I am 100% supportive of the rights of Canadians to use firearms to protect themselves and their families, but not to vigilante justice. If Lorne doesn’t think Groening had sufficiently displayed his desire to end the confrontation, I have to ask - what exactly does a criminal who has fled the scene need to do to avoid being shot in “self-defence?” How many copies of the Instrument of Surrender must he sign, and before how many witnesses? How large must his white flag be? But just because the line is imaginary and hard to see when tempers are hot does not mean there isn’t a line that needs respecting. Lorne asserts that the line between self-defence is imaginary and hard to see in the heat of the moment. We don’t have a right to get even, no matter how much the bad guy deserves it. Canadians have a right to protect ourselves. That use of force was completely excessive to the situation. It was only by fortune that the relatively minor injuries sustained by Groening were not crippling or fatal. If he’d chased him down, knocked him silly a bit and then had left him with a bloodied nose at the side of the road, I’d have happily winked at him, and told him it was a job well done.īut he shot him, twice. I can imagine the outrage, the shock, and fully appreciate his desire to reclaim his stolen ATV. To be clear, I completely sympathize with Knight. None of the criteria - legal or logical - for self-defence were met. Knight was not cornered with nowhere further to go. The attacker was no longer threatening Knight’s property.
Article contentīut Lorne goes too far when he calls Knight’s actions “self-defence.” They weren’t.
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Manage Print Subscription / Tax Receipt.
0 kommentar(er)
