Comments by "" (@Green__one) on "LegalEagle" channel.

The issue for the couple was that security cameras weren't really a thing yet, and without the shotgun they never would have known who it was who had stolen things.
2
@DM-Raven But is it common sense that the place you can't defend is the property that you own, and that the only reason you can't defend it is because a judge said so, despite the majority of society disagreeing?
1
There are now better alternatives, but there's still debate as to whether any are "good enough" Burglar alarms and security cameras weren't really readilly available at the time of this incident, and are today. That said, for rural homeowners, the response time of police is such that the burglar is likely to be long gone before they get there, and cameras are relatively easy to foil.
1
Defence of the country from invading armies. The first half of the amedment makes that perfectly clear, the part about a "well regulated militia". What it's become has nothing to do with what the point is. That said, I personally believe that the court erred in this case, for a few reasons: 1) the couple had tried multiple, escalating, defences that all proved ineffective. 2) the trap could not in any way be activated, or pose any risk to anyone, who was not already illegally in that location. It wasn't at the front gate in a way that the mailman could set it off by accident, it was deep within the dwelling. I find #1 quite compelling. This court has ruled that the couple have no recourse to defend themselves (all attempts short of lethal force failed to do so) and should have just allowed the burglaries to persist. This has actually recently come to the fore where I live when a criminal entered a rural property and the owner defended themselves and their family with a gun. The police immediately charged the property owner, and the public outcry made politicians step in and change laws, and has been part of a push locally to jettison that whole police force in favour of one whose priorities are set at a more local level.
1
too hard to aim for with an unattended weapon. need to know height of the target. Always go for centre of mass. It's just as effective and easier to aim for.
1
Hard to say. The family of the deceased could have brought suit regardless, and they may have lost even more. The problem here isn't in how much or how little they injured him, the problem is that the law states that they had no recourse to stop the persistent criminality at their own property despite their ever increasing attempts.
1
Recent Canadian case 2018, no trap, but the landowner shot and wounded a tresspasser. Initially the police charged both the trespasser and the landowner. Charges against the landowner were ultimitely dropped, as was the subsequent lawsuit by the trespasser against the landowner. Another case 2016, landowner shot and killed a teenager who trespassed on his property and then assaulted him and his family. The landowner was charged with 2nd degree murder, but in a jury trial was acquitted. Politicians jumped to criticize the decision as "rascism" because the tresspasser/assualter was native (that political narrative did NOT play well with rural landowners!)
1
@landlordize Not necessarily. For this trap to have caused harm, the perpetrator had to be guilty of both tresspass, and breaking and entering, both crimes. Nobody was at risk from this trap without first committing a crime. The fact that the crime may, or may not, include theft, doesn't really equate to "innocent people" being injured.
1
@landlordize And my point was that the "robbbery" part isn't the only part that makes what happened a crime. If deadly traps became common, one of 2 things (or a combination) would happen: 1) more criminals would be injured. 2) fewer people would be willing to risk committing those crimes. The only innocents at risk are the famillies setting the traps. Also, you're using a slippery slope fallacy. Just making it legal in one case, doesn't necessarily mean it would be legal in ALL cases. If someone was injured by the trap without committing any crime, then they of course would have recourse to sue, and the people setting the traps would bear that risk. That's why the shotgun was behind a bedroom door and with a chair barring the way, and not on the front gate and triggered by standing the same place the mailman does when delivering mail.
1
@landlordize You'll have to be much clearer on what your hypothetical situation is then. Because it sounded to me like you were worried innocent people would be hurt. Please be very specific about what situation you are worried about, and why.
1
@landlordize So your objection is that criminals might be injured. Or is there a certain age at which physically breaking in to a dwelling is considered acceptable behaviour?
1