Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old 04-07-2009, 01:30 AM
CaberTosser's Avatar
CaberTosser CaberTosser is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 19,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Oh Puh-lease.....I think I've stated my opinion quite clearly.

Do you really think he will get off Scot free???

Do you not understand sarcasm??

you said....



So you are saying that you would not have shot the bad guy but it's ok for someone else to take one for the team??

I guess we're both putting words in each others mouths. I didn't suggest Mr Knight "take one for the team", but he may just be doing so. That one is his to deal with, based on decisions and actions he undertook that morning. I think those of us considering ourselves on his "team" can at least lend our moral, financial and political support. Suggesting I'd hang someone else out to dry to defend my principles is offensive. Granted. I did bait you with my last one, apparently what I interpreted from your writing and what you meant to express diverged. Perhaps you meant to say that if he's acquitted and has no punishment forthcoming: He did the right thing. Yet if he gets punished: He did the wrong thing, as if the punishment angle were the deciding factor between right and wrong...... which its not. I think we've all been punished at one time or another in our lives when we weren't guilty, and conversely we've all likely gotten away with some things we should have been punished for. Punishment does not always equal guilt, and frequently the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Sadly its usually not enough punishment going to the "bad guy", or too much punishment going to the "good guy".

Do I think we should murder and/or torture every treaspasser who strays through our yards? Nope

Do I think there should be limits to what a person does while defending their property? Yes, within reason.

Am I saying I would not have shot the bad guy? We'll only know when or if I'm so tested (again anyways: I didn't have firearms yet when my last home invasion robbery occurred; and with my location within Calgary, they're all locked up too securely to be accessible promptly for an emergency). I'd sure like the option available to keep the imbalance of power in my favor (Every parents & homeowners right, in my opinion.) If the courts support citizens actions in assertive defense of their property, it can only serve to act as a deterrent to crime. If he is punished; it can only embolden criminals, as if they need any more encouragement.

I know that Anti's and similar nanny-state socialists monitor this board and others; for ammunition that they can use to further agendas that run counter to ours, but how many people and entities do you want us cowering down and censoring ourselves for??

I hope he gets off Scot free. If he gets a jury of his peers and a judge that doesn't have an axe to grind he just may. I was in Bashaw and Stettler last weekend and every iota of sentiment around there was all in support of Mr Knight. What they neither want nor need is to have this thing presided over by a judge hailing from a dense urban area, but by someone who knows farm life.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 04-07-2009, 07:44 AM
ram crazy ram crazy is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,843
Default

It's scary how many of you that own firearms and think it's ok to shoot somebody for stealing, you wouldn't be any better then a thief, poacher or any other criminal, and you wonder why they have gun control in this country. Now all you law abidding citizen who are against gun control should stop and ask yourself why that is!!! I sure wouldn't want to go out hunting with some of you, god for bid if you did something wrong you might get shot.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 04-07-2009, 08:23 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
It's scary how many of you that own firearms and think it's ok to shoot somebody for stealing, you wouldn't be any better then a thief, poacher or any other criminal, and you wonder why they have gun control in this country.
Personally,I would rather catch the scum that was stealing my property and beat him senseless with my bare hands as he continued to resist my efforts to detain him until the police eventually got around to showing up to pick up the trash.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 04-07-2009, 08:35 AM
CaberTosser's Avatar
CaberTosser CaberTosser is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 19,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ram crazy View Post
It's scary how many of you that own firearms and think it's ok to shoot somebody for stealing, you wouldn't be any better then a thief, poacher or any other criminal, and you wonder why they have gun control in this country. Now all you law abidding citizen who are against gun control should stop and ask yourself why that is!!! I sure wouldn't want to go out hunting with some of you, god for bid if you did something wrong you might get shot.

Why do you support theft and criminals more than people defending their homes and an obvious moral high ground? Its convoluted attitudes like that that ruin our courts. Nice analogy about going hunting with us. "Hey Ramcrazy, you took my last piece of beef jerky, now you're gonna have to die!!!" Makes sense absolutely
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 04-07-2009, 10:11 AM
Copidosoma's Avatar
Copidosoma Copidosoma is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Edmonton AB
Posts: 1,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaberTosser View Post
Why do you support theft and criminals more than people defending their homes and an obvious moral high ground? Its convoluted attitudes like that that ruin our courts. Nice analogy about going hunting with us. "Hey Ramcrazy, you took my last piece of beef jerky, now you're gonna have to die!!!" Makes sense absolutely
You can "defend your home" without shooting someone in the back.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 04-07-2009, 11:22 AM
sco22 sco22 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sherwod Park
Posts: 558
Default

Although I am sympathetic to Mr. Knight, the question that needs to be answered is now what?

