A few nights ago here in Phx,AZ a young pregnant woman was home alone when her DB was rung at 11:30, PM. Then she heard noise in her backyard. Then she saw an arm reach in the doggy door trying to unlock the backdoor. She got the household gun, knew how to turn off the safety, and fired at the door.The intruder quickly left. Later, the Phx.PD,& local media praised her courage. P.S Think that criminal will ever be back to that house,or any house? He's learned criminal life is very dangerous.
i totally understand. america is doing the same thing in america. theres a bill up to put serial number on rounds.... trust me we are getting the same shaft here. in Ny some one got charged for shooting at a burgler... makes sense right?!
A shotgun loaded with light shot fired low is a huge deterrent to a criminal. It's better to have thugs run with a backside full of # 6 shot as opposed to the alternative, which could be potentially far more brutal. Criminals don't respect laws and have no empathy. If I were the creep I would be thankful for getting shotgun pellets picked out of my ass (rather A .45 ACP bullet from my spine) and would learn a salient lesson I hope.
Here is a good man who seems by all accounts to be morally centred. Simply brought out his shotgun (unloaded) to make a statement. He wasn't going to take it anymore and just wanted to make a symbolic stand posing with his shotgun. Not pointing it at anyone! Now he has to face a slew of charges? This is an absolute disgrace.
also, you should have made a video for the mistrial information, would have been nice to hear instead of finding out 2 months later. you should do another video when the long gun registry is finally sacked :D.
i am just trying to pick up on the Canadian gun laws so forgive me if I'm wrong here. Are you trying to get gun laws in Canada where everyone can carry a concealed weapon? What if the kids had guns? Wouldn't that be worse?Guns aren't the solution, a better Police force/government is. Same here in the UK. I know I wouldn't want to hear off people being shot because someone mistook an enquiry for a robbery as happpened to two drunken Scotsmen in America a few years back.
Dear Mr.Miller, Bless your naive heart but the right to carry arms actually REDUCES violent crimes, esp. the gun holder's safety. I understand your belief. I believe you've been taught to be against guns by your media and your gov't. Guns don't shoot people. People shoot people.Guns are merely a tool.There is no such thing as 'a better police force or gov't.' They may get BIGGER and more EXPENSIVE, but never better. I can give stats to support if you are interested. Sincerely,B
@boomer1954ful Dear Mr Boomer, How wrong you are! Wait a minute, you are saying that I should ignore the media and "my gov't" yet you say you can supply stats? Where are those stats coming from exactly? An "independent" survey? In the UK since guns have become more available from the former eastern block, there has been a huge increase of gun crimes especially with kids.
@boomer1954ful Now, if those guns were NOT available there wouldn't be those crimes so i don't see where having the right to carry arms would decrease GUN crimes and i doubt very much it would make a difference to violent crimes.Violent crimes will happen in the UK if there are guns or not...what won't happen is people being shot when someone "panics" and believes that someone is going to attack them when in fact they could be trying to help them.
@boomer1954ful I live in Scotland where handguns are banned after a maniac went into a primary school and murdered kids....it hasn't happened since then....How many times has there been mass shootings in schools in America?
its growing because the liberals and NDP know they need the criminal element and I dont mean to be racist but most are either refugees or illegals to get into or stay in power.this is why our laws need to be changed,especially when it comes to the youth criminal justice act.This act allows juvenille offenders to become adult offenders when they should have been given an adult sentence in the 1st place.if your old enough to do the crime your old enough to do the time.we need the death penalty.
I just found your channel and as a fellow Canadian I think your doing a excellent job in pointing out the inadequacies of Canadian gun laws, I agree with you 100% on all your view points Ive seen so far. I will be watching your channel religiously now. Keep up the good work.
Please do make the link that the RCMP are Police Officers. They are not. Real Police Officers are better trained and more in tune with society. Police Officers are there for the victims of crime not to enable the criminal.
The charge is "possession of a weapon FOR A PURPOSE dangerous to the public peace" but, then, I realize that you, are only repeating the garbage spouted by anti-gun reporters, police officers and prosecutors.
@speedosam1950 Either you can't comprehend my position on "gun control" or you don't believe anyone should be able to defend themselves, their families or their neighbours in times of trouble. If the former, watch the video again. I support Mr. Manzer fully. If the latter, I sure hope you're never in a situation where you need "a man with a gun" to keep you safe from harm. FYI, the case was dismissed yesterday afternoon on a technicality.
Actually, I do believe that every Citizen has the right to defend him/her self with a firearm if/when necessary. When I used the phrase "garbage spouted by anti-gun reporters" I was referring to the fact that the press SEEMS to love mis-representing that section of the Criminal Code of Canada and when doing so, of course, they invariably infer that any use of a weapon by anyone who is not a Police Officer constitutes "danger" to everyone else.
@speedosam1950 Still don't get why you said that I'm the one spouting off that way. I'm not. I'm doing everything I can to FIGHT that garbage in the press and everywhere else.
@kateysfirearmsfacts As an American I can say that I REALLY appreciate what you are doing for Canada. I feel that many people have an unrealistic understanding of what it means to be in need of defense. It takes less than 10 seconds for something deadly to occur, and 3 minutes at BEST for police to respond. People do not recognize that the police are a clean up crew. I myself live a pretty far distance outside of town, so if I need help I have to do it on my own. Keep it up!
@kateysfirearmsfacts you don't really give a position on gun control, and like i've said before, he was not defending himself as he was not being assaulted. Heck it wasn't even HIS property that was being violated. The only thing he should have done was call 911 and the 'men with guns' would have been there to deal with the situation accordingly. I agree with speed, WHEN NECESSARY i believe a person has a right to defend him/herself with a fire arm 100%...this case was....
