71 Replies to “Pierre Trudeau: Not Dead Enough”

  1. Typical.
    Citizen attacked, responds mildly – GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE ATTACK – 20min later the authourities show up and decide he/she is the problem.

  2. “Careless”
    So what was careless about it? The man should get a Citizenship Award.
    Select trial by jury and laugh at the morons who brought the charges

  3. He needs to be a better shot. If he had hit them, it could hardly be classified as “careless”.

  4. Pamper the criminals, punish the victims – it is all part of the Ruling Class MO.
    As Kate requested of us all awhile back, I sent Angelo Codevilla’s article to 46 people on my contacts list. My email question to them was: No Kings & Queens ruling us in the Western World. No dictators or tyrants. No Marxists. Just a …. ‘Ruling Class’ !!??
    What do you think ??(with link)
    So far, about 12 have responded, all whole heartily agreeing.
    One (a retired school teacher)came out swinging, but after about 5 exchanges seemed to realize that maybe, just maybe, we are! ruled by a Ruling Class that is just as antidemocratic as anything the world has ever seen.
    Note: I know some of my contacts have also forwarded Codevilla’s piece on to their contacts. Perhaps it is going viral. Enter ‘ruling’ in google search and first to auto fill is Codevilla’s piece. Kate is winning.

  5. So now the thugs can come back and firebomb again now knowing the home owners firearms have been seized by police. Disgusting!
    We need Castle Doctrine now.

  6. I ponder what would have transpired if the guy had deployed a 12 guage with OO buck.
    The “guage” is a more socialy accepted means and much more effective.
    The inference is it is assumed that the guy maintained the “restricted weapon” in a loaded condition. Then there is the concept that the constabulary jealously guards it’s assumed monopoly on the use of force…deadly or otherwise……anything else is deemed as “taking the law into your own hands.”

  7. Well, we don’t know the details. Is this guy a citizen, who just happened to be randomly attacked? Is he a drug kingpin, who is being targeted because of some internecine wars?
    If he’s the latter, maybe the police want to lay a charge just to have something on record.
    Context is everything. We just don’t know.

  8. You can’t have Castle Doctrine in absence of Constitutionally enshrined property rights.
    What we have is the right to call the police during and after the fact. Nothing more.

  9. Headline in the Edmonton Journal this morning “Police chiefs back gun registry”. The “police industry” is getting as bad as the “welfare industry”. It’s all about protecting their cushy jobs. In most cases the police won’t come out to investigate a crime. They just issue a file number so the victim can make an insurance claim. All they are now is paper pushers for the most part. They view someone protecting themselves as only causing unnecessary extra work for them.

  10. Nothing a load of rock salt in the buttocks couldn’t cure…
    Molotov cocktails…they must have been practicing for the next G20 summit.
    Cheers
    Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group “True North”

  11. You can’t have Castle Doctrine in absence of Constitutionally enshrined property rights.
    What we have is the right to call the police during and after the fact. Nothing more.
    Posted by: Mark Peters at August 24, 2010 11:52 AM
    More precisely…you have the right to RUN AWAY!!

  12. Erik Larson wonders: “Is this guy a citizen, who just happened to be randomly attacked? Is he a drug kingpin, who is being targeted because of some internecine wars? If he’s the latter, maybe the police want to lay a charge just to have something on record.”
    Fair point. It does, however, lead one to wonder about the effectiveness of a police force/justice system whose only recourse against a “drug kingpin” is a charge that could be (and has been) brought against upstanding citizens defending their property. Yes, we always hear about the US putting Al Capone away on tax-evasion charges, but it is sad to think that we’ve made so little progress in the past century.

  13. Careless -choice- of a firearm maybe. He’d have been further ahead with a shotgun.
    Remember friends, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE. You really, really don’t.
    And yes, further investigation will no doubt reveal this guy was some kind of active biker/drug dealer/grow op/other gang related criminal. If not, I can only plead that my jumping to conclusions is supported by statistics.
    Doesn’t matter. Even scumbags have a right to defend themselves and their property. Except not in Canada.

