Jump to content

What Can One Do During Home Invasion?


Cum Laude

Recommended Posts

Interestingly, Judge Begbie concluded that the most important cause of the unrest was concern over title to land rather than "plunder or revenge"

A native judge or jury might have ruled they were just folks, standing their ground, defending their families.

Maybe it would depend on how much sentiment the principle was generating in society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Interestingly, Judge Begbie concluded that the most important cause of the unrest was concern over title to land rather than "plunder or revenge"

A native judge or jury might have ruled they were just folks, standing their ground, defending their families.

Maybe it would depend on how much sentiment the principle was generating in society.

 

What's a little plunder and revenge among pals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

I don't know yet I'm still testing how far the principle of standing your ground in defence of it extends.

Lets say an indigenous people decided to stand their ground and resist the invasion of their lands, how would you feel about that?

Are you really trying to stretch this to land claim issues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ?Impact said:

The problem is most people who ask that end up escalating the situation because it is not the last resort but something they plan for and they hurt their own families in far greater numbers than protecting them.

I'm asking you a question:  Are you saying you wouldn't resort to any violence to protect your family?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, betsy said:

I'm asking you a question:  Are you saying you wouldn't resort to any violence to protect your family?  

I am answering very clearly: I would not plan for violence.

 

7 hours ago, betsy said:

I better make sure I got knives of varying sizes and length - you know..... to match whatever kind the perpetrator is using.  :)

This goes along with the planning for violence. You are implying an arms war, just get the biggest gun you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

I think the people trying to establish standing one's ground as a principle or doctrine are doing that.

Why do you think its such a stretch?

No, that's what you're doing.  But okay, If I'm walking around a FN's house (on reserve or not) with intent to harm somebody, then yes, they have every right to 'stand their ground' and defend themselves.  To equate this to a FN's barricade like we saw in Caledonia, is disingenuous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Compared to the way the phrases "stand-your-ground" or "home-invasion" are bandied about ? If you say so.  

 

Exactly, so when you stretch things to the absurd, it makes reasonable conversation impossible.  You're confusing "home invasion" to a taking a claim on something that a person believes is rightfully theirs - but isn't.  Next you're gonna claim that these punks were simply taking what should rightfully be theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Exactly, so when you stretch things to the absurd, it makes reasonable conversation impossible.  You're confusing "home invasion" to a taking a claim on something that a person believes is rightfully theirs - but isn't.  Next you're gonna claim that these punks were simply taking what should rightfully be theirs.

Why would I say that? It sounds to me like these guys should have known better than to do what they did and the consequences are what they are.  If the case exposed problems with jury selection and the potential that has to undermine justice then we should try to do better.  If it also exposed an undercurrent of racist resentment towards natives then we should try to do batter there too.  I certainly think native people deserve better treatment than they've received in the often disgusting debate that many Canadians have indulged in.  

I'm commenting on the absurd commentary that has attended this trial, like claims to rights that don't exist.  I think it's fair to say the people likeliest to claim or desire a right to shoot trespassers also take a pretty dim view towards native claims and even natives in general given the racist tone to a good deal of the commentary out there.  That said, I'm left wondering why these dimwits would be surprised if militant natives took up the same absurd claim they do.  The principle would most definitely be the same but whether it's right or wrong is besides that point, the absurdity saw to that long before I came along and underscored it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Why would I say that? It sounds to me like these guys should have known better than to do what they did and the consequences are what they are.  If the case exposed problems with jury selection and the potential that has to undermine justice then we should try to do better.  If it also exposed an undercurrent of racist resentment towards natives then we should try to do batter there too.  I certainly think native people deserve better treatment than they've received in the often disgusting debate that many Canadians have indulged in.  

I'm commenting on the absurd commentary that has attended this trial, like claims to rights that don't exist.  I think it's fair to say the people likeliest to claim or desire a right to shoot trespassers also take a pretty dim view towards native claims and even natives in general given the racist tone to a good deal of the commentary out there.  That said, I'm left wondering why these dimwits would be surprised if militant natives took up the same absurd claim they do.  The principle would most definitely be the same but whether it's right or wrong is besides that point, the absurdity saw to that long before I came along and underscored it.

Maybe if the potential native jurors didn't sit and talk about how they wanted to find the dude guilty before the trial began, they would've been chose for the jury. 

BTW - I know it's been said, but if a group of white kids did what what done, the same outcome would've happened.  The only difference is, we never would've heard about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,751
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • wwef235 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • User went up a rank
      Mentor
    • NakedHunterBiden earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Videospirit earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...