The supporters of Mr. Knight's actions (not of Mr. Knight as virutally all posters sympathize with him - the argument is in his actions) say that it is okay to shoot at someone for trying to steal your property. So it is okay if it is a quad? What about a lawnmower? A shovel? Is there a property value limit? I may sound facetious, but honestly, how can a court of law or a court of peers determine what is the correct amount to warrant being shot?

How can the individual also make that determination. . .in the moment? In a moment of rage as I suspect Mr. Knight was in (I was surely in rage when my truck was broken into), ihow s he able to determine that this theft is warranting taking a shot or two with his shotgun? Is he also able to determine, beyond all reasonable doubt, that his shotgun would only injure? What if he doesn't have a shotgun, but rather a 300? Will he just wing him? If that is the case, can all persons defending their property make the same judgement? For Pete's sake, there are postings on this board all the time about hunters taking stupid or risky shots. . .now we can say that anyone defending their property will make the "right" shot?

My point, albeit convoluted and rambling, is simply this: Laws are made to govern overall, in majority of circumstances for everyone to abide by. Taken in specific situations like Mr. Knight's, the outcome may appear to be harsh given the circumstances. Was Mr. Knight wronged? It certainly appears so. Was he within his rights to defend his property? I suspect so. Did that include firing a weapon at someone? The courts can decide. My humble opinion which is based solely on the conjecture presented above and on this board is no. Potentially killing a person for stealing a quad is not right (my personal opinion only).

Beat the tar out of him? I have no issue with that - I would help. Get the laws changed so that there is real punishment as a deterent for criminals, again I have no issue. But to shoot someone? To kill them? I don't care if he was an expert marksman. I consider myself a very good shot, but I am shaking like a leaf when I see a moose let alone a human being. What if someone was behind the criminal? What if in the rush to get away from being shot he jumped in a car and caused an accident? What if someone innocent was killed? These are the considerations that must be taken into account when deciding if it is okay to shoot someone for theft.

I too am sick of criminals getting off light, particularly young offenders. But ask yourselves "now what?". Steal a quad, get shot. Do you trust every person with a firearm, me included, to make the determination of when it is okay to shoot someone, with what firearm and under what circumstances. By supporting Mr. Knight's actions, you are saying yes. Laws cannot apply to some of the people some of the time. Some of you will say I am an wrong and that I am a bleeding heart liberal (I could not be farther from that) and that is your right. Debate is healthy and the basis for real change. I just wish some posters would consider the now what. . .

Cheers.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 04-07-2009, 11:28 AM
elkfriend's Avatar
elkfriend elkfriend is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 503
Default

I read somewhere that they sell 12 ga rubber loads for shotguns, for home defense.

Any thoughts on using something like that on burglars?

All you would do is scare them to death, shoot them in the butt and hopefully catch them limping away.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 04-07-2009, 11:37 AM
Redfrog's Avatar
Redfrog Redfrog is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Between Bodo and a hard place
Posts: 20,168
Default

I think you just need to ask yourself,
Is stealing something worth getting shot over?

If the answer is yes, then carry on and let Darwin sort it out.

If the answer is no. Then maybe we can get back to talking about the outdoors and Mr. Knight can have his life back.
__________________
I'm not lying!!! You are just experiencing it differently.


It isn't a question of who will allow me, but who will stop me.. Ayn Rand
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 04-07-2009, 11:39 AM
bingo1010's Avatar
bingo1010 bingo1010 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: where the wind always blows
Posts: 782
Default

maybe shooting a person is a little much ( i think he was right) but the courts are definetly not sending the message to would be criminals, as for calling the police.... they come after a crime is committed( if they come at all in a case such as a quad theft). so that leaves one person to uphold the law..... the property owner. i totally support him and his actions.
__________________
God Hates a Coward
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 04-07-2009, 11:45 AM
elkfriend's Avatar
elkfriend elkfriend is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 503
Default My money !