  14. I agree with Erik’s point.
    That said, you DO have the Right to defend yourself (even in Canada), you just may end-up in jail for it. There are times in your life when you will be confronted with doing what you NEED to do and what is legal. I’m not saying this was the time; but everyone has to draw a line in the sand somewhere. I know where my line is, and could care less what the cops will do.
    Regarding cops: What Ice Cube said.

  15. Pierre Trudeau will never be dead until his freaking Charter is gutted. We’re seeing his handiwork being played out on our West coast right now, bogus so-called refugees get their carcasses on our soil and presto, they have all the rights we have and they are free. Our laws are such we really can’t pry into their lives, who the hell they are, whether or not they are terrorists. Those are the little details we can’t find out until after the fact, when they commit an offense. In Canada, even murder isn’t punished in some cases.
    Its up to us to ensure his snippet Justin never gets anywhere close to power either.

  16. Oh, don’t forget Lizzie May says the Tories are ruining our democracy.
    Wonder if she has looked over the Charter lately which clearly renders some people more equal than others?

  17. Good job he didn’t have a box cutter in his pocket like the grocer in Toronto. What’s the old saying: “When seconds count, the police will be there in minutes”.

  18. I was sure that the article would have stated that he staged the attack, but no, they actually arrested him for defending his home.
    Bunch of @$$h0lES

  20. Many people including some police officers don’t seem to realize that when claiming necessity for the use of deadly armed force to protect oneself you had better be a damned good shot and the dead or wounded armed perp must have an entry wound or preferably wounds on his front plus have collapsed still moving in your general direction. Anything less is subject to “interpretation”.

  22. In the wise words of my NJ next door neighbor, a retired Phili Police Sergeant. You don’t own or use a GUN to threaten or wound …You must only use it in a life & death situation. The system only works in the favor of a homeowner if the Perpetrator is dead!..
    “Buy the biggest gun you can afford, and two clips…Use your imagination”

  23. Slightly OT the Canadian Chief Police Ass. is advocating that the long gun registry be maintained, part of their argument is that a number of police officers have been killed by long guns in the last decade. I can’t see the logic there, if the officers have been killed by long guns in the last decade doesn’t that prove that the registry doesn’t work!

  24. That Winnipeg Free Press article is refreshing in one way. Notice they don’t extrapolate with all sorts of left-wing spin the way Grandmother’s Corpse invariably does.

  26. so maybe the guy is up to the wazoo in the drug trade and the cops needed an excuse to bust him. what does that have to do with pierre turdeau?

  27. One word make a silencer, we must go around the law these days because law enforcement seems to be more concerned with shaking down lawabiding Canadians then going after the bad guys.

  28. Hey, come on: the police have tough jobs, they are really good guys, they are just doing their jobs, the law is the law, if he didn’t want to be arrested he shouldn’t have been out in the street with a gun, the police have to keep order, they are overworked and underpaid, he shouldn’t have questioned their authority, etc.
    Oh, wait, is it now again kosher for conservatives to criticize the police for making illegal arrests and violating our rights? Good to know…

  29. If you’re not intelligent enough to understand the connection to Turdeau, then there’s little point in explaining it to you.

  30. This is really reminiscent of the infamous Tony Martin case in the UK some years ago. Tony Martin was a rural homeowner who’d been repeatedly burglarized. The local cops were doing nothing about those crimes.
    One night, two burglars broke into his home. (Both turned out to have lengthy sordid criminal records.)
    Martin was forced to shoot at both of them, killing one and wounding the other. Ultimately, he was convicted of murder. In the appeals court, he appealed, the verdict was reduced to manslaughter (Although “…Submissions by the defence that Martin had fired in self defence were rejected by the appeal court.” They didn’t even want to hear about self-defense.)
    Martin was sentenced to 5 yrs. in prison for manslaughter. The surviving burglar actually got a shorter sentence and was paroled after serving a short sentence.
    Martin, on the other hand, was initially denied parole after serving 3 years, on the grounds that he “refused to accept responsibility for his crime”. Martin refused to agree with the parole officers that what he’d done was wrong.
    Three years in prison for using deadly force to protect himself from middle-of-the-night burglars!
    IMO, the extremely important point here is that the Tony Martin case and the Ian Thompson case are different only in degree, but indentical in the sick thinking of the “authorities”. No rights of property, no “castle doctrine”, ultimately no right of self-defense, however logically justified.

