The Right to Protect Your Property

[farmers_son]

I think this is an important issue for all rural Canadians.

See:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/04/09/cgy-farmer-theif-alberta.html#socialcomments

Farmer Charged With Shooting Thief

It is an outrage that this fellow is being dragged through the court system. All he did was defend his property the best way he could. It is different in the country than in the city where police are only minutes away. There is no effective policing out miles away from the urban centers and farmers do need to be able to protect not only themselves but their property.

And what about the two that got away. They will never be found and the only way the third guy will ever be brought to justice is the farmer did what he had to do.

[15444]

I have been following this story.

All I can say is, he should have had more slugs and should have kept his mouth shut with respect to family, friends and especially the cops.

Would love to have this fellow as a neighbour.

I wouldn't worry about the other two. Could you imagine the look on their faces if they never saw their thieving buddy again. Priceless.

[InAHurry]

The reader comment that caught my eye was and stated my thinking was - why is Mr Knight's name in the paper and not the (cough)"alleged" thief. The media could have included commentary about the thief. Is he a minor? What are the chances of the ATV joy-rider spilling his friends names?!

We are remote, 48 miles from the nearest RCMP office. Our 911 call would be answered 120 miles away.

Lesson learned?? Call the RCMP BEFORE following and/or calling your neighbors to help stop or keep track of them.

I honestly don't know what I would do in this case ... we've had "visitors" but not while we were home. If they were caught and someone held them for me, I'd find great joy in busting my foot with a blow below their belt.

[grassfarmer]

I don't know the outcry is all justified in this case. Sure the guy was mad and had the right to try and stop the thieves stealing his property but making the decision to pull a gun and fire it at another human being is a big decision that has its consequences. Any time that is done in the heat of the moment there is a risk of death - are you justified in killing someone to prevent a robbery? absolutely not!On the other hand the farmer took a risk - often the thieves will be armed and the shooting/death may have been inflicted on him instead. If that had happened there would have been a large public outcry wanting to lynch the shooter (the thief). I think the lesson in this is that the more people have access to guns the more they are likely to use them and that tends to lead to a more violent society with higher gun usage.

[farmers_son]

I could not disagree more. Look at it this way… Any respectable thief robbing a farmer knows the police are at least ½ hour away sometime an hour away if you can even get one to come or they do not get lost on the way. It is different in the city where response times may be only minutes. But in the country we are on our own, totally on our own. If rural residents cannot defend their property then what is to stop any thief from just coming in and taking whatever they want and leaving without so much as a fare thee well.

If the only allowed response to robberies allowed the rural resident is to phone the police then we are sitting ducks for any and every two bit thug. If the police cannot get there in time to stop a crime in progress then rural residents need the right to be able to shoot the bastards.

The lesson here is not the more people have access to guns the more they are likely to use them. The lesson here needs to be if a thief wants to rob a rural resident they will get shot. Frankly unless society is willing to pay and provide for a level of policing that will see police response times in rural areas improved to be comparable to response times expected in the cities then no other policy other than the clear right to defend our own property ourselves will work.

[per]

Look at it from the criminals point of view. Those darn farmers have guns and will use them. Lets find a softer target. Or... The country folks are unarmed and the cops are hours away. Easy picking.

I am firmly in f_sons corner on this.

[Sawbones]

The score on this one-- FS 1 GF 0

[vagabonddreamer]

wow GF...did i ever peg YOU incorrectly..lol..profiling is a hobby of mine...i would NEVER have picked YOU as one to espouse that opinion...

now...opinions can never be "wrong"...and everyone is entitled to theirs...however...if this is the way you honestly feel (and not devils advocate with a twinkle in your eye)..then it can mean only ONE thing...you have never suffered the violation of having your personal property damaged or taken...things you have worked entirely TOO hard to obtain...never had someone close to you suffer at the hands of a BULLY either mentally or physically...

the statement "I think the lesson in this is that the more people have access to guns the more they are likely to use them and that tends to lead to a more violent society with higher gun usage" is SO flawed at a base level its amazing...the reason it is flawed is because it is completely irrelevant and moot...guns ARE here and they are NOT going away...

at a philosophical level or as an ideology...its fine to wish there were less guns...but the reality is..just about the time you are thinking that o i am so pure and pious..i dont own a gun nor do i need one....."along comes a man with a gun in his hand"...

so i am to assume then that you are 100% pacifist based on the leanings of your post...you think that one should simply stand by and turn the other cheek?? i know you must think that the meek will inherit the earth...but every pacifist meek race in the history of man has come on the brink of extinction and ultimately has learned to fight back and in most cases MORE brutally than those that oppressed them...

if i had ANY faith anymore in our national police force...i might think it prudent to call and wait...but lately...it seems they take the path of least resistance...four of them taser repeatedly and kill a defenseless man in an airport...but they shy away from the gang violence occurring on a daily basis...and in this case...they go after the man who is defending his home and property with more vehemence than they do the perpetrators...never mind most of us live in a rural setting hours away from the nearest police...

maybe you will be lucky and go your entire life without incident or even the whiff of violence...i hope you do...i hope everyone does...but reality says it wont happen...

i have been in a position where i had to defend my family...and it changes your tune immensely bucko...vs

[grassfarmer]

Interesting response I got to my comments, I would have expected them more from US citizens rather than Canadians. I'm still learning about Canada. I don't have anything against people protecting their property - I would likely try to prevent someone stealing my property too. I would draw the line before pulling a gun and shooting someone though and that is the part I have a problem with. We have laws in this country for a reason - is it only farmers or rural residents that can break them and are allowed to shoot thieves or can the store keeper in town shoot a kid that's shop lifting? The argument that he is in town so will have the police on his doorstep in a few minutes isn't really too convincing. Sometimes they may be, other times they may be caught in traffic or many miles away.
Truth is if this guy hadn't intervened it would have resulted in some property theft - a truck and a quad bike. They were likely insured, the police may well have had a good idea of who the criminals were(often a benefit of living in a rural area) - bottom life it wasn't a life threatening scenario but at the point of confrontation it potentially became that - because either side may have been armed.
I know guns are not the only weapon in the world and many other things can be used to kill, injure or maim people. I grew up in the "booze and knifes" culture of the west of Scotland and don't have this rosy western view of cowboy culture and it's love affair with guns.
Given the fact many western rural dwellers obviously have guns I could ask you how it's working for you?
Per's comments "Look at it from the criminals point of view. Those darn farmers have guns and will use them. Lets find a softer target. Or... The country folks are unarmed and the cops are hours away. Easy picking." rather indicates that your use of guns as a deterrent to criminals aren't working too well.

[grassfarmer]

Meant "bottom line" not "bottom life"

[mb_rancher]

Id have to say if I was in the same spot I would likely do the same to the low life stealing.

This makes me think of a joke I heard once.

A farmer calls 911
says Im getting robbed
911 operator says ok there will be a police officer there in an hour.
The smart thinking farmer calls the 911 operator back and says no need to send the police I jsut shot the thief. In 5 minutes the police roll into his yard. When they see the farmer they say " we thought you shot the thief... the farmer says I thought you said it would be an hour before you could get here.

[per]

Didn't work well in this case. How many other times has it worked well? Of course it can't be proven. None of us are fans of shooting others(at least I don't think so). We just would like the ability to protect our property in the absence any other effective way to get it done. My own personal protocol would have had to have been a little more face to face, but I totally understand this guys frustration.