Respect to Grant Gillard...he did the right thing as would have I. If someone comes onto my property/house then if necessary I would disbable them however possible in order to protect my family and myself without question. If charges are laid against Grant Gillard then it once again will prove how lame police/lawmakers really are.
Someone decides to attack/rob you. You have the right to take them out. The pharmacist did the right thing. We now all know, we have to be tooled up, in case the cops don't show.
I think the right to preserve your own life is pretty well established- and it is a natural instinct too- but attempts to extend the defense to protecting your property worry me.I don't think anyone does, or should, have a right to kill someone who is trying to rob them. So I think that if someone threatens me physically- and the threat is real- I should be able to fight back. But I don't think I should be allowed to fire at someone who I see driving off in my (yeah, I wish ) cadillac.
We all know self defense is right, so why does it seem to be illegal? The police cannot be seen to condone any violence at all no matter how legitimate it may appear to be. If they do condone the public use of violence it could lead to a more violent community. Individuals are put through the court process so they have to prove the force they used was reasonable. This discourages people from defending themselves reducing violence accordingly. If you remember the schoolyard comment “but he started it” as you are both punished for fighting you get the idea. None of this is fair as the rights of the individual are sacrificed to protect the wellbeing of the many. Effectively you are expected to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of the community you live in, rather than put up a fight to protect yourself. As bizarre and outrageous as this sounds it is the same thinking behind the smacking legislation and the banning of corporal punishment in schools. Personally I think this meme is misguided as it encourages rather than deters antisocial behavior. Violence never solved anything, violence begets violence and turn the other cheek is among the trite little falsehoods trotted out by the weak in justification of their cowardice. So determined are they to deny what is true about them selves they have made self defense illegal!
I live rural and i say if we find anyone commiting an offence,on our propertys we should be allowed to use lethal force,the will slow the stock rustlers.
Problem with the balanced \ reasonable force argument is that a criminal will not apply this rule, thus putting the victim at a greater disadvantage.Any defence to an attack from a criminal should be met with overwhelming force so that the victim of the crime prevails..not the criminal.In the seconds it takes for someone to beat you, stab you or shoot you, you as the victim dont have time to be thinking about appropraite levels of force and its unfair to expect this.Read the police guidelines on home invasion in NZ and be prepared for a laugh.
The pharmacy owner was set upon by a probably drug attic and this is where the law should be lenient on a person trying to save his lively hood,and self.But the security guard should have stayed till the shop was secured.
I man should have a right to defend hims self at work and at home, if you life's at risk, equal risk must be taken to defend that, but the line may be how much force is too much force..could end up with another dead tagger...or similar someone dead over a loaf of bread...dont get me wrong people should have the right to defend themselves with deadly force if needed to but common sence should be exercised...E.g. someone invading my home at night..deadly force
being still young my self its quite insane how people can do this. i think we should be able to defend our selves in a situation like this in your own home to because that's your own personal space and its being intruded and maybe violated they may as well show them were everything is