To: Clive
2 posted on
03/04/2011 2:35:35 AM PST by
Squawk 8888
(Will work for chocolate)
To: Squawk 8888
I think it clear that if criminals are trying to burn down your house you can use deadly f0rce to stop them.
3 posted on
03/04/2011 4:02:45 AM PST by
RalphC.
To: Squawk 8888
Crown attorneys have dropped two gun charges against an Ontario man who shot at masked intruders firebombing his home, saying they had no “reasonable prospect of conviction.” Well, isn't that generous of the Crown. (The real question is why would government authorities charge the homeowner in the first place.)
4 posted on
03/04/2011 4:09:58 AM PST by
6SJ7
(atlasShruggedInd = TRUE)
To: Squawk 8888
“It seems in some sense to violate common sense, but self-defence is a morally ambiguous situation and therefore a legally ambiguous situation,” said Gary Mauser,”
Not in my mind it isn't.
5 posted on
03/04/2011 4:18:37 AM PST by
bitterohiogunclinger
(Proudly casting a heavy carbon footprint as I clean my guns ---)
To: Squawk 8888
Police charged Mr. Thomson with four gun offences, but on Wednesday, Crown prosecutors withdrew the most serious charges of pointing and using a firearm. He hailed the Crown’s decision to drop the charges as a victory, but said he is still determined to fight two remaining charges of careless storage of a firearm, which carry a maximum penalty of jail time.
Can you imagine the problems facing an American RV-er in this situation?
7 posted on
03/04/2011 4:41:53 AM PST by
TYVets
(Pure-Gas.org ..... ethanol free gasoline by state and city)
To: Squawk 8888
I take it that to these Crown Prosecutors, “Fire Bombing” is merely an act of act of high-spirits and thus legally a minor fault. The home-owner/resident needed to exercise prudent care lest he damage their egos and self-esteem.
If this is legally ambiguous, then I suppose that Canadian “Tommies” will now have to use loudspeakers to read the entire Geneva Accords to the enemy before engaging in self-defense? There but for the Grace of God and our Founders is the fate of the United Colonies - shudder.
8 posted on
03/04/2011 4:51:22 AM PST by
SES1066
(Thank you for your vote in November, now let us get to work!)
To: Squawk 8888
“He hailed the Crown’s decision to drop the charges as a victory, but said he is still determined to fight two remaining charges of careless storage of a firearm, which carry a maximum penalty of jail time.”
_______________________________________________________________
Guess he should’ve stored his guns completely disassembled underneath his home’s foundation.
9 posted on
03/04/2011 4:51:48 AM PST by
Free in Texas
(Martin Luther King was a Republican and Karl Marx played the stock market...'nuff said.)
To: Squawk 8888
... but self-defence is a morally ambiguous situation ...NO
IT'S
NOT
10 posted on
03/04/2011 5:06:39 AM PST by
NonValueAdded
(Palin 2012: don't retreat, just restock [chg'd to comply w/ The Civility in Discourse Act of 2011])
To: Squawk 8888
...saying they had no “reasonable prospect of conviction.” Should be "no reasonable cause for prosecution."
Is Canada a 'presumed guilty' country?
12 posted on
03/04/2011 5:28:35 AM PST by
CPOSharky
(After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson