the Police used his name in there press release but forgot to mention the names of the three guys stealing his property in the middle of the night.

Rackmastr 04-01-2009 10:04 PM

Is this the guy that shot the people who were running away with stolen goods?

IR_mike 04-01-2009 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rackmastr (Post 296908)
Is this the guy that shot the people who were running away with stolen goods?

Yes it is.

slipbobber 04-01-2009 10:08 PM

Yes it is. Go to the Red Deer Advocate web site and look under provincial news.

Rackmastr 04-01-2009 10:13 PM

Deleted

Cowboy Al 04-01-2009 10:20 PM

I see there's a couple of different articles about this one names him one doesn't:
http://www.albertalocalnews.com/redd..._42241447.html
http://www.albertalocalnews.com/redd..._41954202.html
While I agree it's BS that the other slugs weren't named could it not do Mr Knight some good to publish his name so people can donate to his defence fund?
For all the other causes I end up throwing a couple of bucks at this is as good as any I'm going to contribute. Heck that could have just of easily been my dad on his farm or maybe even my brother on his. My dad may have been a little slow on the trigger but I could easily see my brother in the same pickle as Mr Knight.

Jester 04-01-2009 10:33 PM

Shooting at someone if your life is in danger is one thing..

Shooting at someone who stole your quad is attempted murder.

Ok then...let the hate begin..:rolleye2:

msawyer 04-01-2009 11:46 PM

Defence??
 
Hello all...

Some of you might remember a few years back when a SW Calgary pharmacist shoot and killed a robber who had attempted to rob his pharmacy... In that instance the robber fled when the pharmacist pulled out a shotgun, had left the pharmacy and was running across the street when the pharmacist chased after him, and fatally shot him in the back as he ran... He was charged (subject to check) with 2nd degree murder, was tried by judge and jury and was acquitted...

Similar circumstances to the current situation except the thief was not killed... There is hope...

Personally, my home has been broken into twice in the last 2 years, my truck has been broken into three times in the same period but on different occasions and I have had items stolen from my yard... I can understand how a person might be inclined to react if they caught the thief(s) in the act... I think a jury would as well...

Best regards

Mike

ps. I have beefed up security since the thefts and so far all is well...

dances with gophers 04-01-2009 11:53 PM

these scum are outlaws ie
A fugitive from the law.
A habitual criminal.
A rebel; a nonconformist: a social outlaw.
A person excluded from normal legal protection and rights.

if you operate outside the law , then you shouldnt expect protection by the law . so fair game. Time and time again the law fails ordinary working people.
but gives more rights to the criminal .
remember when seconds count the cops are only (rural ) a couple of days away to file the report
im sure were going to see more of this.:D

Tundra Monkey 04-02-2009 12:21 AM

Why is there a need for a defence fund?

There is different levels of severity that should be settled in the Court. IMO there is a difference between blowing a kid away and taking a shot at them to tell them not to come back.....maybe Mr. Knight stepped over the line...maybe not.

What I suggest he do is go hire a lawyer that doesn't break the bank. Tell him to tell the Judge that he is an accomplished marksman and knows the ballistics and blah blah bla. How he only got him with a few pellets much like just like Dad taught him and how he used to shoot rabbits and only hit them with one or two pellets....."Ya know, so ya don't wreck the pelt yer Honour".

The kid was only in the hospital for a bit.......good shot.

This situation diffused after the gun came out with not much damage. Good thing that the kids ran when he had the gun as it could have turned out a lot worse.

In the end the gun diffused the situation and this is showing gun ownership in a postitive light. Three guys on one without one is not not gonna be good. At the end of the day had he not had the gun he'd be the guy in the ditch. That being said IMO he should have shot a little higher

We have the right to protect ourselves and our property.

If 5000 of us gave $50 the guy would be getting $250 000 ;)

I'd walk into the court room and tell them exactly what I did

I would not be paying that kind of $$ to a lawyer.....crap, they give ya one for free if you want :confused:

Personally I'd use a friends brother's buddy for $5000 and be done with it...but each to their own.

