...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Not the same headline, but a recent one:
Interesting. Rather than calling 911 herself, she called her husband, who called 911 from another location; that doesn't seem very efficient to me. So according to the article she murdered a man who was 'rummaging through her belongings'. It doesn't even sound as though the man was armed.
It seems the law down there allows this sort of lethal force against misdemeanors so one might say he 'asked for it'.
I'm very ambivalent regarding anyone's choice to keep a firearm in their home. Given that the intruder doesn't even seem to have been armed, and she was given plenty of time to get her children out of the line of fire, and even more to mentally prepare, it seems like the optimal situation to kill an intruder, in a place where the law allows for that.
Now you gave me hell for bringing armed guards at banks into the mix - so why have you taken the liberty to move to a home invasion by an unarmed man?
He doesn't look like he needs arms...other than the two attached to his shoulders.
In the United States (don't know about you folks up North) when you break into someone's home the presumption is that you're up to no good. The occupant is under no obligation to ask "Are you armed? Do you mean us any harm?" though I guess that is the practice up Canada way. If things get dicey, you toss empty Molson bottles at them. Down here, you just don't break into someone's home and if something bad happens to you as a result, well it's on you.
He broke into the home with a crowbar and ultimately chased them into a crawl space and continued to approach them. I think it's safe to assume his intentions weren't friendly. I'd have shot him myself under those circumstances.
Up here in Canada, if you break into someone's home, it is also assumed that you are up to no good. The occupant of that home, however, is not assumed to be judge, jury, and executioner.
I'm not certain what story you were reading, but in the one I read he didn't chase anyone. He 'rummaged through' their things, ultimately opening the closet door where the wife/mother was hiding. Nice attempt to add some drama to it though.
She might have called out from the bedroom saying she had a gun and had already called the police - except she hadn't actually called the police - which poses a significant defense problem here in Canada. She might then have fired a single shot into the hall leading to the bedroom if she heard anyone approaching.
There were a lot of options there, but I can certainly understand why she would choose to hide in the closet until discovered and then, upon discovery, empty a revolver into the guy's face. I do find it odd that she never called the police, however.
This story makes it clear he was pursuing them and cornered them. Sorry, I don't feel sorry for him. He could have been minding his own business.
I'm glad that in my country if someone breaks into my home, I don't have to answer to a judge or jury. Makes life a lot less complicated.
You're the one who went off topic. I can decide how far to indulge you.
Actually that version doesn't make it clear that he was pursuing them - not the language it uses at all. Just like the other articles it says he was rummaging through their things, although in this version it has the mother in the crawl space with the kids when he encounters her.
If you can't even stick with the basic facts of the story then there is, for me, no point in continuing this discussion.
Among other reasons.
You missed the part where he followed one of the children?
I just did a word search on the page and it's not giving me the word 'follow' in the text so I have no idea what you think you are reading.
Do a word search on the video on that page. Or watch it.
It's sure interesting that the narrative doesn't match at all with the written story based on statements released by the police. How do you know which one is accurate?
They are congruent. The police statements are simply a subset of the larger story. And it doesn't really matter to the police, anyway. In the U.S., a home invader may be shot dead
In the case of a home invader who's abandoned his intentions and has exited the house, I don't think it should be legal to shoot him under that circumstance because the threat has passed.
The flaw with the Canadian approach, which is that you can only use force equal to the one presented by the intruder is twofold: 1) you can't read their mind to decide if their intent might be murderous; 2) if you confront them armed with a roller pin and they produce a knife or a gun, what do you do? do you tell them, "Hold on, pardner, while I go get my own knife/gun?" Better to be armed with superior force.
What exactly happens in Canada if I confront an intruder while I'm holding a gun and he produces a very nasty knife or Taserl and proceeds to use it? Do I need to drop my gun and kick him in the nuts?
You sound like a theist trying to resolve Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. I noticed that the extra 'details' added in the story were in voice over by the reporter, not even spoken during the interview.
Anyway, in Canada we just don't have your problems. Our murder rate is about 2/3rds less per capita and when home invasions happen to 'regular people' they just take your stuff, perhaps drain your bank account, and go. Insurance covers the losses, and police arrest the criminals later - so we just don't need to murder them in our homes in front of our children because we just don't live in your sort of 'culture'.