Taber man charged with assault for protecting his wife/home

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by transplant99

You lose. True colors showing.

Simple question...did the guy do something wrong in entering his house as well...yes or no?

Why can you not, or refuse, to answer the question?

He didn't do anything illegal by entering his own house, that's for sure.

Don't know how it matters though.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Rathji

He didn't do anything illegal by entering his own house, that's for sure.

Don't know how it matters though.

If you have followed the thread you would understand that bleeding-heart liberal guy said he was the one who escalated the whole deal by parking in his driveway. (Provocation and what not) So I am wondering if the guy took it even further by entering his house knowing that

a) because that same car was in the driveway, (and that's the entire argument) that the guy should not enter his house even though its his property

or

b) by entering his house, thereby heightening the chances of a confrontation that he should not do that either. If this is wrong I would believe both instances to be incorrect by using his "logic" because what is being said is that no one should ever deal with a potential problem without police presence. Which is assinine.

I need to know if people truly believe that if someone pulls up to their house, enters it after grabbing security, that they somehow are then responsible for making things worse.

Its pretty clear. Somehow I doubt I will get an answer, though,because common sense seems to be on my side of thinking. Or I am completely out of touch with Canadian/ human values. Which I dont believe for a second.

No funny/smiley faces needed here.

[ComixZone]

so I just briefly read through some of the pages in this thread, so I may not have all the facts posted about the case and whatnot - and all it did was piss me off.

The guy clearly had no intention of killing the guy who had broken into his house. If he wanted to kill the guy, he would have used the other side of the hatchet. That in itself shows enough restraint in my eyes. He was defending his wife and himself, while using force - but it's a case of literally kill or don't kill. He hit him with the blunt side of the weapon, not the deadly sharp side of it. It's a clean choice to make, he did the one that had a less likely chance of killing the intruder.

It's a stupid stupid world when someone breaks into your house, poses a threat to your family's life - and you can't even justly hit him in the face with something without facing garbage like this.

There's right and wrong in this world - protecting your family while not trying to kill someone is right. Posing a threat to a family's well-being is wrong. Screw the law in cases like this.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

If you have followed the thread you would understand that bleeding-heart liberal guy said he was the one who escalated the whole deal by parking in his driveway. (Provocation and what not) So I am wondering if the guy took it even further by entering his house knowing that

a) because that same car was in the driveway, (and that's the entire argument) that the guy should not enter his house even though its his property

or

b) by entering his house, thereby heightening the chances of a confrontation that he should not do that either. If this is wrong I would believe both instances to be incorrect by using his "logic" because what is being said is that no one should ever deal with a potential problem without police presence. Which is assinine.

I need to know if people truly believe that if someone pulls up to their house, enters it after grabbing security, that they somehow are then responsible for making things worse.

Its pretty clear. Somehow I doubt I will get an answer, though,because common sense seems to be on my side of thinking. Or I am completely out of touch with Canadian/ human values. Which I dont believe for a second.

No funny/smiley faces needed here.

Good god are you stupid. I didn't say that he escalated a thing, I said that by blocking a means of escape he made the chances of an actual confrontation much higher. Those are different things, but you're clearly to dense to pick that up.

Re-read my posts. Maybe do it slower this time. Maybe ask someone with actual reading skills to help.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by valo403

Good god are you stupid. I didn't say that he escalated a thing, I said that by blocking a means of escape he made the chances of an actual confrontation much higher. Those are different things, but you're clearly to dense to pick that up.

Re-read my posts. Maybe do it slower this time. Maybe ask someone with actual reading skills to help.

Another excellent post by you. I've never read so many great "I'm better than the whole board because I know the law" posts.

Keep up the great condenscending, and insulting posts.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Another excellent post by you. I've never read so many great "I'm better than the whole board because I know the law" posts.

Keep up the great condenscending, and insulting posts.

Umm none of that has anything to do with the law at all actually. It's really just common sense. Is there a higher chance of a direct confrontation with someone if you block a means of escape, yes or no?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Another excellent post by you. I've never read so many great "I'm better than the whole board because I know the law" posts.

Keep up the great condenscending, and insulting posts.

Living in an ivory tower allows that I guess.

Im stupid, I read to fast, AND I need someone with "actual reading skills" to help me.

Classic.

[Mightyfire89]

Originally Posted by valo403

Good god are you stupid. I didn't say that he escalated a thing, I said that by blocking a means of escape he made the chances of an actual confrontation much higher. Those are different things, but you're clearly to dense to pick that up.

Re-read my posts. Maybe do it slower this time. Maybe ask someone with actual reading skills to help.

Ugh. You know, the personal attacks really undermines the point you're trying to make. I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying about this incident, but by losing your cool and lashing out, calling people stupid and dense, you pretty much lose any argument automatically in my mind.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

Ugh. You know, the personal attacks really undermines the point you're trying to make. I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying about this incident, but by losing your cool and lashing out, calling people stupid and dense, you pretty much lose any argument automatically in my mind.

You know I agree with you, but it's been 4 days of this with the same guy. I'm not even trying to say anything complicated or controversial and have on numerous occasions in this thread said I'd may well have done the same thing as the guy in Taber. Should have just stayed away.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by valo403

You know I agree with you, but it's been 4 days of this with the same guy. I'm not even trying to say anything complicated or controversial and have on numerous occasions in this thread said I'd may well have done the same thing as the guy in Taber. Should have just stayed away.

"This same guy" still wonders about the answer to the question.

Should the man have even entered his house or not?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

"This same guy" still wonders about the answer to the question.

Should the man have even entered his house or not?

