SARM Resolution on protection of property?

[chuckChuck]

Resolution no. 34- 17A

Rural Crime
RM of Kindersley no. 290

WHEREAS crime has increased substantially in rural communities and whereas individuals do not have sufficient rights to protect themselves and property;

BE IT RESOLVED that SARM lobby the federal government to expand the rights and justification for an individual to defend or protect himself,herself and person under care and property.


Suck it chucky

So what does this resolution actually do except encourage vigilantism? It is purposely vague and therefore useless. It is pretty clear in this province after what happened to Colton Bushie that some people think it is okay to use violence or kill someone for alleged or real property crime. Especially if they happen to have brown skin!

What this resolution implies is that SARM wants the criminal code changed to allow excessive force or maybe even deadly force to be allowed in the protection of property.

LEP do you really support that? If you do you are a danger to the public. And the Saskatchewan Minister of Justice does not support you or SARM on this piece of crap.

As I said before there are numerous constructive ways to prevent and reduce rural crime but SARM is wasting its time on this resolution.

[LEP]

This is a perfect example of why chucky is in the fake news business. Where does it say the resolution is in response to the Colton Bushie? Where does it promote excessive violence?

It is a response to the fact rural crime is up in our area. I have lost fuel from the farm, l have lost grain twice, and gas twice from my vehicle on my driveway in town. I haven't caught anyone in the act but if I did I would overtake and detain the individual or individuals until the cops came. However presently, if I caused a hangnail on the thiefs, I would be in more trouble than they were. I shouldn't be able to put them in the hospital unless they are threatening same to me or causing harm to myself or my loved ones.

In our area most of the crime is caused by he drug culture and needy neighbors not by persons of a particular race.

[LEP]

RTK , yes you are c

[LEP]

RTK , yes you are correct, my comment was out of line. I do apologize for saying that.

I am alittle frustrated with the distorted responses about the intent of the resolution that it promotes violence in general and in particular against a certain race.

[Horse]

Does anyone member a few yr ago native fellow used self defence as an reason of fleeing the police, don't member if shots were fired or not, anyway he said he feared for his life if the police captured him. I think he had a valid argument if you look at statistics, it does seem the police use natives as target practice.. Does anyone know the outcome of that case.

[RTK]

LEP - well worded and a respectful response to my observation.

ChuckChuck - I am sorry I can not even begin to type a response to your post that I just read it is utter racial biase nonsense. Nobody said anything about race - other than you who refers to someone as "brown skin" - that is completely disrespectful no matter whose side of the argument you are on.

[Redone]

If I see somebody stealing from my yard, I will call the cops and get a license plate number

If the doorknob on the house opens, I feel that I can defend myself under all jurisdictions of the law

Vehicles can be replaced, children cannot

[Guest]

So what does this resolution actually do except encourage vigilantism? It is purposely vague and therefore useless. It is pretty clear in this province after what happened to Colton Bushie that some people think it is okay to use violence or kill someone for alleged or real property crime. Especially if they happen to have brown skin!

What this resolution implies is that SARM wants the criminal code changed to allow excessive force or maybe even deadly force to be allowed in the protection of property.

LEP do you really support that? If you do you are a danger to the public. And the Saskatchewan Minister of Justice does not support you or SARM on this piece of crap.

As I said before there are numerous constructive ways to prevent and reduce rural crime but SARM is wasting its time on this resolution.

well it's real f$&King simple. if you live 20-30 miles from an rcmp office , or if officers are already busy (this happens lots , by the way) you could be waiting upwards of an hour for help . worst case scenario , you have to take a life to save yours or the lives of your family . at this point you are devastated yourself for what you had to do , the last thing you need is the f$&King news media finding you guilty of murder in the public BS kangaroo court . what would you do to protect your wife, children or grandchildren ?????? but for the most part it's just about protecting what's yours.
we must remember who the perps are , and give some rights back to law abiding ,WORKING folks . it's real ****ing easy for some asshole in the city to condemn a rural person when they can have a cop or ambulance or firefighter at their door in under 5 mins . in fact there is shit flying if they take longer than 7 mins give or take . a good percentage of the ambulances still get lost around here on emergency calls in our rural areas , hard to believe with the technology we have at our disposal . you need to give your head a shake

[mustardman]

Resolution no. 34- 17A

Rural Crime
RM of Kindersley no. 290

WHEREAS crime has increased substantially in rural communities and whereas individuals do not have sufficient rights to protect themselves and property;

BE IT RESOLVED that SARM lobby the federal government to expand the rights and justification for an individual to defend or protect himself,herself and person under care and property.


Suck it chucky

The RM of Kindersley WTF ?? Unemployed oil workers running round vandalizing and stealing or what ?

The Laws are already in place to protect yourself on your property.

It makes farmers look like a bunch of redneck idiots. Did the song " duelling Banjos " come on after the motion was seconded ??

[LEP]

Lol. Glad you live in Utopia Mustard. The resolution passed 93% in favour. We had many come up to us and state that they too are fed up with the rural crime situation. It's not just Kindersley.

Several people in alberta, and shopkeepers in Toronto have had to defend themselves in court after being charged with assault etc. when defending against break and enter. This isn't just a rural Saskatchewan problem.

What part of the resolution exactly, makes us look like rednecks?