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

Literacy is important.

https://law.stackexchange.com/quest...n-someone-threatening-violence-but-hasnt-used

 

Well yeah a face shot is going to do some serious damage. I guess it's just not something I'd consider as I know how hard it is to hit a moving object, let alone a head.

I doubt it would outperform getting shot in the face with 00 or 000 though (or anywhere else).

 

Leftists think you have to let someone kill you before you can defend yourself.

 

I'd like to say they aren't that stupid, but it looks like they are.

 

Some of the most ridiculous posts on this forum have been home defense scenarios.

When you get them into the weeds and really press them, they are willing to do nothing when it comes to their own safety.

It always boils down to the police or the neighbor will save me in every scenario.

 

It wouldn't but having shot clays at a world class level for 40 years and having shot thousands of birds and some bigger stuff with birdshot, I know what it can do at short ranges and its really nasty.

 

Same as in America.

 

Yeah I guess all I'm saying is for me personally I want to use something I know is going to stop them for sure.

 

Not according to some of the more fervent gun owners here lols!

 

This case wasn’t in America

Canada is a separate country last I looked

 

Two guys fighting, punching one another. Reasonable fight isn't it? Two guys in a boxing ring, each with boxing gloves, reasonable isn't it? So they're both using reasonable force, both punching, unfortunately one gets knocked out or submits. But what if one of them picked up a baseball bat and started to hit the other guy, is that reasonable force? If one submitted into defeat and the other carried on, is that reasonable force?

If you encounter a burglar/home invader, they're brandishing a screwdriver and a fight breaks out between you two, he gets stabbed by the screwdriver, or the screwdriver you happened to have in your back pocket, was that reasonable force? UK law says yes, common sense says yes.

Someone approaches your house, you shout, you put a light on and they start fleeing. You shoot them in the back/in the back of their legs, was that reasonable force? UK law says no, common sense says no.

Everywhere is not a war zone, it's not a 1776 battlefield, everything and every encounter doesn't need settled/solved with a gun.

 

It's the same in Russia. There is a right to self-defense, but in case of death, the case is considered by the court and it often happens that the defending person is found guilty.

 

Can I ask you? I read that in the state of California there is such a law: if you find a robber in your house, you can shoot him, even if he did not attack you and there will be no punishment for it. And as if because of this, many houses do not even have locks in the doors. Is it true?

 

If you shoot someone in self defense you will face a Grand Jury to explain yourself.

All of us know this. How come you don't?

 

All houses/homes have locks. Untrue.

In Texas a theif can be legally shot while running away into the night, provided that they absconding with your property and you don't know them.

 

Bat is an escalation where an armed response is warranted.

Home invaders are DRT. Burglar is detained or dead when I return home.

If you shoot someone for approaching your house then you are probably off your meds.

 

That is sad.

 

American board, discussing American values. You constantly try to impose nanny state mores on us.

 

Can you own firearms in Russia?

 

Incorrect. An armed response is actioned by the police to an incident that involves guns. As citizens and home owners, you protect yourself with reasonable force. If you shoot at a burglar who's unarmed, then by your definition, you escalated the situation to deadly.

Not everyone walking across someone's field/garden/yard is intent on criminal activity. Certainly an immigrant is both lost and unaware of laws and what land he's on. Not many burglars are wanting to kill you, they're after your TV.

Someone wanting to use a gun on a person in the false belief of it being macho and the only solution to an encounter/situation, is a danger to society, hence the stats.

 

Yea, he-he-he-he........

 

You can own, but you can not carry a weapon with you, only if a person goes hunting. Weapons should be kept in a safe at home. It is allowed to carry a traumatic weapon.

But Russia is a big country and in many areas these rules are not de facto observed. For example, in some places where there is a small population and a lot of wild animals, people often walk with weapons, although legally this is a violation of the law.

 

IF this is true (and of course, I had to find a legit URL to confirm), this is a bad call in my book... I have no issues with keeping a legally registered gun in your home for self defense and using it for that purpose, as seems to be the case here.

I would expect charges to be substantially lowered or removed all together after a full investigation...

 

Plenty lethal at the in-home self defense ranges we're talking about, and much less lethal after penetrating drywall in the event of a miss. I have an ex army ranger friend who has been able to confirm that in the real world.

My great-uncle had a neighbor who grew watermelons, which various residents in the area would try to help themselves to. He discouraged them using a 410 loaded the rice & rock salt. Very painful, which would become even more so as the rice expanded in the wound.

 

I said nothing about Australia and socialism. Your statements put words in my mouth that were untrue.