Friday, October 07, 2011

Don't wanna get shot? Don't trespass and steal

These kinds of judgment rulings really piss me off.  Every person has the right to defend their property, and yes, with guns.  Here, the government is defending the criminals.  What's this farmer supposed to do, nothing?  Call the cops and wait?  Give me a friggin' break.  You don't wanna get shot?  Then don't trespass and steal.  It's not vigilantism. It's called defending your property.


Justice Monica Bast rejected the defence's argument that the shooting was impulsive, saying she believed Knight was aware to some degree what he was doing.

Knight chased and used a shot gun to fire at a man who was stealing Knight's ATV from his farm near Tees, Alta.

In the early morning of March 26, 2009, Knight found three men in his farmyard.  He jumped out of bed and gave chase clad in boxer shorts and rubber boots to a man riding Knight's all-terrain vehicle.  Knight rammed the ATV with his car and, when the man abondoned the machine and began running, Knight pulled out a shotgun, firing two rounds at him, police said.

The man was eventually caught after Knight called friends and relatives to help in the search, police said.
Crown prosecutor Jason Snider recommended Knight be sent to jail for 90 days to be served intermittently.

Snider told Justice Bast the shooting was a vigilante act and the court must send a message that behavior of this sort is wrong.
It's not wrong.  You're wrong.   Unbelievable.  Alberta would be the last place I thought this type of injustice would occur.  I guess not.

Maybe we should change our motto to "Kind of Strong and Not So Free".

12 comments:

Alain said...

Actually from my understanding one does indeed have the right to defend and protect one's property as this fellow did, but we have the state doing the opposite. The attitude of the state, not back up in law, is that only the state is allowed to use force. This needs to be changed.

Wayne said...

This idea that property crimes should not be considered serious really bothers me. The thief is not just stealing property. He may be taking away a person's livelihood, his son's or daughter's chance to go to university, the ability to stay in his business or home.

This man had been robbed before, more than once, probably by the same people. You can't use your insurance on thefts like this. If you do, after multiple claims, your insurance becomes to high to maintain. If you have no insurance, the bank calls your loans and mortgage. You're toast.

hunter said...

I am amazed that the comments at the CBC are about 98% in favour of the farmer. Is that really a CBC site or is it a fake?

I liked one of the comments about people volunteering to each take a day for him. Better yet, every weekend that he has to go to prison, we should protest at the prison, it works for lefties, why can't we do it?

Anonymous said...

Someone should send a message to Crown Persecuter Snider, "Go f*** yourself".

As far as protesting at the prison? Yes, but may I suggest, people protest on the street outside the crown persecutor's & judge's residences.

These scumbag lawyers won't learn common sense on their own. They are going to need to be held personally responsible for this crap.

Anonymous said...

Female judge. What a "surprise".

Anonymous said...

Mr. Knight. Here is some advice. It is a variation on the Ralph Klien's famous quotation of "shoot shovel and shut up".

The next time an intruder sneaks onto your property chase him and hold him at gun point. Do NOT call the police. Instead take the fellow's picture and tell him you are taking his picture so you can determine his identity and remeber his face.

Then tell him that you are going to determine his identity so that if there is another theft at your farm you can be pretty sure who it is.

Then warn him to be careful. As a concerned citizen you should let him know how easy it is for his car to get stolen in the middle of the night or his house to catch fire when he isn't home or how an unknown assailent might beat the shit out of him in a dark alley or his dog might mysteriously disappear.

After expressing how concerned you are about any of thesae things happening to him. Let him go because after all you know damned well the courts & judges aren't going to do shit so why bother?

Anonymous said...

why no jury?? a jury would have tossed this crap in heartbeat.

Anonymous said...

Jury? Oh come on! The incidents of judges overturning jury verdicts or rendering them incosequential has become too numerous to count.

Judges are a bunch of pompous, power mad bullying fucks who are obsessed with how gently they treat the poor offender. Unless the offender was a "vigilante" of course THEN the judge lowers the boom because the vigilante has DARED to step on the judge's precious pissing ground.

john said...

"Justice Monica Bast rejected the defence's argument"

"Snider told Justice Bast ---that behavior of this sort is wrong"

Yeah, why would *they* give a damn? They're rich lawyers living in their nice safe, alarmed houses with neighbourhood security patrols and preferential police response time. And besides it's not *their* property so to hell with Knight in their mind.

gawd lawyers are assholes.

dmorris said...

Under Canadian law,you DO NOT have the right to defend your property with a firearm,Allan Rock made that point very clear when he was Justice Minister.

The interpretation of the right to defend your LIFE with a firearm is open to the Judge's discretion,you may or may not get in bigger trouble than the criminal you were trying to defend against.

Shoot,shovel,and shut up,is one of those wishful thinking stories that never work out in real life. Unless circumstances were perfect,and you had no conscience to bother you for killing someone,you'd eventually get caught and spend most of your life in jail.

The solution by "anonymous" is probably the most reasonable idea,and I might add,act a little "psycho" while you're at it. You MIGHT scare the fellow enough that he'd never come back.

Canadian law on protection of life and property is so bad,I'm surprised there hasn't been more vigilante action.

I guess we're just too civilized for our own good.

Anonymous said...

"Shoot,shovel,and shut up,is one of those wishful thinking stories that never work out in real life."

Shoot, Shovel ect. originally referred to farmers who found livestock possibly sufferring from mad cow disease and found themselves financially ruined for the crime of being honest.

Klien said they should have "shot, shovelled and shut up". In other words destroy the mad cow and dispose of the evidence and not say anything and all would be fine.

In regards to vigilante activity, people run into trouble because they don't follow the SHUT UP part. Successful vigilantes don't get bragging rights.

If you are going to be a vigilante remember you are the cop, judge and executioner (metaphorically). Once you have caught the offender and punished him you can't expect the system to deal with him as well.

If you catch a burglar and tie him up and beat him up. Then you can't call the police. It's strictly an either/or proposition.

Anonymous said...

This judge needs to have someone come onto her property and scare the shit out of her and lets see what she would do. Mr. Knight's sentence is so wrong, our justice system sucks and we Canadians are just a bunch of wimps, we allow this to go on, we don't protest, we don't stamp our feet and make ourselves heard. I'm sure 98% of Canadians want change to our justice system with stiffer sentences for criminals. Mr. Knight I applaud you for your actions, I would have done the same thing and to hell with it.