Have you even read my posts? Read my response to PIM. It addresses the question directly. It's not my fault that you can't manage to actually read my posts.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by transplant99

If you have followed the thread you would understand that bleeding-heart liberal guy said he was the one who escalated the whole deal by parking in his driveway. (Provocation and what not) So I am wondering if the guy took it even further by entering his house knowing that

a) because that same car was in the driveway, (and that's the entire argument) that the guy should not enter his house even though its his property

or

b) by entering his house, thereby heightening the chances of a confrontation that he should not do that either. If this is wrong I would believe both instances to be incorrect by using his "logic" because what is being said is that no one should ever deal with a potential problem without police presence. Which is assinine.

I need to know if people truly believe that if someone pulls up to their house, enters it after grabbing security, that they somehow are then responsible for making things worse.

Its pretty clear. Somehow I doubt I will get an answer, though,because common sense seems to be on my side of thinking. Or I am completely out of touch with Canadian/ human values. Which I dont believe for a second.

No funny/smiley faces needed here.

I guess I should have worded it differently. I am unsure why anyone thinks it would matter in a legal sense that he parked his car in the driveway and went into his house. These 2 things are not illegal and not relevant in my opinion.

The only things that matter are:

a) did he hit the guy with a hatchet causing the damage
b) was it in self defense, or in defense of his family
c) was it reasonable force given the situation?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by valo403

Have you even read my posts? Read my response to PIM. It addresses the question directly. It's not my fault that you can't manage to actually read my posts.

Well I am stupid and all you know.

But, are you referring to this?

See I think what you did was fine, seems like your interest was securing yourself from a threat, not playing sherriff. I don't even know that what this guy did was wrong, the facts seem pretty incomplete. My only real point in all of this is don't pursue a potentially dangerous situation, rather do what you can to avoid it. Like I said, no need to risk your life or endanger that of family over material things.

If so, are you then saying that yes you agree the guy in THIS case was wrong for enteering his house? Was he pursuing a potentailly dangerous situation by checking his home out?

Would you have just sat outside and waited for the police...knowing full well there was a strange car in your driveway?

What I am trying to get at is pretty simple, even for a guy without reading skills like me.

You come home, you see something is amiss, you either do or dont arm yourself, you then see your property ransacked, you then go outside, you see a guy ramming his car into things, you then clobber him in the face TWICE even, and then you allow him to leave without anymore confrontation.

have you gone over the "line" in YOUR opinion in making things "worse" for your family or yourself? Yes or no?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Well I am stupid and all you know.

But, are you referring to this?



If so, are you then saying that yes you agree the guy in THIS case was wrong for enteering his house? Was he pursuing a potentailly dangerous situation by checking his home out?

Would you have just sat outside and waited for the police...knowing full well there was a strange car in your driveway?

What I am trying to get at is pretty simple, even for a guy without reading skills like me.

You come home, you see something is amiss, you either do or dont arm yourself, you then see your property ransacked, you then go outside, you see a guy ramming his car into things, you then clobber him in the face TWICE even, and then you allow him to leave without anymore confrontation.

have you gone over the "line" in YOUR opinion in making things "worse" for your family or yourself? Yes or no?

Sweet Jesus. What did PIM do in the situation he described? Did I say that what he did was perfectly fine?

You have your answer.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by valo403

Umm none of that has anything to do with the law at all actually. It's really just common sense. Is there a higher chance of a direct confrontation with someone if you block a means of escape, yes or no?

Really wasn't just talking about the post I quoted.

And to answer your question, yes there is a higher chance of confrontation if you block him in, but what exactly does "confrontation" mean?

Maybe he wanted to confront him to make a citizens arrest?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Really wasn't just talking about the post I quoted.

And to answer your question, yes there is a higher chance of confrontation if you block him in, but what exactly does "confrontation" mean?

Maybe he wanted to confront him to make a citizens arrest?

Which is my point, that's not something you do when you're facing an unknown situation and your family is with you, or at least not something you do without increasing the risk that harm will come to them. I get that in a situation like this rational thinking can go out the window though, which is why I've said that I may well have done the same thing.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by transplant

How about the very story we are discussing??

I think he did what any reasonable person would do, phone the police, grab something for protection when it appears someone may be around, check your house to see what has happened, then head back outside to be with your family. When confronted with the actual criminal in this situation and the guy is trying to ram his way out but is a threat to your wife, you drill him in the face, twice, to try and stop him from a) hurting anyone AND b) escaping from law enforcement. He is on a farm out in the country, so I have zero idea what it is that you reasonably expect someone to do. Its not like the poilice were parked around the corner eating donuts.

The "rural" part of this story has been overblown.

He may has well lived on the other side of town, the home owner is no more than 1 - 2 mins out of town. Basically on the edge of town. Shouldnt take anymore than a minute or two for police to respond, in fact, it could take longer for the police to respond has the house been on the other side of the highway, in town limits.

Taber cops may as well be around the corner eating donuts. Absolutely useless.

In this situation I sympathize with the home owner 100%, but police response time to the scene should not be any greater than to your average place in town.

No need to assume that since the article says "rural" that hes out in the middle of nowhere. Not even close to being the case.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by transplant99

You lose. True colors showing.

Simple question...did the guy do something wrong in entering his house as well...yes or no?

Why can you not, or refuse, to answer the question?

This is my issue, the Bad Guy was breaking the law. I feel that pretty much any rights that he had went out the window when he decided to break the law.

That's just they way I feel about it. Sorry.

[PIMking]

Look, we all have a difference in opinions, no need to do a personal attack.

I said that if it were my house and the guy was in there and somehow I confronted him I would shoot his right in his ass. Some of you don't like that and that's fine, we just need to respect each others opinion and have a discussion of differences in opinions with out insults.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Well if they allowed you to kill intruders in you'r house it would be a great way to get rid of someone you didn't like.

"Sorry officer he broke in and threatened my family, i had to shoot him, see that knife laying beside him"