Montreal Escorts

Don't dial 911 for help

CoolAmadeus

Retired Ol'timer
Nov 19, 2006
189
124
43
EagerBeaver said:
I don't need to provide any stats at all to prove my point, because I possess something much more powerful: life experience. I have worked in the legal system for over 15 years

Quick observations: Whatever our life experience is (not pointing at yours specifically but in general), we all see things from our perspective only. That's how our opinion is built...

For example, let's say most escorts' clients are men cheating their wives, for the sake of demonstration, let's say 60% of their clientele. Their conclusions based on THEIR life experiences will most likely be that all men are pigs and most men cheat their wives. Now, if statically speaking only 5% of men go see escorts (case figure only here, I've no clue what the real percentage is), then this 60% is sampled in a 5% of hobbying clientele ONLY! Coming down to a mere 3% of men cheating their wives with escorts... leaving 97% of men who don't (again, case figure only!). What does this demonstrate? That escorts' perceived 60% - through their experience - is in fact only 3%. Big difference.

Similarly, in your life experience in a courtroom, you have only been dealing with some percentage of the population. Most people never go in court other than for trivial things like fighting a speeding ticket (and even!). So basing your analysis on your "life experience" will only yield biased results and will not represent reality. It represents YOUR reality, yes, based on, say, 5% of the population (again, case figure only) but not necessarily THE reality.

On the other hand, statictics like what T76 has brought up are based on a proven methodology, with sampling done in the WHOLE population. It is also subject to interpretation, obviously, but it's definitely not something to push away with the back of your hand.

Just my 2 cents.

CA
 

z/m(Ret)

New Member
Feb 28, 2007
1,664
3
0
EagerBeaver said:
How about tossing hot coffee in the burglar's face, shooting him in the kneecap, and then as he writhes in agony on your kitchen floor, lecture him about how he has just made a very bad decision, but also telling him that you will assist him in his future decision-making processes by requesting that the prosecutor not charge him and only require of him restitution of any damage done to your home and the cost of ammunition needed to subdue him, in exchange for a nolle prosequi. I feel this is much more constructive for all parties concerned.;)
You don't seem to realize one bit that the burglar might be carrying a firearm as well and that, if he carries one, it's probably because he knows he'll need one. What if he shoots you in the kneecap first? This scenario is probably more likely to materialize than the one you keep describing. A home owner might not have the time and the motivation for firearms training, at least not as much as the burglar. Furthermore, the burglar might benefit of the surprise effect: he's a step ahead of the home owner.

So you're rolling on the kitchen floor, suffering great pain, the burglar lectures you about how you have just made a very bad decision, but also telling you that, out of vengeance, he will take your life...

I say you'd be better off making some fresh coffee.

p.s. since it appears that credentials and life experience allow ad hominem-style argumentation, please note that I have a long experience in providing security solutions for critical infrastructures and that, as such, I've learned quite efficiently to assess risk in terms of dollar value.
 
Last edited:

CoolAmadeus

Retired Ol'timer
Nov 19, 2006
189
124
43
EagerBeaver said:
How about tossing hot coffee in the burglar's face, shooting him in the kneecap
By the way, what's up with this idea on shooting on someone's kneecap? You will destroy someone's ability to walk normally DURING HIS WHOLE LIFE. How the hell can a bulgary entry in your home deserve such a thing? Shoot him in the thigh, in the leg, in the arm, but the destroying the kneecap? Shit!

I'm happy I live in Quebec!

CA
 

z/m(Ret)

New Member
Feb 28, 2007
1,664
3
0
Maxima said:
...And with surprise effect, he caught you right into the act of playing your gun?
If you are armed and confront a burglar with a gun in your hand...I wonder who would benefit from the surprise effect.
Read carefully. I mentioned "in a culture of firearms", which means that it is expected for home owners to carry guns.

You guys are all Jack Bauers in your dreams. You buy a gun and - bingo! - you're a sharp shooter! No training, no nothing! You have it all figured out! :rolleyes: Instead, in the real life, you're awaken in the middle of the night, confused, nervous, and before you reach for the gun (where would you keep a loaded gun anyway, on the night table so kids could play with it?), the burglar has one pointed at your face. :rolleyes:
 

CoolAmadeus

Retired Ol'timer
Nov 19, 2006
189
124
43
Maxima said:
How would you know that the criminal who is beaking into your house is a non-violent burglar and not a dangerous violent home-invasioner who would rape/beat up your wife/children?
You don't see my point. Why destroy a bulgar's kneecap when stopping him with a bullet in other body areas would do just well to stop him?

