Canadian Airgun Forum

Thats it eh? State your position, then tell me to shut up.

I'm afraid that it is you who are out of your depth on this one.

Out of the two of us, which one has been in the situation...oh yeah, that would be me.

OK...Out of the two of us....which one has undergone the use of force training you are such an expert on? Hmm......me again.

One more: Out of the two of us, who can actually provide case law surrounding private security and use of force to back up our position? You guessed it...me again. The fact of tha matter is that *if* what you say is true, there *will* be a case on the books where a person was convicted for defending their life and being "too good". And the fact is, there isn't. There are however, hundreds of cases to the contrary.

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you KR, your ego obviously doesn't fair well when someone questions your expertise. But on this topic, I am quite certain I know far more than you do. Please don't assume to know me or my history.

All a moot point, I will hold off discussing this further until my invitation is accepted, and an *actual* expert weighs in. Hopefully it won't be to long.

Are you an instructor for armored car employees? Are you an employee for an armored car company? Answer those two simple questions.

_________________
Keyrigger
CAFTA Governor

When you are long winded, is that a sign of Wisdom or Old Age?

Next two. Do you know, personally, any armored car firearms instructors? Do you know, personally, any armored car supervisiory or regular employees?

_________________
Keyrigger
CAFTA Governor

When you are long winded, is that a sign of Wisdom or Old Age?

Currently? No.

Are you?



There is a simple way to end this argument KeyRigger: Get me the case #....or the defendants last name....or even the year and where in the country the case took place. I will go through the case law (again) and pull that file.

If what you say is true, there WILL be a case on public record. If there is no case, what you are saying is a myth. Opinions aside, lets get to the facts. You said you WILL be prosecuted with second degree murder...show me the case or at least give me enough info to find the case myself. If it turns out that my research has failed me, and what you say is true, and an armoured car employee was convicted of murder for shooting back, you will get a formal public apology from me.

Then, Wrong Way, until you do answer yes to any of them, your comments are unwelcomed and have no merit. These people, who make their living at both professions, are not known to BS, and if the teacher instructs the employees that they can and will be charged with murder if they qualify too high, it is based on case law. NO, I am not going to waste my time, or theirs, calling them up JUST to satisfy you. Either accept my word on it, or jump of a dock in the harbor. I couldn't care less. The instructor I know has been doing this for many, many years, and the other fellow that was with the armored car company, just retired.

_________________
Keyrigger
CAFTA Governor

When you are long winded, is that a sign of Wisdom or Old Age?

First off, my answer was "curently? No."

And I just saw your second set of questions, and the answer is a resounding yes. Hopefully one of them will be posting here soon.

Face it KR, your argument comes down to "I know a guy who said......."
I can prove that the statement your "friend" said is pure conjecture, both with case law and the Criminal Code.....you however, refuse to offer anything other than "My friend said, and he isn't the type to BS".

Sorry, but hard proof trumps "I know a guy"

That's all fine and dandy but it doesn't mesh with what the law says. The law does not provide for a legal test of shooting ability when deciding whether or not to charge someone. The law does very clearly and explicitly allow for the use of force, up to and including deadly force, in the case of self-defence. The legal test in those cases is whether or not the force used was justified by a similar threat. That's it. Shooting skill, practice, ability and proficiency do not and can not come into play. There is no exception or caveat for armoured car personnel. It's the same for everyone no matter what your profession is.

If there are cases where this has happened, let's see them. Post a link. I'm not saying that you're a liar, I'm saying that you're mistaken.

You haven't answered your own questions and having friends in the business is meaningless. If such blatant miscarriages of justice have occurred, why not post us some links? Why not provide the info that Wrong Way has asked for?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the law surrounding use of force is different for people of different skill levels or professions. The fact is that it is not. The one and only determining factor in deciding whether to charge someone or not in such cases is whether the force applied was reasonable based on the threat. That's it. Shooting skill does not and can not come into play. There will be no prosecutor to raise such questions if the force applied was deemed appropriate based on the threat.

Keyrigger, I am a lawyer in 3 U.S. states, and your comment makes no sense to me. A person has commited murder when he uses deadly force with malicious intent, and death in fact results.

If he's legally justified in using deadly force, his high skill level does not somehow mutate that justification into criminal intent.

However, if he is incompetent in the use of his sidearm, and accidentally shoots an innocent bystander, then he may well be facing civil and / or criminal charges.

Jim