TO THE "LEADERS" OF THE LEGAL FUND:

Ok, I donated my bit and feel good about it. Question: how do all the donors know what happened to the money?

I feel that because its peoples money going into this account, every donor has the right on reasonable updates about

-how much money has been donated & status updates
-how much is being spent
-what happens with the money that is not used (ie donation to AFGA, AHEIA or alike?)


PLEASE COMMENT!
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 04-07-2009, 11:50 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Is he also able to determine, beyond all reasonable doubt, that his shotgun would only injure? What if he doesn't have a shotgun, but rather a 300? Will he just wing him? If that is the case, can all persons defending their property make the same judgement?

He did not have a 300,he had a shotgun.As to what the chances of killing someone would be,that depends on the shot size and range.I don't know the shot size that he used,or the range that he took the shot at,do you?
If he was using 00 buckshot at less than 100 yards,he could have killed the man.If he was using 7-1/2 shot at 75 yards,i would say that there was reasonable doubt that the person could be killed.

Quote:
Beat the tar out of him? I have no issue with that - I would help.
As much as I would enjoy beating the thief,there is still a reasonable chance that you could kill or cripple someone by beating them.Would that chance stop me in the heat of the moment,not likely,but I could end up being charged with manslaughter if the thief died.

I agree that the shooter may have gone overboard in his actions,but I don't feel that he should be harshly punished.Seeing what career criminal get for sentences makes me want to see the shooter get off with a firearms prohibition for a few years,anger management counseling,and some probation.If the real criminals are let off easily,lets send a message to would be thieves by letting this man off easily.
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 04-07-2009, 11:56 AM
BrownBear416 BrownBear416 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Slave Lake
Posts: 5,639
Default

You guys are talking like the thief is laying in the hospital Like 50cent riddled with bullet holes????
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 04-07-2009, 12:24 PM
honda450's Avatar
honda450 honda450 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 6,952
Default

My boys steal something they better get used to dealing with me. And even worse their mother.
__________________
Smoke or Fire in the Forest Dial 310-FIRE


thegungirl.ca @gmail.com
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 04-07-2009, 12:52 PM
The Elkster The Elkster is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,358
Default

So some here are all freaked out about allowing someone to protect their property. Yeah allowing vigilantism isn't ideal but then again where has the current laws and court system put us. We are made to rely on "trained" cops and lawyers and Judges and what does that get us. Killers killing while on parole, killers walking free after a slap on the wrist, cops stunning people to death without recourse while the average citizen is charged for not shovelling their sidewalk for cripes sake! Its absolutely rediculous. For every crook that may be shot and/or killed you have to consider how many innocent people would be saved by taking out or smartening up some of the bad seeds. There is no easy answer but our current system isn't cutting it. How can we say that the "police should handle it" knowing that they are stretched thin and simply can't handle it all. Am I suppose to sit there and hope a cop will come and if not too bad so sad. You may accept that but ya don't darn well speak for me. This is definitely more than a single isolated event. This raises the huge issue of principles and who we are going to slant the rules towards. Right now every single benefit of the doubt is given to the crooks while the courts and law enforcement look every which way to find fault with the constuctive members of society. The net result is always worst for the average citizen due to the fact that they actually have something to lose not like the criminals who have done nothing for society and have earned nothing.

By the letter of the law this guy probably broke the law....same as many cops do before the rest of the force smooth it over. You really think cops hold themselves to the rules 100% if so...haaaaaaaaaaaaahaha. That being said I think this would be an appropriate time to raise the issue of whether these laws need changing. If the cops can't be everywhere everytime then the regular folk should not be left to cower while they are victimized. They should be allowed to defend and protect themselves their family and their property within some defined parameters. If the crooks don't like it than its a simple matter of not breaking the law. Yes it is a CHOICE. I don't know about you but I'd rather see crooks killed and maimed over and above anyone else. How many INNOCENT lives would have been saved if proper discipline and reprecussions were felt earlier in any crooks life? Clearly our "soft" Canadian ways are not helping save INNOCENT people. Forgive me that I care more about the INNOCENT people.
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 04-07-2009, 01:17 PM
Okotokian's Avatar
Okotokian Okotokian is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Uh, guess? :)
Posts: 26,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Elkster View Post
So some here are all freaked out about allowing someone to protect their property. .
Not all freaked out, just concerned about what this could potentially lead to.There is protecting your property, there is recovering your property, and then there is meting out punishment or "justice". The tricky part here is that, if the story as originally posted here is accurate (big if of course), the thief had already abondoned his stolen booty and was running away without it when fired upon. The property had already been protected and recovered. Can a civilian use deadly force to stop a lawbreaker (or perhaps punish, as many here have talked about teaching "them" a lesson) after any threat to themselves or their property has vanished?