Anyway, I've never owned a gun, and I never will. But I've also never had an intruder in my house.

CA
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
20,368
3,266
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
Chances are you know your home better than the burglar does so you are more likely to surprise him than vice versa. However, I don't think most serial burglars carry guns. They carry burglary tools and you can only carry so much stuff.

It's of course true that everyone's life experience is different. In my case though, I have dealt with and represented both criminals and the victims of serious crimes. I would like to think I have learned a little bit in doing this as long as I have. I feel more strongly about this than I do about statistical analysis of issues like this. Ziggy says this is ad hominem style argumentation but I don't agree. I simply feel that you are not going to be able to find the right kind of statistics that neatly support either side of the argument. I could cite statistics such as those alluded to by bytger that show very low crime rates in certain states like Utah and New Hampshire where there is a very high gun ownership. However, even those statistics would not cleanly support the application to the specific criteria set forth here which is deterrence of burglary.

I don't know if a study has been done to determine recidivism rates of burglars who were shot while in the commission of the crime of burglary. If there was such a study you would probably have to distinguish among several control groups, including those were shot at but not hit, those who were hit and wounded, and those who were killed. Obviously the ones who were killed are 100% deterred. The more interesting studies would be on the two former control groups, with corresponding recidivism rates.
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
20,368
3,266
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
CoolAmadeus said:
Why destroy a bulgar's kneecap when stopping him with a bullet in other body areas would do just well to stop him?

Not necessarily, especially if he is on angel dust. I was involved in a case where a guy on angel dust took several chest shots and kept charging before being dispatched with a fatal head shot. Earlier, the man had viciously stabbed my client. This particular drug (angel dust) gives the user a huge surge of adrenaline and makes him think he is invincible.
 

CoolAmadeus

Retired Ol'timer
Nov 19, 2006
189
124
43
EagerBeaver said:
Not necessarily, especially if he is on angel dust. I was involved in a case where a guy on angel dust took several chest shots and kept charging before being dispatched with a fatal head shot. Earlier, the man had viciously stabbed my client. This particular drug (angel dust) gives the user a huge surge of adrenaline and makes him think he is invincible.

In this case, unless you are a trained shooter, whatever you try to do will possibly result in......... your own death. He will be so quick and hyper that you'll typically never stand a chance to even reach your gun!

But hey! what do I know about this anyway! LOL

Maxima said:
You can kill a person by shooting at any part of his body especially above the knee cap. Just need to hit any major artery. Pointing at the knee cap may hit the knee cap of any part around it but at least away from the major vital part of the body. It may still be fatal though.

Can't disagree with this, and I'm against guns for regular citizens. You probably figured that out already. I have nothing else to say.
 

CoolAmadeus

Retired Ol'timer
Nov 19, 2006
189
124
43
Maxima said:
So your question should not be: "Why destroy a bulgar's kneecap when stopping him with a bullet in other body areas would do just well to stop him?"
but rather: "Why shooting at the burglar at all?"
Well... I wouldn't shoot a bulgar, but that's just me. Whatever someone would forcefully take from my household is what? Material only. By holding a gun against an intruder, I feel I'd give him the reason to shoot me as well, whereas by staying more passive I'd in fact protect myself and my loved ones by keeping the intruders' temper cooler. I'd even try to talk to him to calm him down. I wouldn't care what he takes, as long as no-one gets hurt.

Anyhow, I can understand people feeling that a gun is the way to go, but destroying the kneecap felt rather extreme to me.

CA
 

Agrippa

C o n s u l
Aug 22, 2006
582
0
0
www.merb.ca
I don't know that I can contribute anything new and of value to the gun ownership vs burglary discussion, but I would like to say that before clicking on the link to this thread I thought it would refer to the appended news story.

Maybe having a gun inflates one's head with a false sense of power that is illusionary.


"Wrong colour, wrong place, wrong time."
from the July 12th, 2007 edition of the Hour.
by Jamie O'Meara

The seventh day of the seventh month of this year - 07/07/07 - wasn't so lucky for at least one young, black Montreal man. In a case of what he says was "wrong colour, wrong place, wrong time," 27-year-old Granville Miller alleges that he was "viciously attacked" by four Montreal police officers in the early morning hours last Saturday while on his way home from a club downtown.