I don't think we should turn this into a reward system for shooting people and this thread should be used to discuss the details of the case and personal opinions.

If Mr. Knight really wants our help let him come on here and ask and he can show us where the money is going and how much he needs.

Someone more adventurous than I should start a poll on what he should choose between "Judge alone" or "Jury". :huh:

I'd choose "Judge alone".

tm

Dakota369 04-02-2009 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jester (Post 296925)
Shooting at someone if your life is in danger is one thing..

Shooting at someone who stole your quad is attempted murder.

Ok then...let the hate begin..:rolleye2:

Living up to your name again jester, as well as showing your ignorance......ever been robbed??:tongue2:

Dakota369 04-02-2009 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dances with gophers (Post 296966)
these scum are outlaws ie
A fugitive from the law.
A habitual criminal.
A rebel; a nonconformist: a social outlaw.
A person excluded from normal legal protection and rights.

if you operate outside the law , then you shouldnt expect protection by the law . so fair game. Time and time again the law fails ordinary working people.
but gives more rights to the criminal .
remember when seconds count the cops are only (rural ) a couple of days away to file the report
im sure were going to see more of this.:D



Well said...........:cool:

surface2feather 04-02-2009 03:16 PM

jeez...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by msawyer (Post 296962)
Personally, my home has been broken into twice in the last 2 years, my truck has been broken into three times in the same period but on different occasions and I have had items stolen from my yard... I can understand how a person might be inclined to react if they caught the thief(s) in the act... I think a jury would as well...


Are u from detroit by chance?

Rackmastr 04-02-2009 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota369 (Post 297190)
Living up to your name again jester, as well as showing your ignorance......ever been robbed??:tongue2:

I do find it funny that someone who posted the LEGAL aspect of this (the person used more force than was neccessary) is called ignorant for posting his opinion about the law.

This shooter (whether ethically someone thinks it was right or wrong) broke the law and it would be 'ignorant' to think otherwise. Anyone with a grasp of the Criminal Code would understand that he was in the wrong by doing what he did.

This person will need a good defense and a good lawyer, and should be prepared to state the reasons he did what he did.

Berating someone or calling him 'ignorant' for posting his opinion on someone who used excessive force and broke the law is pretty weak. Whether or not you agree or disagree with what the shooter did is one thing, but Jester's post is a reflection of the laws involved....

***BTW I am not saying I support or am against the actions of the shooter, as thats my own personal opinion and I'll keep it to myself. Merely stating that Jester is correct in the LEGAL aspect....

stormy 04-02-2009 03:24 PM

you guys are foolish to support this guys actions hope they never let him own a gun again he is a fool like all his supporters

hal53 04-02-2009 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tundra Monkey (Post 296973)
Why is there a need for a defence fund?

There is different levels of severity that should be settled in the Court. IMO there is a difference between blowing a kid away and taking a shot at them to tell them not to come back.....maybe Mr. Knight stepped over the line...maybe not.

What I suggest he do is go hire a lawyer that doesn't break the bank. Tell him to tell the Judge that he is an accomplished marksman and knows the ballistics and blah blah bla. How he only got him with a few pellets much like just like Dad taught him and how he used to shoot rabbits and only hit them with one or two pellets....."Ya know, so ya don't wreck the pelt yer Honour".

The kid was only in the hospital for a bit.......good shot.

This situation diffused after the gun came out with not much damage. Good thing that the kids ran when he had the gun as it could have turned out a lot worse.

In the end the gun diffused the situation and this is showing gun ownership in a postitive light. Three guys on one without one is not not gonna be good. At the end of the day had he not had the gun he'd be the guy in the ditch. That being said IMO he should have shot a little higher

We have the right to protect ourselves and our property.