I'd be somewhat less concerned if the perpetrator was shot while on the farmer's land in the act of stealing. I feel bad for the farmer though. His response is understandable, if not the wisest course of action.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 04-07-2009, 01:17 PM
Dakota369's Avatar
Dakota369 Dakota369 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 1,805
Default Applause

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaberTosser View Post
I see this case as an extremely important one in terms of its potential to set a great precedent. I understand the trail is to take place in Stettler on April 9th, though I have yet to verify that. I encourage any board members who are a reasonable drive from there to attend. A massive turnout in support of Mr Knight is what I expect already, but I believe every extra citizen that attends is a good thing. It is my hope that the presiding judge realizes the enormity of his task, and rules in upholding the rights of a good citizen who was forced into an unfortunate chain of events by a small squad of degenerates. Mr Knights actions were certainly not deliberated, they were all defensive reactions. While many of us armchair quarterbacks can endlessly speculate and postulate theories about what he should have done from the comfort of our homes or offices, none of us were there.

I'm a big believer in Castle Doctrine, and was very impressed by the article by Lorne Gunter that Chain2 posted. That really summed up a great deal of my feeling about law enforcement: Law enforcement is our duty as citizens first; the police are just a supplement to us, empowered by us. Not the other way around. For order to prevail there has to be enforcement of laws. If the system is failing us it is our duty to correct it. The police and/or the judicial system are failing us by either:

1: Not apprehending the criminal
2: Not presenting sufficient detterent to criminal behaviour
3: Not punishing the guilty
4: Punishing the innocent or the victims

These failures are serious, and have created a snowball effect of recidivist criminals. As far as I am concerned, when the judiciary and police fail us so completely, it is important that we correct them and restart them on the correct path of serving us, Canada's citizens. If it takes what appears as vigilante actions or civil disobedience then so be it. Sometimes a galvanizing event such as this happens (and we're lucky that it has), and it can have great social benefits for us all; or conversely it can be yet another travesty which will only get us the citizenry more upset and perhaps more mobilized to institute the changes that need to happen. We are the power behind everything the Government, the Police and the Courts do, lets be sure if they're making mistakes we correct them.

Extremly well put....one of the most eloquent posts on this thread yet.

Agree wholeheartedly
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 04-07-2009, 01:24 PM
Dakota369's Avatar
Dakota369 Dakota369 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 1,805
Thumbs down ????

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Lets wait and see what the courts decide ok?

If Mr. Knight gets off scot free then yes I will say that he did the right thing.

However if he gets jail time or even just probation and is banned from owning firearms then I will say he did the wrong thing.

Once the thieves know he is not allowed to own firearms they will rip him off again and if by chance he does have another gun then he will be looking at jail time for sure.

So ask yourself if a quad is worth jail time and a criminal record?

My answer is no.

So you are unable/refuse to have your own opinion and therefore will blindly follow the decision of the courts?

Have you never picked up the paper and thought what a travesty of justice that someone who commited such a voilent crime on a defensless person got such a light sentence?
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 04-07-2009, 01:36 PM
Dakota369's Avatar
Dakota369 Dakota369 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 1,805
Default Yes you have

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Oh Puh-lease.....I think I've stated my opinion quite clearly.
Indeed you have

Shooting at someone who stole your quad is attempted murder.

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

And stealing a quad deserves getting shot in the back??

Dude...that may have been cool back in 1867 for horse thieves but really.

So yeah...Let's shoot them in the back...

That would be breaking the Law..So are you willing to give up your rights?

Don't get me wrong..I'm in favour of the death penalty...BUT..

I say let the courts decide...not you backyard yahoos with a 12 guage..

Why do you want to know?

Are you going to come over and shoot me??

Yes indeed..mess with my wife or kids and you will be a grease spot on the floor....

