You know what? I’m aware of that. I know how hard it is to grapple with a like sized opponent, even when we’re just grappling for fun. Still, I stand by my previous post. If I hop on his back and start to choke him out, one of two things is going to happen. Either he’ll ignore me, in which case he’ll be unconscious shortly, or he’ll turn his attention to me, and I am a hell of a lot more able to withstand his attack than a toddler. I may lose. He may kill me if he’s in a drug fueled rage, but if it saves the toddler, so be it. I can’t think of a better way to die, can you?
Do you have a cite for this? I really don’t believe that you would be charged if you used deadly force to stop a madman from killing yourself or someone else. Even though Canada was a commonwealth country, you’re not England for God’s sake. Things make more sense up there.
Who is to say that if? The man was beating a toddler to death. If you kill him to prevent that, are you saying that you will be charged with a crime? I don’t believe it. Canada isn’t that fucked up, I’ve been there, it’s just not. Again, do you have a cite?
Yeah, count me in the “that’s fucked up” crowd too, if that’s true.
People should always have the right to use whatever force is necessary to decisively end a direct physical threat, whether to themselves or to an innocent third party. And it’s downright absurd to say that police officers should have the right to self-defense, but “regular people” should not. For that matter, here in my own state of Washington, private citizens actually have slightly more latitude in the use of deadly force in defense than do the police. There are additional statutory standards that apply to law enforcement officers in the discharge of their duties that do not apply to everyone else.
Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I called The Calgary Police Service and asked this question: “If I am being attacked and am in fear for my life, or if I witness a thug attacking someone else unable to defend them self and believe that that person is in danger of being killed, if I use deadly force to foil the attack (including using a gun so long as I have the right to posses that gun in accordance with Canadian law), would I be charged with a crime?”, and the answer from the police Sargent who answered the phone was, after qualifying that the final decision in that case would be made by the Canadian equivalent of the district attorney (magistrate? I can’t remember the exact title), “Of course not”. I even used this situation to illustrate, and the Sargent still said “No, you wouldn’t”. It’s hardly the end all and be all of cites, but I figure a Calgary cop would know at least a little about self defense laws up there, wouldn’t he?
And any fool who HAS committed a felony, or multiple felonies, can buy a gun too. The law doesn’t stop them from doing so, either. This is a nonargument.
Another nonargument. Obviously this guy didn’t need a gun to kill the baby, he did it easily with his own hands - a perfect example of how criminal psychopaths will do what they want to do regardless of the laws. (I’ve been looking through the Texas database of executed felons, out of morbid curiosity, and reading their case files. You’d be amazed at how many of them killed their victims by strangling or stabbing them.)
Have you ever personally seen someone who’s on meth? I have. It’s a scary sight. They lose a lot of their human reasoning, but can gain mad determination, and if they feel like killing a baby, they’re going to do it, come hell or high water.
In other words, you think that if someone on crack is about to kill my girlfriend, I should either let the person who I love more than anything else in this world be killed, or be locked away in jail where I could be raped or murdered.
If I had any respect for you at all before, you had better believe I have absolutely none now.
It’s an awful lot of what ifs. And another one, if we’re not allowed to put any faith in the training given to police officers, why should we expect the average by stander to be superior.
Should we sheepishly assume that most gun owners would be superior people to have around in the circumstances?
Actually, it comes from the sincere belief that most people wildly overestimate their competence at, well… just about everything. I have no reason to believe that everyone who owns a gun is competent to use it in a dangerous situation, any more than everyone who owns a tennis racket is competent to play at Wimbledon.
Believe it or not, I’m not averse to gun ownership. Yay Second Amendment and all. But where do people get the idea that the world would be a safer place if everyone were armed?
In other words, force may be met with force, and deadly force may be met with deadly force. I’m not sure how the laws apply to protecting someone else though; does “any one under his protection” include strangers? Any Canadian lawyers want to chime in here?
Even someone who was only mediocre at shooting would have a better chance at stopping this horrible killing than someone who was unarmed. And in this specific case, for this specific child who will never have a life to live, it would have been better if there was someone, anyone, with a gun to help, than nobody at all.
With that said, I think everyone who owns a gun should practice regularly.
So many of these arguments - the “hey I’m all for the second amendment BUT -” kind - are just missing the point here, big time. The second amendment is all about private gun ownership and the right to it. No, I don’t think EVERYONE should be armed - I think everyone should have the CHOICE to be armed. Believe it or not, a civilian can be just as good with a gun as a cop, and a cop can be just as shitty with a gun as a low-grade thug. The idiot cop who shot himself in the leg, that I linked to earlier, is just one example. Cops shoot innocent people by accident with alarming regularity.
I’m not saying this to be anti-cop, because I’m not. But please. Don’t think the police badge gives the wearer superhuman powers. And don’t think that every armed private citizen is a vigilante hothead.
In any case, I think the ultimate problem is ignorance. Ignorance about guns, ignorance about how to use them and how not to, and ignorance about the type of people that gun owners are or are not. And a lot of prejudice, broad brushes, and cheap smears against gun owners.
In this specific case, an armed passerby could have given this poor baby a chance at life. That’s all there is to it. Arguing otherwise is sheer ignorance.
Yeah and an untrained COP could have missed and shot the baby. And a COP could have not been there in time. I’ve seen cop cars get stuck in traffic. I’ve called the police before, for various incidents, and had them take an insane amount of time to respond. For God’s sake, I’ve seen cop cars turn their lights on just to go through red lights, and then turn them off again, just like in Superbad.Cops can be a real bunch of fuck-ups sometimes.
I won’t argue that at all. I just argue against the idea that any armed passerby who shows up with a gun is going to be a calm, rational and experienced marksman. Merely the prescence of a gun and a triggerman at a situation like this is not the complete solution.
Okay, the story continues to be updated. I can’t link to the newer versions as I’m on a new laptop and am still learning how to use it. My starting the thread wasn’t mere RO but because I was gobsmacked by the murderer’s behavior.
It certainly looks like the guy was completely off his rocker. The bystanders say he wasn’t in a rage, but completely calm. He was saying he was “just getting the demons out of the boy” and other bizarre things. Also, he had no criminal record at all. I wonder what the toxicology reports will show.
To avoid cluttering up the Pit with more RO about dead kids - this from Brisbane, Australia:
The kids lay dead in their bedroom (in which they apparently lived constantly) for over a week, before an 11-year old sibling noticed the smell and mentioned it to the mother! :eek: This just breaks my heart!
Yes. Which is why all gun owners should train regularly. Even so, I still think the majority of legal, concealed handgun permit holders would be skilled enough with their weapon to have saved the baby’s life. This isn’t a two-hundred yard sniper shot we’re talking about, it’s a full grown man at close range. And the man was unarmed.
And there’s the rub. Given the fact (okay, so it’s just my opinion) that most people don’t even know how to drive a car correctly and that the idea of having to retrain drivers would be met with major objection, I tend to doubt that most yahoos that had a gun would bother to submt to regular retraining sessions.
And I’ll accept that. But you also have to accept the possibility (and the probability as gun owenership increases) that the person who came along with the gun would be another screaming yahoo who just wants to start shooting. I would hope the person who came along would be trained and able. But it’s certainly not a given.
This just breaks my heart!