If 5000 of us gave $50 the guy would be getting $250 000 ;)

I'd walk into the court room and tell them exactly what I did

I would not be paying that kind of $$ to a lawyer.....crap, they give ya one for free if you want :confused:

Personally I'd use a friends brother's buddy for $5000 and be done with it...but each to their own.

I don't think we should turn this into a reward system for shooting people and this thread should be used to discuss the details of the case and personal opinions.

If Mr. Knight really wants our help let him come on here and ask and he can show us where the money is going and how much he needs.

Someone more adventurous than I should start a poll on what he should choose between "Judge alone" or "Jury". :huh:

I'd choose "Judge alone".

tm

Jury all the way...there are no property laws in Canada...Judge would go by the word of law....you have no right here to protect your property!!!...un friggin'-beleivable....what a load???...a jury in Stettler may be a little more sympathetic...

hal53 04-02-2009 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stormy (Post 297202)
you guys are foolish to support this guys actions hope they never let him own a gun again he is a fool like all his supporters

3 Questions...
1) you own a quad?????
2) you live in the country???
3) if the above two are yes.....where?????

redneck posse 04-02-2009 03:54 PM

not sure if this is right or not .. but i heard on the news last night, that the three guys are well known to police in the area. and that they have yet to be charged.. what kind of bullsh*t is that???:huh: good message to send to the criminals. steal a quad get caught and no charges will be laid.. wonder which one is the big shots kid..

Jester 04-02-2009 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota369 (Post 297190)
Living up to your name again jester, as well as showing your ignorance......ever been robbed??:tongue2:

Do up the top button on your shirt...the Redneck is showing..:lol:

Rackmastr 04-02-2009 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hal53 (Post 297206)
Jury all the way...there are no property laws in Canada...Judge would go by the word of law....you have no right here to protect your property!!!...un friggin'-beleivable....what a load???...a jury in Stettler may be a little more sympathetic...

This statement is wrong. We have property laws in Canada and the Criminal Code allows people to protect their property.

hal53 04-02-2009 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rackmastr (Post 297248)
This statement is wrong. We have property laws in Canada and the Criminal Code allows people to protect their property.

hmmmm...okay.....I guess you're right...no argument....sigh.....

redneck posse 04-02-2009 04:49 PM

rackmaster is right we do have property laws in canada.. there just screwed up if i remember my law class from high school. we can use resonable force to protect our property. but not deadly force. my teacher put it this way..

if the intruder has a knife resonable force is beating the snot out of him with a baseballbat. deadly force is useing a knife or a more powerfull weapon.

dont quote me on this as its been 20 years since grade 12 ..

hal53 04-02-2009 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redneck posse (Post 297273)
rackmaster is right we do have property laws in canada.. there just screwed up if i remember my law class from high school. we can use resonable force to protect our property. but not deadly force. my teacher put it this way..

if the intruder has a knife resonable force is beating the snot out of him with a baseballbat. deadly force is useing a knife or a more powerfull weapon.

dont quote me on this as its been 20 years since grade 12 ..

thats's why the "sigh" is in there...guess I should have said...we don't have a justice system...we have a legal system.....the criminal has more rights than the accused......sad....exactly why i quit law school.....hard to understand...we pander to these a*****s ...and they know it!!!!!

Rackmastr 04-02-2009 05:15 PM

For anyone who wants it....you can see that almost all property laws under the Criminal Code allow people to use as much force as is necessary to prevent a trespasser or a theft from taking place. Protection of property is pretty well laid out, and it spells out that a person may use as much force as is necessary.

Enjoy.....

38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified

(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or
(b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,
if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.
(2) Where a person who is in peaceable possession of personal property lays hands on it, a trespasser who persists in attempting to keep it or take it from him or from any one lawfully assisting him shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as a right or does not act under authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justified or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.

40. Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority

41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

2. (1) Every one is justified in peaceably entering a dwelling-house or real property by day to take possession of it if he, or a person under whose authority he acts, is lawfully entitled to possession of it.

