Taber man charged with assault for protecting his wife/home

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I agree with you. But he seems to fall back on the argument that it is HIS driveway and he has the RIGHT to park there regardless of whether their is a burglar, rapist or serial killer in his house. That is the decision that got him charged.

And I can't dispute that. He obviously has the right to do it, or to do many other things. What puzzles me is how it's so hard to understand that just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's a great idea to go ahead and do it. I can't even say I wouldn't have done the same thing and blocked the guy in, but to act like that doesn't increase the chances of confrontation dramatically it's just absurd.

Originally Posted by valo403

And I can't dispute that. He obviously has the right to do it, or to do many other things. What puzzles me is how it's so hard to understand that just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's a great idea to go ahead and do it. I can't even say I wouldn't have done the same thing and blocked the guy in, but to act like that doesn't increase the chances of confrontation dramatically it's just absurd.

I get that. But I don't think he does.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by pylon

I agree with him, our system is a joke. You could throw out a million examples as of why. You know our whole system protecting and pardoning pedophiles, our lack of capital punishment, and the fact that hopped up drug addict can break into your house and threaten your wife and children, and you are not allowed to kill the guy.

The fact this man has to answer to the justice system for protecting his home is pathetic... but hey, all the lawyers out there must love it.. more work for them. The second that idiot makes the decision to enter my home, and threaten the safety of my family, he has given up his rights. I would shoot the guy on the spot, regardless of what our pussified justice system thinks of it. The problem with the Canadian justice system is it seems like it spends more time thinking of ways to protect the bad people not the victims.

What do we need to do to improve our justice system?

We need to strip criminals of all of their rights. You get convicted of serious violent or sexual crime, you have none until you serve your full sentence. If you get an early release, you still have no rights until your probation is done. You get no health care, government assistance, unemployment benefits, no right to vote, no access to credit. You are also labeled with some sort of marker to inform anyone who comes into contact with you of what a piece of garbage you are. You can merely exist, like a stray dog, and have the same rights as that dog.

We need to re-instate the death penalty. In murder cases where there is zero doubt, or an admission of guilt, off to the chamber you go.

We need to castrate child molesters on their first offenses. And I don't mean chemically, chop it all off. Female offenders should be sewn shut. Even though the libs out there might be disappointed, you know..... how they think child porn is art and all. And no segregation for diddlers any more. Off to general population you go, and when you show up, it is announced over the prison PA system who you are and what you did. Also a nice leaflet with a picture of you, your victim, and a description of your crimes, should be handed out to all of the other inmates.

White collar criminals need to be sent to regular prisons and put in general population. The guy that robs thousands of people of millions of dollars, is a more serious offender than some guy that robbed a 7-11. He should not get preferencial treatment.

I know I sound like a barbarian or something, but I could care less about sick violent criminals, and I have zero empathy for their condition. I know we live in a society that protects the rights of everyone, but I feel it has gone too far, and we are too forgiving as a society now.

Good post, and I agree with almost everything except for stripping all their benefits and rights as that would only lead them to be a bigger scumbag than they already are.

I would like to see zero tolerance when it comes to sentencing and punishment though. Also wouldn't like to see the death penalty in Canada as that would only be a easy way out. I want to see them suffer in jail without freedoms.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Good post, and I agree with almost everything except for stripping all their benefits and rights as that would only lead them to be a bigger scumbag than they already are.

I would like to see zero tolerance when it comes to sentencing and punishment though. Also wouldn't like to see the death penalty in Canada as that would only be a easy way out. I want to see them suffer in jail without freedoms.

Would you also want your federal and provincial tax bills doubled, or worse? Because that is what it would cost.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Besides, the home owner can't be certain what the intentions of the intruder are. You don't know if the guy is there to rape your kids or take your VCR.

Then don't go in the house, like this guy did. How this can be part of your arguement baffles me. The guy didn't wake up in the middle of the night staring at an intruder. He went into the situation which he could have avoided.

Also, I see a home invasion as much more threatening and invasive than your example of a car collision in a public setting.

Sure, but if you want to be self sufficient you have to deal with everything that comes along.

Originally Posted by Rathji

I don't think anyone who gets emotional or combatative when they are faced with a (partially) unknown threat is unusual. Especially when that person is standing in the middle of my living room. Who knows what their intentions are. If they bolt the opposite direction, then I will likely let them leave and be happy with just the loss of property, but anything that is the least bit aggressive towards me or my family and all bets are off.

