Based on all the cases of Canadians being charged after protecting themselves, is it incorrect to assume that this young woman would have been charged north of the U.S. border?
Based on all the cases of Canadians being charged after protecting themselves, is it incorrect to assume that this young woman would have been charged north of the U.S. border?
Canada? Try the UK. She would be publicly drawn and quartered and labeled a ‘racist’ (i.e. the postmodern version of ‘witch’).
Oh yeah, gun toting momma would be in jail, no bail, and then the racial crybabies would come out telling us what a nice boy the home invader was. Nice shooting sister!
In the U.K. you’d end up like Tony Martin.
In Canada you’d be charged, put through the legal wringer and then acquitted or have the charges dismissed by the judge.
There’s also a support fund started for Sarah.
Good Job Protecting your property and life What a gal
She would have done OK because she actually killed him. If he lived he would have filed a human right complaint against her.
I had a buddy catch a theif breaking into his truck in a hotel parking lot at night. During the confrontation they ended up exchanging blows with the thief escaping. When the cops arrived they warned my friend that next time he should just walk away because unless he killed the thief in self defense he could face assalt charges himself.
This Mom had the right idea.
I don’t know if there has been a recent case of self defence where the shooter has not been charged in Canada. The good thing is that almost everyone is found not guilty after they have been skinned by lawyers. Where the killer has been a policeman there are no rules and apparently the laws of perjury do not apply.
Oklahoma has about the best take regarding Castle Doctrine.
At your residence or place of business you have no obligation to retreat, it takes effect as soon as the intruder attempts to break in and you may assume any intruder intends to cause you harm.
The liberals don’t want any solution to their “women as victims” narrative that makes women less dependent on the state.
That little gal just lost her husband and was protecting her baby and his legacy. Good for her.
@ Scar: David Galloway was a BC jeweler who shot a robber holding a gun on his wife. He was never charged even though the police really wanted to charge him. Luckily and amazingly the Crown held back the police. A strange reversal in Canada.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/12/07/bc-jewellershooter.html
Old Korean Proverb…..”the law is far, the fist is near”.
Nobody should EVER have to ask permission to protect themselves when the state either can’t or won’t protect you. In fact, that very principle is what led to the police forces we have today. The citizenry gave up control to an official police force under the condition they did their job. If they don’t or won’t, all bets are off.
She’d be put through a wringer of improper storage, improper registration, improper ammunition storage, improper blah blah blah. She’d never see that shotgun or handgun again. Children’s services would drop by and talk about taking her baby away to protect it, and make weekly unannounced visits, to try to catch her off guard. The Humane Society would come around and take her dog as soon as she let it out to do it’s bizzness.
Two and 1/2 years later when she’s 150,000 in debt to the barracudas, the charges would be stayed, unexpectedly, while at one her many forced court appearances during the summer when the prosecutor doesn’t even show up because he’s “up at the cottage” and she would maintain a “record” for ever.
That’s our true north strong and free.
Galloway was an amazing case because he did everything right. His gun was stored unloaded in a high quality vault that was more secure than most gun safes. If one T wasn’t crossed he would have had a fight.
I love the way that some people assume that you just give thieves what they want and everything is okay. Thieves often do kill people who cooperate. I am not sure that it should be a legal requirement that one wait until he is killed to gain the right to defend himself.
I am sure everyone on 9-11 thought – Gee I’ve never been to Cuba – should be fun.
This is one cool lady. Did you hear that 9-11 call? Her voice never quavered or betrayed any fear, just the realization that it was up to her protect herself and her baby. We can speculate what would have happened to her had she been unarmed. It would not have been pleasant.
Let the anti-gun snivellers take note. This woman was on the phone with 9-11 for almost 20 minutes while these yahoos tried to smash in her door. 20 minutes and the cops still weren’t there. The lesson: there are just not enough cops. Our safety is in our own hands. It is better that you have to explain why you killed or wounded an assailant after the fact than you end up dead or hurt yourself.
Another point: her husband had just died from cancer. He may have used oxycontin as a pain killer and the would-be thieves probably figured that there was some left in the house. That is probably what they were after (certainly there would be little expectation of money or jewels in a mobile home occupied by a young widow). This is a horrible addictive drug that seems to do far more harm than good; it should be banned.
@ Scar: lots of people have done everything right in terms of storage only to be charged with unsafe or careless storage. Yes the charges either end up getting dropped or discharged by the court, but in the meantime the victim gets shafted. They could easily have charged Galloway and if you watch some of the interviews of the police chief you can see how much he wanted to. Obviously this is one of the rare cases of a Canadian Crown attorney seeing the light of day.
ie: Ian Thompson.
