Not necessarily directed at Hamlet, but others as well.
How far do feel a homeowner is allowed to go to protect his family at 3AM? What if the homeowner insists the burglar remain until the police arrive and he refuses, choosing to abandon his felonious endeavors and evade capture?
I’m not suggesting shooting someone you see jumping out a window, but someone you actually catch in the act of pocketing some family heirlooms from your dresser drawer for instance.
I’m pretty sure I know what would happen if this case was in Texas.
For the VAST majority of people, even accomplished cooks, where does County Line rate for BBQ compared to what they can make with the likely level of experience and equipment they have access to?
Correct, but it is just a presumption. We don’t know all of the facts yet. If the burglar immediately drops to his face and screams, “I’m sorry, Please God don’t hurt me!” and sobs like a little girl, you can’t then run to the kitchen, grab a knife and skewer him.
The presumption is to protect the homeowner under iffy circumstances. No need to guess and end up dead because you need to establish that he is in your home to hurt you. You can presume it. But the facts may rebut that presumption.
e.g. Drunk guy stumbled through your front door that you forgot to lock and passes out face first on the couch. You can’t put a bullet into the back of his head.
I’m all for strong castle doctrine and stand your ground laws, but all facts need to be known first.
With a Weber Smokey Mountain, it would take a halfway decent cook 3 or 4 tries to get the brisket right (maybe a few more), but pulled pork would likely be far better almost immediately. If that home cook had access to a Big Green Egg or a larger smoker, he or she would be shooing strsngers off the front porch.
I think that all these questions should be informed by the assumption that if you (a law abiding citizen) has a gun, then so could the burglar. So as long as he is capable of turning around and firing off a round of two at me, I can shoot him in the anus if I want unless he is running with his hands in the air. If he’s lying wounded on the floor then I can shoot him unless his hands are in the air.
In fact I don’t even feel a need to tell the burglar to put his hands int he air. He’s the professional, he should know this stuff better than me.
Ask any cop if they feel safe chasing a suspect just because the suspect is running away. Or if they feel safe once the suspect is wounded or on the ground.
Sure, if you consider Applebee’s a BBQ restaurant. You want good pasta sauce, you can make it yourself or you can go to a good italian restaurant where they call it ragout. Same with most bbq joints. They don’t actually smoke it, they just slow cook it. So to bring this all back to the burglary thread.
If you are smoking some brisket and the smell attracts trespassers who help themselves to a plate of your brisket, can you shoot them in the dick if they are holding a plateful of your brisket?
No, you ask them to put down the plate before you shoot them in the dick so they don’t drop the brisket, which would force you to shoot them in the head in self defense.
WHAT!?!?! Canada doesn’t have the castle doctrine? When did you get rid of it? Isn’t Canada a common law country? Isn’t castle doctrine really old english common law?
I been telling my kid playing Grand Theft Auto it’s not good sport to shoot people in the privates areas.
She seems to enjoy doing it anyways, for some reason.
We were eating some very delish BBQ short ribs I did up on the grill earlier while she was using the PS3 to shoot people in the arse and other weird places yesterday. Mmmmmm.
He was fine, they were still going out at the conclusion of the thread, but I don’t speak to the poster any more (I had him on facebook, but I forgot his name so can’t help you out). I’m fairly sure it was a baseball bat, can get them from JJB sports. Seems no-one actually plays here and I’ve certainly never seen a diamond. Only time I’ve seen an English person with a baseball bat, he was keeping it in the car for “self-defence”. Far easier to swing for that purpose than a cricket bat, IMO. Personally, I’ve avoided anything with a heavy ball since breaking a neighbour’s shed window. Luckily they didn’t shoot me.
HAH! That’s a good one. What is this? “Leaping to extrapolated conclusions” hour? Man I can’t figure if I should call you a dipshit or suggest you get some help.
We’re in the pit, and I’m throwing in my two cents. With a hefty pile of snark and sarcasm.
If you think that I’m actually a stone-cold killer, based off of some off-handed comments on an internet message board forum dedicated to thinly veiled threats and vulgar obscenity laden tirades about the miseries of others, well then ok. Go ahead and think that. Whatever gives you the niftiest dreams I guess…My guess is that you’re hoping to really get this train off the tracks in a large way so you’ll have something to do for a while.
However, my initial statement, that this guy would have had an easier time if the burglar was actually dead instead of alive to testify, that one I actually do agree with. It doesn’t mean that I myself would have killed the guy. Just making the point that a dead burglar isn’t gonna sue you for treating him poorly during his burglary.
Canadian law governing defense of property is codified at §38 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Common law only applies in Canada (as here and in England) in the absence of contrary statutory provisions.
But the presence of a burglar in your home can of itself quite reasonably be considered a threat.
Even if he’s done nothing specifically and overtly threatening, his very presence is just that. It isn’t reasonable or practical to tell the homeowner that he must take steps to measure the level of threat before taking action.
With respect to removing someone from one’s home, the law in Canada is set out at section 41 of the Criminal Code. This trumps common law.
The crux of the test is that no more force than is necessary may be used. What is necessary is determined by the court.
With respect to defending one’s self from assault, the law in Canada is set out at section 34 of the Criminal Code. This trumps common law.
The crux of the test is that no more force than is necessary may be used. What is necessary is determined by the court.
With respect to defending someone under one’s protection from assault, the law in Canada is set out at section 37 of the Criminal Code. This trumps common law.
The crux of the test is that no more force than is necessary may be used. What is necessary is determined by the court.
Criminal Code of Canada: Criminal Code
To translate this into Bubba (we have them here too): get 'er done, but don’t over do 'er.
Let me repeat once again - what is it now, the fifth or sixth time I’ve said this? - I am completely aware and I am completely in agreement that the presence of an intruder in your house would normally be a legitimate threat to you or your family.
So can we just drop the idea that I am saying otherwise?
Now here’s what I’ve actually been saying: that it is possible for an intruder to be in your house and not be a threat. Some examples:
You walk in your front door and the intruder is running out the back door.
You’ve shot the intruder and he’s lying wounded and incapacitated on the floor.
The intruder got into your liquor cabinet and drank himself into unconsciousness.
You’ve pulled your gun on the intruder and he’s surrendered. He’s lying face-down on the floor and you have him covered with your gun.
In all of these scenarios, the intruder is still a burglar. But he is not a threat. This is an important distinction. Because, as I’ve been posting, you can’t shoot an intruder because he is a burglar. You can only shoot him if he is a threat. You cannot shoot a burglar if he is not threatening you.
I’d like to think this clears up any possible confusion. But I actually think it’s likely I’ll have somebody posting to explain to me how a burglar in the house is obviously a threat.
Let me point out the obvious, Uber. Those things that made you look bad in this thread? Those were quotes of your posts. If you don’t want to look bad in future threads, I’d suggest putting more thought into what you post.
I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about you in the past and I don’t plan on spending much time thinking about you in the future. But you’ve got my attention at the moment.
Rest assured I don’t think you’re a stone-cold killer. I have you pegged more as somebody who likes to talk like a bad-ass on the internet because it’s a safe place to pretend to be a tough guy. It’s not like anyone on a message board can challenge you to back up your talk.