  31. One word make a silencer, we must go around the law these days because law enforcement seems to be more concerned with shaking down lawabiding Canadians then going after the bad guys.
    Posted by: rose at August 24, 2010 3:39 PM
    Several reasons beyond the obvious prohibited nature of such devises.
    From a practical prospective such devices greatly increase the size, bulk and balance of the firearm.
    From a technical standpoint, to be effective the bullet/projectile MUST be subsonic to be quiet. This may not seem important but effective range and terminal effect varies exponentally with velocity.
    In practice the louder the better….

  33. You know I’m beginning to think where at war with our own Government? They certainly act like the bureaucracy does towards us as individuals.
    Even a amoeba has the right of self defense, but not Thinking beings called Canadians. No their charged for almost being murdered. After all we have to put the self esteem of the killers above the right of an individual to stop people from killing him.
    Welcome to Canada the Police State of choice.
    JMO

  34. Agree with mojo, sasquatch and others. The guy was clearly careless, not only because he didn’t hit his intended target, but because popping off rounds with a handgun in an urban area puts any number of innocent bystanders at risk.
    I’ll second the suggesstion that a shotgun would have been a better choice, both more chance of nailing the perps, and less of an image problem for the user.
    Shooting at fleeing suspects is something that is best reserved for the police, anyway. Under the circumstances, this fellow would have better employed his time extinguishing the fires, to minimize the damage. But if the perps were inside the house, I’d personally have no problem at all with the homeowner shooting them dead.

  35. Gordin what makes you think the thugs would of ran off and let him fight the fire if didn’t shoot at them? See that’s the problem without using force you don’t know what the scuz buckets are going to do or how far they’ll go to kill you, that’s the problem.

  36. “Oh, don’t forget Lizzie May says the Tories are ruining our democracy.”
    Yawn! When will the media quit asking this irrelevant idiot for her opinion, which counts for exactly nothing.
    Her so-called party holds zero seats in the House and will undoubtedly remain at that number forever.
    Rumour has it that she might soon find herself out of a job. Although this would not make the Green Party any more acceptable to normal voters, at least we would all be spared her annoying, shrill pontifications.

  37. The Phantom says “Careless -choice- of a firearm maybe. He’d have been further ahead with a shotgun.
    Remember friends, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE. You really, really don’t.”
    Perhaps, but it brings two old sayings into focus.
    “Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6″
    and the old Korean proverb….”The law is far, the fist is near.”

  38. The response of the authorities is understandable if one recognizes that their agenda is one of state terror directed toward the population at large. Violent criminals and the tolerance of or pandering to violent criminal behavior also helps this aim by further terrorizing the productive members of society. The aim of state terror is to isolate and paralyze individual citizens thereby making them compliant and malleable to the whims of the ruling elites. The ultimate threat to the power of the state lies in individuals being free to defend themselves and look after their own interests. Thus the sledgehammer approach taken by statists and their minions to any individual daring to stand up for themselves. Self defense threatens the legal industry because individual citizens may demonstrate clearly their capacity while demonstrating clearly the incapacity of that legal industry. Thus the aggression directed at individual citizens showing up the legal industry’s utter incompetence.

  39. If you’re not intelligent enough to understand the connection to Turdeau, then there’s little point in explaining it to you.
    Posted by: KVB at August 24, 2010 4:07 PM ”
    a most, *most* typical response from an SDAer.
    how many goddamm times in my life have I heard that response to a legitimate question.
    it must be a ‘guy thing’. you have to be born with all knowledge you need to get through life. no wonder males are so averse to changes in procedure and new technologies.
    and thank you kindly mr kgb for providing further proof of the above. I either get the answer or that.