Like I said, stay the hell away from the situation. Quit throwing hypothetical situations into the discussion. The guy could have completely avoided the confrontation by calling the cops and waiting. Instead of blocking in the car, take down the plate number. Fact is he went in to the situation and now he has to deal with the consequences.

[CaptainCrunch]

At the end of the day, the ultimate justice would be the home owner and the burgler sharing a cell.



Not so tough without your car

[PIMking]

wow, if this ass hat did this here in Alabama he would be leaving in a body bag. Then the homeowner would be called a hero.

I don't want to know what #8 bird shot would feel like or some hollow points, but I would be sure that he wasn't walking out of my house if that were me.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Would you also want your federal and provincial tax bills doubled, or worse? Because that is what it would cost.

Is this a serious question? So instead of me paying 30% of tax I'm going to be paying 60%?

I didn't realize that the States paid 60% tax.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by speede5

Then don't go in the house, like this guy did. How this can be part of your arguement baffles me. The guy didn't wake up in the middle of the night staring at an intruder. He went into the situation which he could have avoided.Sure, but if you want to be self sufficient you have to deal with everything that comes along.
Like I said, stay the hell away from the situation. Quit throwing hypothetical situations into the discussion. The guy could have completely avoided the confrontation by calling the cops and waiting. Instead of blocking in the car, take down the plate number. Fact is he went in to the situation and now he has to deal with the consequences.

So you're all for basically being a b*tch? The guy would go home, and hopefully the police would find him before he sold your property. This argument just baffles me. I wouldn't let someone just waltz into my house and steal whatever they please, then wait on the pathetic police and court system in a year or so to return my items because they are tied up in the court system.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Is this a serious question? So instead of me paying 30% of tax I'm going to be paying 60%?

I didn't realize that the States paid 60% tax.

1. The US doesn't have a 'zero tolerance' sentencing policy, not even close.

2. Many US prison systems are nearly bankrupt.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by speede5

Like I said, stay the hell away from the situation. Quit throwing hypothetical situations into the discussion. The guy could have completely avoided the confrontation by calling the cops and waiting. Instead of blocking in the car, take down the plate number. Fact is he went in to the situation and now he has to deal with the consequences.

I was speaking more in general terms than in regards to this particular situation.

I don't think blaming him for getting into the situation is really fair though. He didn't invite jerkwad into his house to steal his stuff. You are forgetting that the guy made a choice to B&E a house and made another choice that rather than flee he would get into close range of the guy holding the hatchet.

Like I said in my previous post, if some guy is running away I wouldn't touch him. If he is coming at me, or my family all bets are off. You keep pointing out that he was parked behind the guy and should have been. You think that his wife in the car would not have been in danger had the fool been allowed to ram his way out of the driveway?

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by valo403

1. The US doesn't have a 'zero tolerance' sentencing policy, not even close.

2. Many US prison systems are nearly bankrupt.

it's also because of how pathetic our law system is. Get busted with a little pot? go to jail for 5 years! Murder someone? eh lets say 8 years...

Get my point?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PIMking

So you're all for basically being a b*tch? The guy would go home, and hopefully the police would find him before he sold your property. This argument just baffles me. I wouldn't let someone just waltz into my house and steal whatever they please, then wait on the pathetic police and court system in a year or so to return my items because they are tied up in the court system.

Being a b*tch? Seriously, you're not a moron, as far as I can tell you're a pretty smart dude, this isn't about how big your balls are, it's about not adding the potential for physical harm to you or your family to the situation over replacable property. Scare them off? Sure. Defend yourself? Of course. But for the love of god people don't create a situation where you could wind up dead because you wanted to get your Jethro Tull CD back.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Would you also want your federal and provincial tax bills doubled, or worse? Because that is what it would cost.

I'm not sure about what your saying here, so maybe you can clarify a bit.

But I don't think that you can sacrifice public safety and even the rehabilitation possibilities on the Altar of tax dollars.

I would be willing to spend more if it meant that multiple time offenders spent full sentences and concurrent sentences behind bars.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PIMking

it's also because of how pathetic our law system is. Get busted with a little pot? go to jail for 5 years! Murder someone? eh lets say 8 years...

Get my point?

Completely get your point, and I think it's the easiest area for reform. Sentencing for some low level crimes is so out of whack and it compounds the crowding problem, leading to early release for more serious crimes.

Originally Posted by PIMking

So you're all for basically being a b*tch? The guy would go home, and hopefully the police would find him before he sold your property. This argument just baffles me. I wouldn't let someone just waltz into my house and steal whatever they please, then wait on the pathetic police and court system in a year or so to return my items because they are tied up in the court system.