In Canada the Liberal Left would have paraded her around in a burka, whipped her, and then hung her by the neck until dead in front of parliament.
Her baby would have been taken and put into foster care and then made gay by Liberal voting pedophiles.
Thank God we have Harper instead!
He is repealing the Liberal Bill C-19, and moving on Bill C-26 as we speak. Canadians will soon have a right to protect themselves and others; we will soon have citizen’s arrest powers. We will soon have some property rights, and we will soon have against Liberal protests limited castle laws.
Entire families have been slaughtered by thieves for nothing but some cash and/or valuables. Women (of all ages) have been raped too.
This woman did the right thing. What’s disgraceful is that her actions are even being debated.
I agree with richfisher – that’s totally how it would have gone down here in Canuckistan where criminals have more rights than victims (even while in the slammer). The process is the punishment. There ought to be jail time for prosecuters who do that to people.
You know what I love about a shotgun?
As I get older I don’t have to worry about grouping my shots..
–
Bringing a knife to a shotgun fight!
Charges should be changed to
committing suicide..
Here in Connecticut, she would have been automatically arrested, and all her firearms seized. If she had a concealed weapons carry permit, it would have been suspended. She would face years of criminal investigation and retribution, not to mention the assassination in our “press,” nor the civil torture at the hands of the swarm of hungry lawyers here. Eventually, she might be legally exonerated, after a “suitable,” short jail term. She would definitely be bankrupted, and her name ruined. But, her child would be safe.
Self-defence is a human right if there ever was one.
I would not hesitate to exercise this level of self defense and most right thinking people would likely do the same.
Safety first…. the rights and considerations of the mangy, disgusting vile pukes who intend harm to you and your family is a very distant second …. at least in my unicorn-free Canada.
I’m pretty sure that the castle laws are now ineffect in Canada – as long as the victim does not pursue the offender off of their property they should be fine.
I will be judge by 12 rather than be carried by 6.
‘NUFF Said
Steve in CT
But, her child would be safe.
And adopted by a nice gay couple??
Advise from cops:
1) Dial 911….
2) give them what they want and no will be hurt.
3) self defence is “taking the law into your own hands”…being judge jury etc….
1) When seconds count the Police are minutes away…or more…Dial a prayer…
2) Criminals face little chance of apprehension…and frequently kill just for $hits and giggles.
3) Translation: The Police jealously guard a monopoly on the use of force…
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
The Police can’t protect you, don’t want to protect you and do not have to protect you.
Too frequently self defence with a firearm is used as de facto evidence of unsafe storage….
This woman is a hero to me and her daughter!
The only mistake she made was making the 911 call in the first place.
It may have provided an alibi, which is good; but it was an unnecessary distraction.
If she had been a man she would have been charged but found not guilty at trail or charges would be dropped after the Crown Attorney decided the public outcry it was generating was in danger of exposing their other poor decisions.
As a woman protecting a small child, some finger wagging and some ‘serious statements of concern’ from the Crown Attorney but likely no charges.
Remember – when seconds count the police are minutes away!
gotta love how she shoulders the double barrel & has the revolver ready to use just in case there are any pieces left moving after the shotgun blast.
I remember of a case in the UK where a burglar broke into a home, was injured trying to do so, and was trying to sue the home owner. not sure if he was successful, but that Tony Martiin case is unbelievable. If there was ever a case of officers of the court gone wild, that is surely it.
Steve in CT >
It’s too bad that more people don’t recognize the advantage of living in isolated places. The “Thieves” picked her place for that reason, yet without good Castle Laws like Oklahoma has, a home defender has the same isolated advantages as the perpetrators when living in “Liberal” tyranny.
It seems like the drugs were the primary motives for the attack, but not necessarily so, only the word of the one caught. The fact that they invaded the home with someone there is telling. They could have waited until she left the home at some point, they did not.
She just saved the tax payer millions of dollars.
The most basic human right is the right to defend yourself against a predator,whether that predator walks on 4 legs or 2 legs in irelevant.No government or representative of that government has the right to deprive you of the right to self defense.This woman did exactly what she had a right to do in order to defend herself and her child.
sasquatch >
“The Police can’t protect you, don’t want to protect you and do not have to protect you.”
You got that right!
The other day I witnessed at thief steal a car right in front of me. He backed the stolen car strait into me parked in a parking lot, taking out my front bumper. I was sitting in my truck waiting on my wife. When the cops arrived (40 min later), they didn’t give a rat’s @ss about me or my bumper, not one word as to my well being. They simply took my name and number to get back to me several days later for a witness statement for court. Bunch of aholes. I just finished getting a new bumper last week, a no fault accident and am trying to reclaim my $250.00 deductable which I’m sure I’ll never see.
Cops useless. The only victim in the crime was myself because they recovered the stolen vehicle intact and unharmed a few blocks away. Even the idiot, who left his keys in the stolen car, had no big losses.
I’m now even considering telling them to blow if they want me to appear in court later on.
This life is about choices, the burglar made the wrong choice and the young woman made the correct choice!
Good on her!
Not just charged. Charged and held in custody before trial. Murder, illegal possession (where’s that license missy?), unsafe storage, plus a bunch of other crap I can’t even think of.
That’s no hype, that’s what has happened in the past. See Jonathon Logan, Bruce Montague, Ian Thomson. None of these guys actually hurt anybody, check out what happened to them.
And just picture the Toronto media campaign. White chick shoots some (probably black) guy? She’d be for the high-jump.
I met an outlaw biker chick once who spent 6 years in jail for murder. I asked her what happened and she told me her story:
She was partying with some biker dudes when she heard a child screaming and crying in the next room. She went into the room to investigate and found two other bikers brutally raping the child. She lost it, pulled out her .45 and blew the brains out of the one dude, but the other one managed to jump out the window and escape before she could shoot him too.
My vote goes for the biker chick, and not only “castle laws”, but laws that would protect anyone from a jail sentence in circumstances like that.
But that’s just me.
Yea Jonathan Logan – anal cavity searched on his driveway by homosexual cops in front of neighbours and family, for legally going out and shooting gofers one afternoon.
This is what the Liberal left has done to our country.
Bless her.
In one clip she said an amazing thing: “There’s nothing more dangerous than a mother with her baby”.
That’s an extremely impressive statement for a 18-year old!
The thread question was obviously purely rhetorical. All praise to the lawyer-hating commenters above.
Blush: I have zero confidence in the ability of cops to defend me but alas! still don’t have a gun. I’ve GOT to fix this. I have a bunch of cop customers, mostly retired. To the question, Should I have a gun for personal protection, to a man the answer is NO. It’s a union rules turf thing, right? YES!
Jury nullification.
Almost shocking to hear these two liberal journos on side with this.
IIRC there have been a couple of recent cases in Canada where judges have rules unequivocally that lethal force was justified when an intruder was breaking into one’s home. If only the police would show some sense and not charge the homeowner in the first place.
Hell, you’re not even allowed to use deadly force on a dog, in Canada. In fact, if she’d shot a dog, I suspect the comments would be a little less positive.
I know one thing, this woman could baby sit for me, any time.
You don’t wanna be breaking into a home here in Missouri either. Our firearms are always readily available, and loaded. Little to no crime in the area I live in. They mad some changes to our laws a while back
“Under current state law, if someone unlawfully enters your home or attempts a car-jacking, you are required to first retreat instead of immediately fighting to protect yourself. The burden is on the home owner to establish that an intruder means to do them bodily harm before they can use appropriate force against them. Does this make any sense? If someone crashes through your front door, he’s probably not there for a picnic! ”
http://tinyurl.com/7b6d8lm
In a nutshell Liberals make normal people criminals and try to confiscate their wealth.
Every normal person will naturally try to defend themselves, which to the Liberal mind & laws is a felony and justification to persecute and prosecute.
If I was in her place, I would likely have acted accordingly. Props to Momma for protecting what was left of her family, after losing a husband to cancer on Christmas day.
Likely, her cage will be rattled for a few days but I would wager that she won’t have any more attempted break ins anytime soon.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
“If I was in her place, I would likely have acted accordingly.”
Not me, I’d have gotten them both.
@ Knight: your hated of homosexuals is getting tiresome, seriously. Stupid comments like that make the rest of us who are fighting for self defence look like idiots.
Good for this young woman.
richfisher has it pegged right @ 10:22.
Knight 99, those changes regarding B C-19 and C-26 can’t come soon enough.
sasquatch has it right. That is exactly how it comes down.
Remember: Texas rules: “Shoot, Shovel, Shut Up”
William makes a good point.
The basic doctrine of “necessary force” is predicated on both the defender and the assailant…..hence what is reasonable.
such factors:
Is the assailant(s) armed, and how…is there more than one.
Is the defender and able bodied man or a senior…a female…with children…
The isolation of the scene…
The time of day….
Was the assailant in a dwelling house…
Was the assailant shot in the back…
An able bodied man shoots and kills an unarmed teenager climbing through your window in broad daylight…..would likely be deemed unnecessary force.
A senior, handycap, or female alone at night against anyone….it is not reasonable to be considered able to defend themselves unarmed….and generally has 00 statis.
These for the most part are the deciding factors but currently not neccessarily considered if the cop or Crown/DA has a political agenda.
Cops generally and all criminals consider armed citizens a menace………