...but a quad....pppfftthh....I'm not going to jail for a stinking quad..

Lets wait and see what the courts decide ok?

If Mr. Knight gets off scot free then yes I will say that he did the right thing.

However if he gets jail time or even just probation and is banned from owning firearms then I will say he did the wrong thing.

etc.

Let the courts make up your mind for you, I just hope you are never forced to change your tune by one of the scum criminals you are so vehemently defending here.....
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 04-07-2009, 03:28 PM
sco22 sco22 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sherwod Park
Posts: 558
Default

Elkhunter11,

I don't want to argue with you as I pretty much agree with your prior posts.

I know he did not have a 300. . .that was my point. If we allow people to defend their property with force, what about the fellow that doesn't grab the shotgun, but grabs the 300? Force is force.

Beating the tar out of the criminal, while momentarily satisfying, is still assault and can land you in just as much trouble. I spoke out of my ars a bit there. That said, I can most certainly have more control over the severity of the outcome if it was punches as opposed to lead.

I agree that he be not dealt with harshly.
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 04-07-2009, 04:52 PM
roger's Avatar
roger roger is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: wmu 222, member #197
Posts: 4,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sco22 View Post
Beating the tar out of the criminal, while momentarily satisfying, is still assault .
in this case an equalizer was used, but, who is to say that you win the 'proverbial ass whooping' in the first place. there is always someone better, stronger, faster (or doped up yahoo) than you. coming out of it with a few chicklets missing /or a brain injury is hardly worth it, either.
is the best case scenario is you severely beaten in the incident??
so many what-ifs..
respectfully,
roger
__________________
there are two kinds of people...those with loaded guns and those who dig.
the good, the bad, the ugly

weatherby fans clik here....
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/group.php?groupid=31
Reply With Quote
  #201  
Old 04-07-2009, 05:57 PM
AxeMan's Avatar
AxeMan AxeMan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 2,136
Default

I have heard a few more details on this case from a reliable source. Don't quote me on this but this is what I heard. After Mr. Knight chased the thief with his car and the quad went into the ditch, the guy took off running across the field and apparently lost his shoes. By the time the thief got across the field he was pretty well frozen and Mr. Knight's neighbor picked him up in his pickup. The thief was cooperative now and wanted to be rescued and stank of booze. The neighbor drove around to where Mr Knight was and got out to talk to him with the thief still in the truck. The guy slid accross the seat and took off with the pickup but lost control and hit the ditch.

My question is: Was the thief charged with dangerous driving, or impaired driving, or was he given a breathalizer? Or just attempted theft. The RCMP found it necessary to charge Mr. Knight with dangerous driving as well as everything else. Seems like the RCMP wanted to throw all these charges on the victim here.

I think the least we can do is throw our support behind Mr. Knight and give him half a chance to defend these charges in court. Maybe he slipped and the shotgun discharged accidentally. Accidents happen...
I am going to give Mr. Knight any benefit of the doubt, not the thief.
My donation is on the way.

Last edited by AxeMan; 04-07-2009 at 06:07 PM. Reason: spellinzs
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 04-07-2009, 06:29 PM
HerdBull HerdBull is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Up north
Posts: 289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redfrog View Post
Is stealing something worth getting shot over?

If the answer is yes, then carry on and let Darwin sort it out.
Can I use this for my new signature? Thats awesome.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 04-07-2009, 06:50 PM
HerdBull HerdBull is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Up north
Posts: 289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AxeMan View Post
Seems like the RCMP wanted to throw all these charges on the victim here..
Does that really surprise anybody? I can't speak for you fellas, but personally, I find cops and courts worth less than their weight in stale crap.
When you really need a cop they're nowhere to be found (unless you're being held up at Tim Hortons), but heaven help you if you're doing 112 in 100 zone . Yup, its breaking the law, yup theres penalties for that. Isn't breaking into my garage breaking the law too? Isn't that a tad more of a serious offence? Why is it they can pay some twit to sit on the side of Deerfoot or Glenmore all day and hand out $200 speeding tickets, but they can't send one over to my place to try and pull a fingerprint off of the door they kicked in? I know why.... because Dudley sittin on Glenmore all day rakes in thousands of bucks in income for the government, and his wage only costs about 200-300 bucks to make that money. BUT.....if they tear him away from his radar gun to send him over to my garage, they gotta pay him his 200 or 300, plus pay for the supplies he uses to investigate the break and enter, then another day or twos wage to catch up with the criminal (hopefully) and then (God forbid) maybe even have to pay to keep the criminal alive in jail for a while. It just dosn't pay to go after the real problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AxeMan View Post
I think the least we can do is throw our support behind Mr. Knight and give him half a chance to defend these charges in court. Maybe he slipped and the shotgun discharged accidentally. Accidents happen...
I am going to give Mr. Knight any benefit of the doubt, not the thief.
My donation is on the way.

