Canadian man charged with murder after shooting armed home invader with legally owned gun

okay action movie rules. It has **** all to do with the law

it isn't the law. There's no law anywhere that says you can't shoot someone in the back. You justified in using lethal Force when you have a reasonable fear someone will cause you serious bodily injury or death or that of another person that means if they have your but they're back to you while they're attacking so you're a child you can shoot them in the back that is absolutely legal.

You need to learn the laws

so you can shoot someone in the back so you were just flat out wrong when you said you couldn't.

I assume you meant what you typed. As for any deeper metaphorical meaning I don't get into that.

you'll have to show me this in law because I know of no law that says such a thing.

According to what?

 

Yeah we go up to people on the street and be like "hey bro, you interested in kicking my door in for $20"? Easy money bro.

 

Well. If you do not like our laws do not leave the USA

But most commonwealth countries have adopted the English legal system which is why I knew Canada was similar to us . Just as you do not smuggle drugs in South East Asia you do not carry a weapon openly in our country and if you shoot someone be prepared to go to court no defend your actions

 

I can hear her furiously typing out a note to the manager.

 

We'll just let China have you. Don't shoot back now, that would be criminal.

 

Bach actcha. If you don't like our laws, stay wherever the hell it is you are, & deploy crockery or hockey pucks or whatever to defend you and yours. Did you watch the Kentucky vid? 4 intruders, and at least one of them was armed. Would you honestly prefer the homeowner had a skillet instead of a gun?

 

It's Canada and Canadian law. Not US Law. But under Canadian law, a person has a right to self defense if his actions are reasonable. I think he will be acquitted or the charges dropped eventually.

 

In a way it makes sense that laws in a country founded by criminals would favor criminals though.

 

Because we do not have the gun laws you do it is far less likely that our criminals also have guns

 

Color me unsurprised you didn't answer the question, lol.

 

It may not even get to a full court. If it is like Australia then he may have to face a magistrate who will then decide if the charges will be dropped or proceed

 

Sorry to disappoint you that I did not fall into your supposed trap but the real truth is that the NRA has convinced you all you are defenceless without a gun It will be so easy to invade America - wait until you have spent all your ammunition shooting at everything but the enemy then walk in while you are all sitting around crying because your guns no longer work

 

You're the one constantly advocating anything but a gun for self defense - but can't put your money where your mouth is, when confronted with genuinely violent criminals in the real world. The only "trap" is exposing your non-response for what it is: paranoia, or intellectual cowardice.

 

Oh, your criminals have plenty of guns alright. You just can’t defend yourselves without calling the cops.

cuz you gave your rights away.

 

Guns don't kill people. Lunatics firing guns kill people. Criminals with illegal guns, that won't stop with any measure of gun control, kill people.

 

What I have told you already and now repeat: If individual(s) are conducting a home invasion and they are in my house without my consent, they are in fact a real and present danger to me. In my house my alarm at this point would be going off or have been bypassed, my dog would be attacking or shot, and I live in a castle doctrine state. I certainly would legally be able to defend myself with lethal force.

I have to add that other than the locked front door my house is inaccessable without coming over a fence.

What I do not propose to do if this happens, particularly in the middle of the night, is conduct an interview or in-depth threat assessment over a cup of hot chocolate.

You would make a good shyster, the way you take what someone actually said and rephrase it to be something they did not actually say. A sort of strawman fallacy. lol

 

Totalitarian governments with guns kill people. And enslave people. Enabled by gun confiscation.

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Government-Genocide-Murder-Since/dp/1560009276/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3D0GTZEZTGAI&keywords=death+by+government&qid=1677110546&s=books&sprefix=death+by+governme,stripbooks,438&sr=1-1

 

Exactly what I was thinking. lol

 

You're thinking wrong. Because Chicago has some of the most stringent gun control in the nation. It's illegal for criminals to own guns in Chi-town, so they don't have any. Gun violence in Chicago = fake news. Because gun control. Duh.

 

What's funny is that if they get what they want, they wouldn't last 10 minutes.

 

Which is why the founding fathers had the brains to develop a constitution to protect the citizens of this country against the government, whether liberals want to accept it or not.

 

Just the other day in Chicago I observed two well dressed gentlemen who almost degenerated to fisticuffs over who got to escort an old woman across the road. To rob her.

 

You know what they say about apples and trees.

 

So you could perhaps grab this 13 year old by the scruff of the neck and kick him in the arse?

 

If someone (even a 10 year old) breaks into my occupied house, they threaten more than stealing a TV. Are they going to send me a notarized document that declares they will be unarmed on the night they intend to invade my home and that they have no intentions to harm my family? Stupid people win stupid prizes.

I'm about to build a house in the country on several acres. To break into that home, they will have to break the lock on the gate to get to my home. It's obvious that nobody would hear my family scream and nobody but me will defend them. I can't take any chances if a group of people breaks into my home.