In an email sent to various media outlets, Miller claimed the following:

"Walking home with one of my buddies after what seemed like the perfect evening out, we came across an altercation on Ste-Catherine Street near Beaudry. It seemed to be some sort of a brawl, police were involved. We slowly make our way past it when we are suddenly confronted by some of the brawlers. They mistake us for being part of the rival camp or whatnot. We try to brush them away but they are reluctant. One started to push me so I shoved him away expecting the cops to take control of these clearly intoxicated and dangerous individuals. Much to my surprise, I was the one police jumped on and viciously attacked...

"I tried to verbally explain that I had nothing to do with the people in my surroundings, that I was trying to get home. The attempt was met with a tightened grip and another punch on the ear. 'Ta yeul esti' was [the police officer's] response. I just stood there waiting for them to finish roughing me up...

"Once they let me go, I wanted one last chance to tell them that they falsely attacked me. That I was innocent. I also wanted
to give them the chance to apologize. My attempt was met with a threat to arrest me and a show of handcuffs."

At this point Miller says he then called 911 for assistance. He says he filed a complaint at the desk and was told that he would receive a call from the "chief." Miller says he remained on the scene and a short while later another police officer arrived on scene, identifying himself as "le chef." He then alleges that, following another rudely rebutted attempt at redress, the officers became threatening again.

"Suddenly all five are in front of us. They're laughing at us. Moving in closer. Not good. One more call to 911/police station. One last effort at seeking justice. I explain to them that the chief from that station is right in front of me laughing at recent abusive treatment. The cops decide to leave while I'm on the line with the station. I guess they figured they can't further aggress me while I'm on the phone. The agent on the phone tells me some other chief will contact me."

Has anyone tried to call you back since the incident? "No," says Miller four days later. (As of press time, numerous attempts to reach Montreal police for comment were met with a busy signal - either someone left the phone off the hook down at media relations, or that was one hell of a long phone call.)

In the interim, Miller says he has gotten a medical record supporting his claims of injury and filed a complaint with the Commissaire à la déontologie policière (Police Ethics Commissioner). "I also sent emails to the Black Coalition and the Coalition Against Police Brutality."

Miller, a graphic designer who is returning to do a graduate certificate at UQÀM in September, insists he's just not the kind of person who gets into situations like these.

"In no way did I instigate anything or was I roughhousing or anything to that effect. I don't give off that kind of vibe or impression." He acknowledges having been out at a club, but maintains, "I wasn't out of my mind or going crazy or anything."

For his part, Miller is convinced that race figured prominently in the alleged attack. "I think so, unless he's just a sociopath," he says. "I definitely saw some hatred in his eyes. I'm a young male and black, which certainly doesn't help. It's funny, I told his partner that I felt there was some sort of discrimination, and he said, 'Oh, that's impossible, he's gay.' So that's kind of [odd] in retrospect."

Miller says, however, that despite his experience - he is still feeling pain in his neck where restraint was applied, and in his ear where he was punched - he is not currently contemplating charges against the officer or officers involved.

"No, that's not my intention. What I would like is an admission of wrongdoing and use of excessive force. And an apology would be nice," he adds in a tone that suggests he's not expecting one any time soon. "But it's not my intention to drag this thing out in court or gain any money out of this.

"What I do want is for people to know that it happened, and that it still happens frequently, and that it's completely outrageous."​
 

Agrippa

C o n s u l
Aug 22, 2006
582
0
0
www.merb.ca
Maxima said:
Why does it have to turn into another discussion about the color of the skin and police brutality? :confused: :confused: :confused:
The vague thread title made me think it would be a discussion of this news story I recently read. It wasn't. But I am simply bringing it to other's attention.

There was no attempt at discussing race; I was on track when I wrote: Maybe having a gun inflates one's head with a false sense of power that is illusionary.
 

Agrippa

C o n s u l
Aug 22, 2006
582
0
0
www.merb.ca
Maxima said:
On track? Policemen? This is a completely diffrent discussion about police brutality. With your analogy, I can bring in here a discussion about terrorism as well...may be having a gun inflates islamic zealous head with a false sense of power that is illusionary...

Doesn't matter to me, police brutality, home owner brutality, 'islamic brutality' whatever that means, it is brutality--an abuse of power. I do not have the zen-ness to offer them a cup of coffee, but I wouldn't want to escalate the situation either. Besides Fat Happy Buddha raises a good point in the sister thread that most burglaries happen when the residents are away. My experience confirms this. (Is that good enough of an argument for you EagerBeaver?)

I am verbosely restating Ziggy's and CoolAmadeus' points of view. Don't shoot! You have nothing to gain, but plenty to lose!