Uggh... but that's the point. IF you decide to put yourself into the situation and decide to confront an intruder you must realize there may be consequences. That shouldn't baffle you at all.

When the code states 'reasonable force' it isn't a definable term. It (the law) considers the totality of circumstances not just a blanket statement that bad guy broke into my house and I was defending my property and family. That's not how it works. The law considers a number of factors including degree of threat, actions of the bad guy, actions of the accused, weapon used, etc, etc...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

Completely get your point, and I think it's the easiest area for reform. Sentencing for some low level crimes is so out of whack and it compounds the crowding problem, leading to early release for more serious crimes.

If your going to keep low level grass possession and usage as a crime, then I would prefer productive time for those convicted.

There are lots of camp toilets in banff that need deep scrubbing, and lots of streets that need to be cleaned.

Now on the other hand, I still have a lot of trouble with possession in amounts that indicate distribution. But I really hate drug dealers.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm not sure about what your saying here, so maybe you can clarify a bit.

But I don't think that you can sacrifice public safety and even the rehabilitation possibilities on the Altar of tax dollars.

I would be willing to spend more if it meant that multiple time offenders spent full sentences and concurrent sentences behind bars.

I think a lot of people will echo your statements for most of the year, but when it comes time to mark a name on the ballot the guy who is going to increase taxes often doesn't fare too well.

I wouldn't be willing to pay more for increased levels of incarceration overall, but I would definitely pay more for increased treatment and rehabilitation for low level criminals and longer sentencing with more thorough parole reviews for more serious criminals.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by valo403

Being a b*tch? Seriously, you're not a moron, as far as I can tell you're a pretty smart dude, this isn't about how big your balls are, it's about not adding the potential for physical harm to you or your family to the situation over replacable property. Scare them off? Sure. Defend yourself? Of course. But for the love of god people don't create a situation where you could wind up dead because you wanted to get your Jethro Tull CD back.

I'm not going to call the police every time someone is parked in front of my house and wait for them to show up. If I go into the house and see that it has been ransacked I would tell the fiance to call 911 and at that point I'm glad I'm armed at all times.

I never ever want to take any persons life, they are a father,brother,uncle,sister,son,daughter ect. But if it comes to my life or theirs? I'm choosing mine.

Katie's father house was broken into not too long ago while he was on a business trip. I did the same exact thing, I told Katie to call 911 and at that moment I took my weapon out of the holster and explained that I was armed and that if he doesn't want to be shot to come out with his hands up. Then we basically went outside and waited for the police to show up.

It's a crappy deal, but I don't think the homeowner did anything wrong at all.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Is this a serious question? So instead of me paying 30% of tax I'm going to be paying 60%?

I didn't realize that the States paid 60% tax.

That would be very close, if not exactly what you would pay given the numbers as I understand them. Someone else might be able to give a more accurate account of the actual numbers because I don't have time to look for a copy of our recent justice system budgetary numbers. I honestly think my numbers here are extremely conservative.

Think of it this way. Every person who is put in jail is eligible for parole after serving 1/2 of their sentence, by default. If you make everyone serve a full sentence, you are going to increase the cost for housing existing prisoners by 100%. Thats double, just with who is currently in jail.

Then consider the number of people who get probation or some other type of community sentence for violent crimes like minor assault etc would be added to that prison population the number would increase even far more drastically because people who commit minor crimes make up the largest offender group in Canada by a large margin. Not only are you doubling the cost per prisoner, you are probably going to at least quadruple the number of prisoners (again, I think this is very conservative).

Then consider that you still need to convict these people, with more trials needed, because if you are going to jail you are way more likely to fight it. Right now there is such an extremely small amount of cases that actually go to trial in the justice system. So likely you would have an increase of trials in the 800-1600% range, possibly higher but again we will go with the conservative number and just assume 800%

Also, you would still need to deal with prisoners after their release, so despite getting rid of parole you would still need services for the prisoner afterwards.

Simple math says that is 8x the people being housed in prisons at any given time, so thats 8x the cost for the police, trial, incarceration, and release.

Still think it is a good idea to lock them all up and throw away the key?

I know the justice system isn't perfect, but the reality of the situation is no one is willing to do this, even if it was somehow a good idea from a crime prevention or reduction perspective, which it isn't.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would be willing to spend more if it meant that multiple time offenders spent full sentences and concurrent sentences behind bars.

Of course. Where do you draw the line? Those designated dangerous offenders? Isnt that pretty much how it works out now with our current system?