Mine too, and I'm sure gonna try and be at that trial if the date is correct. Anybody know for sure?
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 04-07-2009, 07:08 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Dudley sittin on Glenmore all day rakes in thousands of bucks in income for the government, and his wage only costs about 200-300 bucks to make that money. BUT.....if they tear him away from his radar gun to send him over to my garage, they gotta pay him his 200 or 300, plus pay for the supplies he uses to investigate the break and enter, then another day or twos wage to catch up with the criminal (hopefully) and then (God forbid) maybe even have to pay to keep the criminal alive in jail for a while. It just dosn't pay to go after the real problem.
Like everything else in society,our so called justice system is to a large extent ruled by the almighty dollar.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 04-07-2009, 09:48 PM
Jeep Jeep is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 30
Default

I have been ripped off more times than I can recall. I am currently dealing in the courts with a guy who robbed me of tens of thousands of dollars, it should be an easy case but we have people that "interpret" the law, not enforce it. I have had my home broken into twice while I slept, I sent both individuals to the hospital in pretty rough shape. When the cops arrived the second time after a 25 minute wait after the 911 call and pulled the guy off the ground, there was a 8" blade Rambo knife underneath him, he wasn't fast enough and I was lucky. At that time my wife would be the only family member to miss me.

Now I realize a voice outside my house or in my attached garage may just try and get into my house where my two babies also sleep. That or those individuals would likely be desperate, under the influence of drugs, or cunning and psychotic like the low life that recently kidnapped a 16 year old Penhold girl while dressed as a cop, he sexually assaulted her. I can not possibly analyze that individual like the courts do in a 3 year trial, with only milliseconds to make a decision. I do not know where the situation could potentially go should I elect to lie down and scream. I do know that in a one on one situation I can and have taken care of some pretty formidable individuals without a weapon, however I will far exceed that amount of force when faced with 2 or more opponents. When I think about my children in those cases it chills me with fear.

Maybe Mr.Knight was wrong to chase the guy down the road and shoot him in the back, but until Mr.Knight can give the world his reasons for his actions I cannot condemn him, had he shot 3 criminals dead in the confines of his home I would stand behind him 100%.

Just my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 04-10-2009, 09:13 PM
decker's Avatar
decker decker is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Stettler, Alberta
Posts: 1,029
Default

Stettler court room was standing room only yesterday for th support of Brian Knight who reserved his plea for May 28.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 04-11-2009, 12:32 AM
Nomad Nomad is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Fort Saskatchewan
Posts: 362
Default

Thanks for the post, keep us updated.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 04-11-2009, 12:53 AM
bigd bigd is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Elkster View Post
So some here are all freaked out about allowing someone to protect their property. Yeah allowing vigilantism isn't ideal but then again where has the current laws and court system put us. We are made to rely on "trained" cops and lawyers and Judges and what does that get us. Killers killing while on parole, killers walking free after a slap on the wrist, cops stunning people to death without recourse while the average citizen is charged for not shovelling their sidewalk for cripes sake! Its absolutely rediculous. For every crook that may be shot and/or killed you have to consider how many innocent people would be saved by taking out or smartening up some of the bad seeds. There is no easy answer but our current system isn't cutting it. How can we say that the "police should handle it" knowing that they are stretched thin and simply can't handle it all. Am I suppose to sit there and hope a cop will come and if not too bad so sad. You may accept that but ya don't darn well speak for me. This is definitely more than a single isolated event. This raises the huge issue of principles and who we are going to slant the rules towards. Right now every single benefit of the doubt is given to the crooks while the courts and law enforcement look every which way to find fault with the constuctive members of society. The net result is always worst for the average citizen due to the fact that they actually have something to lose not like the criminals who have done nothing for society and have earned nothing.