I'm surprised that no one specifically brought up the issue of self-defence. If the burglar were lunging at me, armed or not, I would use any force at my disposition to stop him, yes. On the other hand, most of the examples stated here have revolved around the burglar simply breaking into the house. I don't know the law in as much detail as some of you, but my understanding was that it did not give me the right to kill him.

Rest assured Mr Seven.
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
20,368
3,266
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
Agrippa said:
I don't know the law in as much detail as some of you, but my understanding was that it did not give me the right to kill him.

Unless he is trying to kill you. Generally speaking in most states, the homeowner is priviliged in using non-deadly force in defense of his property. However, he is priviliged to use deadly force if it is necessary to stop serious bodily injury or death to himself or members of his family.
 

Agrippa

C o n s u l
Aug 22, 2006
582
0
0
www.merb.ca
EagerBeaver said:
Unless he is trying to kill you. Generally speaking in most states, the homeowner is priviliged in using non-deadly force in defense of his property. However, he is priviliged to use deadly force if it is necessary to stop serious bodily injury or death to himself or members of his family.
This is what I thought. So trespassing is not grounds to shoot. So why are so many of you ready to pull the trigger? (Assuming, as I do, that the burglar is after money or objects to pawn to support their drug habit rather than the thrill of killing.)
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
20,368
3,266
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
Agrippa said:
So trespassing is not grounds to shoot.

Go re-read my post. I said non-deadly force; that includes a gunshot designed to deter the burglar and protect the owner's property. Let's recognize that as a practical matter, if the burglar is shot and killed, he will not be around to rebut the homeowner's version of what force was necessarily used under the circumstances. Also, I don't recall too many prosecutions of homeowners for using excessive force in killing a burglar.

Recently, we did have a case in Connecticut where an off duty police officer mistakenly shot his teenaged daughter, thinking she was burglar. The daughter had been out late past her curfew. When the cop heard her sneaking into the house, he fired on what he believed was a burglar. The daughter survived and I do not believe the father/cop was charged with any crime.

In my case, I live alone, so there would be no mistake.
 

Kepler

Virgin User
May 17, 2006
572
0
16
traveller_76 said:
1) Gun ownership is greater in the US than in Canada.

According to Michael more, as a proportion, Canadians own more hunting firearms than Americans. (Americans own more handguns).


traveller_76 said:
Conclusion: I need a new hypothesis.

Yes. No one claims that gun ownership deters burglaries.

It deters home invasions (ie: burglaries conducted when the owners are likely to be home, for example at night or on weekends).
 

Kepler

Virgin User
May 17, 2006
572
0
16
Ziggy Montana said:
Between shooting a burglar in the kneecap and, say, letting the burglar take whatever he wants (which, anyway, will be compensated by the insurance company), which of the two scenarios would incur the lesser social cost?


When someone breaks into your home, they do not wear a uniform which says "burglar" or "rapist" or "crazed person" or "I'm on my second strike and if a witness identifies me I'm going away for life".

So, if someone breaks into your home while you're there, it is safest to assume they mean you harm. The alternative is to trust the intruder with your life.
 

Agrippa

C o n s u l
Aug 22, 2006
582
0
0
www.merb.ca
EagerBeaver said:
Go re-read my post. I said non-deadly force; that includes a gunshot designed to deter the burglar and protect the owner's property. Let's recognize that as a practical matter, if the burglar is shot and killed, he will not be around to rebut the homeowner's version of what force was necessarily used under the circumstances. Also, I don't recall too many prosecutions of homeowners for using excessive force in killing a burglar.

Recently, we did have a case in Connecticut where an off duty police officer mistakenly shot his teenaged daughter, thinking she was burglar. The daughter had been out late past her curfew. When the cop heard her sneaking into the house, he fired on what he believed was a burglar. The daughter survived and I do not believe the father/cop was charged with any crime.

In my case, I live alone, so there would be no mistake.
Shooting at someone is using non-deadly force? Killing him doesn't matter because there won't be a second side to the story. The shooter can say anything he or she likes since they can't be rebutted. Either way doesn't matter because they won't be prosecuted. Please. Yeah, I trust lawyers as much as I do cops.

The cop anecdote is pure irony. Do you not see it?

A gun shot is not 'designed.' You shoot a gun with the intent of hitting a target. Most people aren't going to think "If I aim here it will be lethal, if I am their it won't." Most people aim for the part they're going to hit. ie the torso.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts