Why is it illegal to shoot someone who is stealing from you even if they don't pose a threat to your life?
Example: If I wake up in the middle of the night and hear someone breaking into my car it would be illegal for me to shoot them. So what am I supposed to do? Just let them rob my car while I sit around waiting for the cops to show up like a cuck?
I should be able to protect my property from theft.
The problem is you harming property that belongs to the government. That person belongs to the government is a tax cow part of the system. The govs property outranks yours.
Solution: move to a real state.
Solution: go down to "see who it is" with your strap on you. If they appear threatening and you think you saw them reach for a gun then you fear for your life and do what you have to do.
lol laws are so cucked nowadays
Interesting. But the problem is that I have to go "see who it is" first and engage them which puts my life in danger.
It would be safer to open fire and catch them by surprise before they noticed me.
>It would be safer to open fire and catch them by surprise before they noticed me.
yes it is but we need your money from those medical bills and lawyer fees goy
/thread
in Canada the law states that you do NOT have a right to defend yourself even in your own home. If someone breaks into your house the official policy is that you're supposed to lock yourself in a bedroom closet and wait for police to arrive. If you fight against an intruder/criminal and injure/kill them you can go to prison.
Also if a criminal breaks into your home and injures themselves (cuts themselves on a broken window, or falls down stairs) they can SUE YOU and will most likely win.
You realize a person could not be considered property since 1865 right?
Just shoot the guy and say he made a run at you.
such a great country
Well at that point your just hoping that the forensics teams are incompetent. Personally even if that odds of getting caught are low I wouldn't wanna risk getting raped in jail.
On paper but the ideology exists
You realize governments are nothing but slavers and according to government law we’re their property, right?
we're all property, if you don't pay taxes you go to prison, that's slavery
you can't even own a plot of land without serving the government
What law would this be?
because mup do didda dub ho mufugga
das racis
it's about proportionate responses
should you be able to shoot a person for touching you without permission? for stealing a toothpick from a restaurant, etc etc...
you can defend your life or property, but you need to use reasonable force.
then theft is effectively legal for people with nothing to lose (niggers) because you have no recourse. it's as simple as that
yell at them so they turn at you, then shoot them
make sure they turn at you first so you can tell the bullet forensic team that you thought they were pulling out a weapon.
>you need to use reasonable force.
>using reasonable force towards niggers
All of them.
>no recourse
What do you think prison is for?
>it's a simple as that
No, it isn't. You're just too much of brainlet to understand law, and the mechanisms by which wrongdoers are punished.
If there are witnesses or cameras you're fucked if it's clear you lied.
Touching someone is not a crime.
Basically this.
yeah, I wouldn't bother either.
1. criminal will probably be better at fighting than me
2. criminal has less to lose
3. self defence is a defence to a charge of assault/murder/manslaughter, etc... key word is 'defence' i.e - you've been charged with/admitted to elements of the crime, but are in the position of proving a lawful excuse.
if there are witnesses and cameras that spot him turning towards you then it would support your argument that you were afraid he was going to charge you/pull out a gun
>Touching someone is not a crime.
yes it is, it's called 'battery'
also if the robber is a nigger or a spic no one will really care if they died (maybe BLM but obviously they don't run the courts)
So is this really what your arguement has become? That touching someone is considered battery? Give me a break.
Philosophically, some people might argue that the government's authority comes at least in part from its monopoly on violence.
Unless it’s a cop killing an “unarmed black boy”, BLM doesn’t cares about blacks dying.
Depends on the state, but if you can colorably explain that you believed your life was threatened, you’ll be fine.
Holy fuck that’s suicide, but Canada is a country of vibrant LGBT faggots I suppose this is what happens.
This tbqh. (((BLM))) is openly anti-white and not pro-black in the slightest.
Castle doctrine should be a human right.
"Proportionnate response" is all bullshit when you have an unknown individual with unknown intention in your home and your body is pumping adrenaline like never. It's typical legal retardation disconnected from real life experience.
If in the middle of the night I hear someone breaking into my house I assume he is coming to murder me and common sense for me is to kill him.
It is. Canadians aren't human.
Most countries don't have castle doctrines.
>Tyrone
>Paying taxes and not leeching off welfare
Most countries aren't inhabited by humans.