By the letter of the law this guy probably broke the law....same as many cops do before the rest of the force smooth it over. You really think cops hold themselves to the rules 100% if so...haaaaaaaaaaaaahaha. That being said I think this would be an appropriate time to raise the issue of whether these laws need changing. If the cops can't be everywhere everytime then the regular folk should not be left to cower while they are victimized. They should be allowed to defend and protect themselves their family and their property within some defined parameters. If the crooks don't like it than its a simple matter of not breaking the law. Yes it is a CHOICE. I don't know about you but I'd rather see crooks killed and maimed over and above anyone else. How many INNOCENT lives would have been saved if proper discipline and reprecussions were felt earlier in any crooks life? Clearly our "soft" Canadian ways are not helping save INNOCENT people. Forgive me that I care more about the INNOCENT people.
I'm not sure where some of you guys get off blaming so much of our country's problems on the police. Yeah, there have been a few incidents over the years where some officers have made poor decisions and some have even broken laws- police are only human beings- just like everyone else. Try to remember that in this country, we have approx. 30- 35,000 officers. The vast majority are honest, truthful and trustworthy.

Remember that the police do not create laws or hand down punishments for breaking laws. They only enforce laws. They gather whatever evidence is available and present it to the Crown. The courts- judges and lawyers (crown and defence) and our governments are responsible for the system breaking down as it has. So many criminals are getting off lightly because the system is overloaded. Not enough prosecutors, not enough space in remand centers, not enough money to afford to put criminals away like they deserve. We give criminals 2 for 1 credit for time spent in remand waiting for trial or case resolution. We have Justices of the Peace that appear to be under instruction to ensure that only the most dangerous criminals be sent to remand. They award cash bail (or even no-cash bail) to many that should not be released pending trial. Ä great number of these that are released are given conditions to abide by and usually are found in breach within a few days of release. These are usually the criminals that commit property crimes to support drug addictions and to fund gang activities.

If we want to begin to fix these issues (property crimes as related to this thread), we need to make wholesale changes at the federal and provincial level. We need room to take convicted criminals of the street. We need support from the citizens of Canada to lobby the feds to allow the courts to strengthen jail sentences. We need cash injected in the prosecutorial system. both to increase the numbers of prosecutors as well as the quality. In some judicial districts in rural Alberta, 3 or 4 prosecutors will handle in excess of 15,000- 18,000 criminal charges per year!!! It's no wonder so many deals get made in court and so many criminals are back on the street to continue their ways...

I said earlier in this thread that I don't blame KNIGHT for what he did...I understand why he was so frustrated. But shooting a person in the back while running away, off his land and after leaving behind the stolen property...I can't endorse that. What would everyone say if it was a police officer that fired the shot in that situation?? That's right, the media and public would hammer the police yet again...

Before any of you or any member of the public or media sit here and criticize the policing community yet again, gun up and try doing the job yourself.

Oh yeah, if you haven't figured it out yet, I'm a cop...

D
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 04-11-2009, 08:11 AM
roadkill roadkill is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,755
Default

Nice to hear from an actual cop on this.

I also have to say that, the reaon for that 2 for 1 on pre-trial gaol time comes down to the charter of rights, which is why Harper's plan to make it 1 for 1 is a disaster. It's going to cost the government tonnes of taxpayer dollars in lawsuits.

As for Knight, I get his frustration, but you have to be willing to take responsibility for every shot you take. The talk above about shoot, shovel and shut up would have resulted in him being in *way* worse s***t than he already is. It might be a good idea to put some previsions into the law for people who live beyond the cops' ability to get there in time, though...
__________________
roadkill

Probably the only English-speaking, French-Canadian lefty greeniac in Montréal with a 2008 Winchester M70 in .270. Probably.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 04-11-2009, 09:03 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

I for one do no blame the police officers for this situation,I blame the legal system.The police officers are a part of this system,but it is not them that normally choose what charges should be laid in a situation like this.The crown prosecutor has a huge say in what charges are to be laid,and like most other lawyers,they seldom get anything right.Then again,even the prosecutor has to make an attempt to obey the ridiculous laws that the politicians have drafted into law.The only people less trustworthy than lawyers are politicians,so the result is current situation involving Mr Knight.
Yes the system stinks,but don't put the blame on the police officers,unless they do something to warrant that blame..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.