Saipan Posted March 4, 2011 Report Posted March 4, 2011 We should. I agree. But sadly we don't. Not only you're not allowed to protect property using force. You're not allowed to use deadly force to protect your and your family's life. But you can call 911 Quote
cybercoma Posted March 4, 2011 Report Posted March 4, 2011 I agree. But sadly we don't. Not only you're not allowed to protect property using force. You're not allowed to use deadly force to protect your and your family's life. But you can call 911 Not true. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-2.html#anchorbo-ga:s_3_1-gb:s_34 Defending yourself "34(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if (a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and ( he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F)." So you are allowed to shoot someone under the appropriate circumstances. When it comes to defending your property you're allowed to use as much force as is "necessary" to stop the person. So one again, you're allowed to shoot someone under the appropriate circumstances. What you're not allowed to do is just shoot people indiscriminately. It has to be absolutely necessary or your life has to be in immediate danger. Quote
Saipan Posted March 4, 2011 Report Posted March 4, 2011 What the hell am I doing... You posted a law, in theory. In real life you don't get away with it because of interpretation. You'll be deemed to use "excessive force". Unless you're a cop. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 4, 2011 Report Posted March 4, 2011 What the hell am I doing... Looks like you are feeding the troll. Sometimes you don't realize it until it's to late. I think we've all been there. Quote
Scotty Posted March 4, 2011 Report Posted March 4, 2011 I'm still trying to figure that out. Well, it was supposed to be about police abuse of their powers during the G20. It seems to have morphed into some sort of half-assed gun control debate. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Saipan Posted March 4, 2011 Report Posted March 4, 2011 Nothing gets past you. This is the czech point Quote
Saipan Posted March 4, 2011 Report Posted March 4, 2011 Well, it was supposed to be about police abuse of their powers during the G20. No. It's about Police State. It seems to have morphed into some sort of half-assed gun control debate. That's how all police states start. The potentates ot the top first scare all the little hoplophobes to gain their support. Then it's all easier. Third Reich, Soviet Union, "People's Republic"....... Subjects don't own arms, free people do. Quote
g_bambino Posted March 9, 2011 Report Posted March 9, 2011 Here's an interesting observation on just how consistent is the concern for rights in Ontario: It was Christie Blatchford who first drew attention to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's predictable outrage at police actions at the G20 summit meeting in Toronto — and the CCLA's lack of concern about police actions at Caledonia five years ago.In the former, the CCLA demands a public inquiry; in the latter, public silence is acceptable. Why is G20 outrageous and Caledonia is not? Is it still a police state when the police refuse to do anything? Quote
GostHacked Posted March 9, 2011 Report Posted March 9, 2011 Here's an interesting observation on just how consistent is the concern for rights in Ontario: Is it still a police state when the police refuse to do anything? The police did nothing as the 'hooligans' torched the police cars and trashed shops at the G20. Nice try. Quote
Saipan Posted March 9, 2011 Report Posted March 9, 2011 The police did nothing as the 'hooligans' torched the police cars and trashed shops at the G20. Wasn't that police brutality? "There are going to be situations where people are going to go without assistance. That's just the facts of life." - - - LA Chief of Police, Daryl Gates. Asian shop owners understood that fact. And were armed during LA riots. Their stores were safe. Quote
g_bambino Posted March 9, 2011 Report Posted March 9, 2011 Nice try. Not really an answer to my question. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 9, 2011 Report Posted March 9, 2011 Not really an answer to my question. I was not aware there was a question. Quote
g_bambino Posted March 9, 2011 Report Posted March 9, 2011 I was not aware there was a question. Is English not your first language? Or do you just have trouble with punctuation? Quote
Saipan Posted March 9, 2011 Report Posted March 9, 2011 I was not aware there was a question. Why is G20 outrageous and Caledonia is not? Quote
Saipan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 I take that it would be politically incorrect to discuss anything that has to do with indians. Quote
Shwa Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 I take that it would be politically incorrect to discuss anything that has to do with indians. Discuss or troll? I mean, can you even discuss anything? Quote
treehugger Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 No. It's about Police State. That's how all police states start. The potentates ot the top first scare all the little hoplophobes to gain their support. Then it's all easier. Third Reich, Soviet Union, "People's Republic"....... Subjects don't own arms, free people do. Get real! you watch too much t.v Quote
Saipan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Shwa: Discuss or troll? I mean, can you even discuss anything? treehugger: Get real! you watch too much t.v Quote
William Ashley Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) people torching a police car does not equate a man with a prosthetic leg having his leg taken from him while he was sitting peacefully at queens park.. likewise the cops assaulted.... the people here.. http://harpergovernment.ca 1. the cops putting on their "rough and tumble gloves" is a message of violence. 2. the police office touched (put the person into his custody" without any charges.. also assault - (unreasonable use of force) It was clear intiminatation portraying a message of violence and breach of civil rights. There was no lawful order and there was no breach of the peace by the "peaceful people" who refused an unlawful search. The constitution CANNOT be suspended by the police or the provincial government.. it would be unlawful. It is a breach of state (also known as a coup if directed against the government) unlawful use of force IS illegal. breach of constitutional rights IS illegal. That is the problem with the harper government.. THEY ARE CRIMINALS disguised as government.. UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT THEY ARE NOT LEGITIMATE! They are tearing down the status quo and they should burn for it. I mean that. That is why cruisers burned.. because they burned Canada. They attacked their own. if they are actually what they claimed to be - impersonating police. They are criminals impersonating the police, and government, they are criminals and traitors! A government that is commiting indictable offences can be captured or killed if it resists. There is lawful use of force and unlawful use of force. I am not suggesting commiting unlawful acts of violence in insurrection I AM SUGGESTING that citizens exercise their LAWFUL rights and duties as citizens and prevent unlawful acts of violence perpetuated by the government, and take into custody those members of the government commiting indictable offences contrary to the laws of Canada. USE YOUR LAWFUL RIGHT, it they take flight or resist any reasonable force is lawful including causing death if required. END THE POLICE STATE!!! EXERCISE YOUR RIGHTS! BE ENFRANCHISED! YOU ARE YOUR OWN LAST BASTION OF CANADA! DRED NOT. DONT TREAD ON US! Edited March 10, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
guyser Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 That is why cruisers burned.. because they burned Canada. I thought it was newspapers, lighter fluid and a match. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Is English not your first language? Or do you just have trouble with punctuation? English is my first language. And I do my best to use spell check and review my punctuation. I simply got tired of answering you seriously. Quote
William Ashley Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) I thought it was newspapers, lighter fluid and a match. Who started them... hmmm? Edited March 10, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Saipan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 people torching a police car does not equate a man with a prosthetic leg having his leg taken from him while he was sitting peacefully at queens park.. Not unless they burned it 1. the cops putting on their "rough and tumble gloves" is a message of violence. I put on seat belt even if I don't expect to tumble. It was clear intiminatation portraying a message of violence and breach of civil rights. Liberal government tradition. The constitution CANNOT be suspended by the police or the provincial government.. it would be unlawful. Unfortunately Trudeau "constitution" is well open to interpretation. We don't even have right to property. END THE POLICE STATE!!! We already did get rid of Liberals. Quote
guyser Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Who started them... hmmm? Those black hooded guys , picture in the newspaper and all. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.