(2) Where a person

(a) not having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or
(b) not acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,
assaults a person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be without justification or provocation.
(3) Where a person

(a) having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or
(b) acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,
assaults any person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shalled be deemed to be provoked by the person who is entering.

redneck posse 04-02-2009 05:19 PM

sorry hal53 guess i misunderstood.. but your right the criminals have more rights than the law abiding citizens

hal53 04-02-2009 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rackmastr (Post 297299)
For anyone who wants it....you can see that almost all property laws under the Criminal Code allow people to use as much force as is necessary to prevent a trespasser or a theft from taking place. Protection of property is pretty well laid out, and it spells out that a person may use as much force as is necessary.

Enjoy.....

38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified

(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or
(b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,
if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.
(2) Where a person who is in peaceable possession of personal property lays hands on it, a trespasser who persists in attempting to keep it or take it from him or from any one lawfully assisting him shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as a right or does not act under authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justified or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.

40. Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority

41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

2. (1) Every one is justified in peaceably entering a dwelling-house or real property by day to take possession of it if he, or a person under whose authority he acts, is lawfully entitled to possession of it.

(2) Where a person

(a) not having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or
(b) not acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,
assaults a person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be without justification or provocation.
(3) Where a person

(a) having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or
(b) acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,
assaults any person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shalled be deemed to be provoked by the person who is entering.

Yah don't see the "odd loophole" in there??????....usually I totally agree with your thoughts.......but..... too many area there where a Judge can go Hmmmmmm??????

honda450 04-02-2009 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redneck posse (Post 297304)
sorry hal53 guess i misunderstood.. but your right the criminals have more rights than the law abiding citizens

Seems that way redneck. Well never mind seems it is that way. I lost 3 quads and a truck by thiefs. None ever recovered. Cost me lots of money. :mad2::mad::mad3:

Rackmastr 04-02-2009 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hal53 (Post 297307)
Yah don't see the "odd loophole" in there??????....usually I totally agree with your thoughts.......but..... too many area there where a Judge can go Hmmmmmm??????

A guy can find 'loopholes' in any peice of legislation.

I work with the enforcement of over 90 peices of legislation.....I'm well enough versed in the use of force and the application of force. Just stating it for people who DONT understand and stating it quite plainly.

As I said, I am not stating my opinion on the matter, only stating facts and quoting legislation for people who may not know what is out there. There is nothing to 'agree' or disagree with my thoughts. These are not my thoughts, they are legislation and only that.....

Sporty 04-02-2009 05:29 PM

Since when does theft warrant a death sentence? Hope some of yas don't ever have a loved one that does something stupid like stealing and they get killed for it.

In GP that loser Wiebo Ludwig and his family got off for killing Karmen Willis while she and her friends were joy riding on his farm so this guy shouldn't have too many worries.

denpacc 04-02-2009 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rackmastr (Post 297299)
For anyone who wants it....you can see that almost all property laws under the Criminal Code allow people to use as much force as is necessary to prevent a trespasser or a theft from taking place. Protection of property is pretty well laid out, and it spells out that a person may use as much force as is necessary.

Enjoy.....

38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified

(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or
(b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,
if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.
(2) Where a person who is in peaceable possession of personal property lays hands on it, a trespasser who persists in attempting to keep it or take it from him or from any one lawfully assisting him shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as a right or does not act under authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justified or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.

40. Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority

41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

2. (1) Every one is justified in peaceably entering a dwelling-house or real property by day to take possession of it if he, or a person under whose authority he acts, is lawfully entitled to possession of it.

(2) Where a person

(a) not having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or
(b) not acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,
assaults a person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be without justification or provocation.
(3) Where a person

(a) having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or
(b) acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,
assaults any person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shalled be deemed to be provoked by the person who is entering.

Doesn't 38. 1 (b) "...if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser." contradict what you just said about using as much force as necessary? Or am I totally misinterpreting what it states?

Cheers


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.