  40. The only things to say when the police arrive are:
    (1) “I feared for my life”, and
    (2) “I want a lawyer.”
    Absolutely nothing else.
    Under the law, it is illegal even to load a handgun anywhere except at a designated shooting range. It is illegal to point a firearm of any kind at another person. It is illegal in most municipalities to discharge any firearm within the city limits except at a shooting range. One has the right to use deadly force (that includes edged weapons/tools) only if yourself or a person “under your protection” is in imminent life-threatening danger. You cannot use deadly force to intervene to save someone who is not under your protection. Using a knife is equivalent to using a gun viz. your legal liability, though it is not intrinsically illegal to pull a knife out of its sheath in your home. One does not have to register (yet) Fairbairn-Sykes daggers, kukris or Highland Broadswords. For example.;)

  42. In our small Alberta town, a local resident pulls into his driveway behind a vehicle that was full of his household goods like TV and such. The perps, trying to escape, repeatedly rammed the owner’s vehicle trying to push it out of the way. In his attempt to stop them, the owner took a crow bar and smashed the drivers window. The force caused the crow bar to hit the driver in the face causing some non serious injury. Said home owner is now charged with assault.
    Only in Canada.

  43. Clearly this home owner is not only careless, but cruel and inconsiderate. What if he had actually shot one of the obviously troubled youths (old folks don’t firebomb stuff) who were probably just acting out some of their frustrations.
    They probably have a lot to be upset about with the economy doing poorly and jobs are hard to find. Who can blame them for trying to express their feelings? Since the home owner was able to easily put out the fires after he was finished shooting his gun, there seems to have been no real harm done.
    However, the homeowner needs to answer for his crime. I expect that a good lawyer can get him off for about say … 100,000.
    Then they should find those young men who were shot at and use the money for counseling or perhaps grant money to help them retrain so they can become good citizens.
    Doesn’t that all sound fair and reasonable?
    At least half of the people in Canada think that way. That is why we are in trouble. Things have to change. We are running out of time. What’s left of our freedoms are at stake.

  44. How can we get the laws changed so that we have the right to self defence? How can we get property rights in Canada?

  45. Isn’t the right to self defence a basic human right? How can the state take this away? Can this be fought in court?

  46. How can we get the laws changed so that we have the right to self defence? How can we get property rights in Canada?
    Vote Conservative.
    It may take them a decade or two to fix 50+ years of Liberalism but they are our only hope.

  48. @lorenzo – self-defence is a general defence under common law and it is still applicable in Canada as there is no statute that prohibits its application. Most likely these charges will be dropped by the Crown as it has little hope of a conviction.
    More importantly, I really do hope that stories like this demonstrate to conservatives that the police are not on your side. They are not saints -they are nothing more than petty bureaucrats with guns and are owed no deference beyond that which you would give any other person. Conservatives in this country may never realize this (i.e. SDA’s response to the G20 farce) but I can hope.

  49. if the dudes escaping were muzzies it would begin to make sense, in a POMO way. Otherwise it’s sick.

  50. Rose@ 5:06
    The story doesn’t make clear whether the perps were already making a getaway when the homeowner appeared carrying his pistol, or only ran off when they became aware of the fact that he was armed.
    Doesn’t matter. Either way, by fleeing, they had ceased to be an immediate threat to the homeowner or his property. By firing on them, the homeowner was placing other people at risk in order to gratify his (perfectly understandable) desire to retaliate at the perpetrators. Even if he knew who they were, and that they would make future attempts, he’s not justified in putting other people at risk by blazing away at them on a public street.
    If one of the perps had been holding a lit Molotov cocktail, and the homeowner had shot him dead on the spot, I’d call that a legitimate case of self-defense. What this guy did, however much we may applaud the spirit of his actions, crossed the line into vigilantism, and put innocent lives at risk.
    I have no problem with using using lethal force for self-defense, but once the perps are clearly fleeing (in a vehicle, yet) the immediate need for self-defense has diminished.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation