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

That's all proof and the fact that you chose to not refute even one aspect of it is simply more evidence.

Are you going to tell me that you didn't have covid camps? Are you going to tell me that you have a first amendment? I'll take it easy on you so you can just start with those two.

And just so you know... Here in America, " mate "... Has quite a different meaning. Thank you and all but I already have a mate.
How much freedom do the Aborigines enjoy in your country?

 

" Let them swing first " is about the dumbest advice I have ever heard anyone say. If someone is aggressively entering into your personal space you would be a fool to sit there and wait for them to hit you

 

Its would be idiotic if it were true, but fortunately its not true. You should not be carrying guns, since you know so little about the laws. Shooting an unarmed woman for exchange of words is called murder. Yes, even in Texas.

Its telling you are the only one here who has said it.

 

I have supplied links to at least three international sites all saying the same thing. I even posted a list of the criteria used.

And for the one millionth time NO we did not have “Covid Camps”. The NT a which has a massively vulnerable population of indigenous people, converted an unused mining camp - which had separate fully furnished and serviced units, into a staging area for people coming into the country. They could stay there for two weeks until they tested negative - other states used “Hotel Quarantine” where if you were coming into the country you stayed in a hotel/motel for two weeks. Quarantine has always been an acceptable intervention and every country including the USA has quarantine legislation in place

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html

it is just your Dipshit President who could have enacted these measures very early instead of useless “bans” that did nothing since people rerouted around them.

Comes back to that section “safety and security” and THAT is where you are falling down

 

Doesn’t surprise me that liberal Canada would defend the criminal. No man that is willing to take private property from another deserved my concern for his life.

 

And yet here you sit on an American board worried about our politics and policies.

I guess you enjoy our first amendment a little bit better than your own

 

They are not “defending the criminal” as they were arrested and charged as well. In some jurisdictions they will be charged with murder since thier actions led to the death of one of the group. It does not matter if a gun was involved or not

 

They sure as hell have no concern for how hard you work for it and feel that they're entitled to take it.

 

Could use an Aussie board but own politics is not as “entertaining”as yours

And this gripe seems a little……. Considering we are discussing a CANADIAN case

 

Did you or did you not start crowing about your so-called freedom index and talking about this country?
Yes.... Yes you did

 

How do you defend a dead person?

 

A man’s right to self defense and personal property are being attacked. If not for the intruder he never would have been in this position. The are defending the act of robbery and break ins by attacking this man’s natural rights.

 

They are defending the act of robbery by giving them safe passage to do so. No man should be lawfully secure in his life while violating an innocent man’s rights to property

 

You said they were defending the criminal, and now you say they are giving them safe passage, even though one is dead and the other under arrest. In Canada there is no right to kill people to defend property. Its as simple as that.

 

By prosecuting the victim they are giving the criminal safe passage. He may be dead but future criminals will know they can be legally protected from risks involved while violating another.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book(quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Thomas Jefferson even understood this concept the right to bear is designed to protect from being attacked with confidence. That confidence should never be given to those who are willing to violate others.

 

You wrote

 

One is dead and the other in jail, so your idea of 'safe passage' is quote strange.

Also, looking at burglary stats US vs Canada, it turns out US is worse off.

The law hasn't changed. It has always been like this in Canada.

Canadians are not disarmed, and this has nothing to do with gun control, This has to do with laws regarding use of deadly force. As a matter of fact its not a gun issue at all, because the same laws apply no matter what weapon was used, or no weapon at all.

 

It’s the concept that applies. Laws that embolden the criminal. I’m sorry if you fail to see the similarities in the quote I provided. I obviously over judged your comprehension abilities.

 

If “laws embolden the criminal” why has America got a far higher murder rate than Canada?

 

Once again - not “prosecuting” the victim. Charges have been laid on the initial presentation but this may not go to court. Charges may be dropped as the police investigation continues, charges may be dropped or changed if/ when it comes before a magistrate or, charges may be upheld if it turns out it was not a home invasion, saybut a drug deal gone wrong

 

This has everything to do with gun control. If you pass laws that disarm the victim then what’s the point in having a gun at all? The law that this man violated disarmed him of his right in self defense of life and property.

 

No, this is how it has always been in British law and those countries that derived law from Britain. If I were you I would be reading up on my state law because I have found several instances where this also applies in the US

 

Progressives are evil. They protect criminals against innocent people and victims. It's disgusting. They should all be ashamed.

 

No nothing to do with “gun control”. As soon as one person died then the charge is automatic NO MATTER THE MANNER OF DEATH.

 

It does apply to my state. I can not simply shoot someone for robbery. However if they were in my home and I had reasonable fear for my life (this man was attacking another in his home) I would be legal to shoot them and that applies in almost every state.