@kateysfirearmsfacts ..not one of those situations. I must also take issue with your critique of the crown and their election of a summary trial, both situations are a right of a Canadian citizen to have, it is the job of the crown to get a conviction of a suspected criminal so that punishment for a wrong can be administered. If they only have enough evidence to commence with a summary trial than so be it, this is a reason why so many offenses are duel....
@kateysfirearmsfacts ..also a summary trial is not only cheaper but less time consuming. Also you make mention that there was no police response for the vandalism and break ins for 6 months until this incident happened... I find that very hard to believe, if people report a crime, police will respond, please provide evidence which substantiates your claim. keeping in mind, citing a lack of police reports is not viable evidence, if people do not report a crime, police will...
@kateysfirearmsfacts ..not respond. Anyway all of this matters not anymore, as you said a technicality, which has set so many criminals free in the past, has again saved a person from being held accountable for his actions. He gets his time in the spot light...maybe a book deal about the big bad cops arresting him on a holy day, you're happy....life goes on. It's just a good thing no one was killed for a petty crime.
Great video. I've been following this case and it makes me sick. I congratulate Manzer for his actions and think, if anything, the shotgun should have been loaded, just in case. Bring on Castle doctrine. Hopefully, PM Harper's new laws which will soon be discussed will improve the situation and they are supposed to. BTW: The new hair looks great.
I was living in Canada about six years ago. I'm so glad that I am not living there now. Despite the election of Stephen Harper, Canada for the most part is still way too Marxist-like for my tastes.
What point is there for Canadians to own guns legally in their own homes if they are just going to get arrested on trumped up charges as soon as they use their guns to defend their own homes?
If it was me it would be a loaded .45 1911. It's time this stops and good people are allowed to defend themselves in a reasonable and responsible manner. This was reasonable and it introduced a bit of fear into these thugs. We are not sheep to be herded, but individuals who value life and liberty. This man is a good man and deserved to be charged with nothing! Better yet, accolades should be given to him.
I am not from the UK, but the same thing is going on there, it is all part of the plan to get you to drop the silly notion that you can be responsible for yourself. How many 'Lawrence Manzers' do they have to arrest to get you to stop acting like a Citizen and start acting like a Subject. Yes, this is what Serfdom is all about.
how do you know he didn't point his weapon at the teens? were you there?
you have to understand also that a person, including a police officer can only use appropriate force when apprehending a person. a firearm against unarmed people is an unnecessary escalation of force for a civilian, and is unacceptable in Canadian society. theft and vandalism are not violent crimes, he unnecessarily brought a weapon into a situation that did not need one, he is therefore liable for his actions.
Sounds like Canada can use a little American justice. "Stand your ground" laws help honest people like this be able to do what's needed to rid the neighborhoods of putrid wastes of human life.
More like holding a firearm. In Canada it seems you can be charged with holding a firearm, even in repose on your own front step. In my days, a person carrying and displaying a shotgun never bothered me. If it was a fine shotgun it would be the focus of conversation. This all seems to me that the urban liberal elites now want to dictate what goes on in all of Canada. I don't buy it because my roots are rural and firearms were never perceived as a threat to anyone.
@CanadianReich ...didn't do your research eh? only two choices....trial by judge and jury or by judge alone. I can't speak for why the guy chose judge only, personally if it were me I would choose trial by jury because I'd be banking on having a few people with the american style thinking like the majority of people commenting on this post to sway the vote and at least get a hung jury, keep my ass out of jail for a few more months....hint that is one of the pros for trial by jury.
From a guy who likes to play a guitar with frets, I respect your opinion and this is all grist for the mill of conversation and freedom of expression. Nothing personal. I just don't agree with you.
Fretlessbass. I am sure that Mr. Manzer is a moral and good-hearted person. He was fed up and took action. An unloaded shotgun for Christ's sake! Give me a break! Are we all in the process of allowing the state to dictate everything to us now. We gobble it up like the sheep we have become; so placated that when we are threatened by thugs we have to let them run rampant over us in the name of political correctness. A new form of tyranny has taken root.
Okay, for one, you cannot possibly know whether he pointed a gun or not. There is no video footage, you weren't there. You're just so consumed by gun rights for some odd reason that you're making assumptions. If there are 3 witnesses saying he pointed a gun at them then that is more evidence than the 1 man saying, no I didn't. You don't know whether the kids were actually in anyone's back yard. Logical thing to do is call the police and NOT go outside with a gun.
That's how it works in Canada. The whole justice system is set up to defend the criminals and punish anyone with a gun. the only reason for this is to discourage gun ownership and ban whatever guns they can for any reason they can. Why do that? Communism. Don't believe me? Trudeau banned mashine guns and the carrying of handguns after some guy shot up a school with a mini 14 which is not a handgun or mashine gun. Donate bullets, to the revolution.
Just did my PAL & Restricted PAL and we discussed this case with the instructor. Lawrence Manzer was unfortunately not within the law here. Because there was no need for self-defense to protect him-self, or to protect another, he was in the wrong. In Canada we have no property protection (such as the USA's Castle Doctrine law). It would have been very different if the kids were in his home, (even then he'd be in a mess). The folks in that neighborhood should have rented guard dogs. : (
@gymteacherhump You had a lawyer teach you your PAL and R-PAL class? Manzer was charged with "possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace." So you now advocate that the neighbourhood should have rented their weapons instead, right? Or are guard dogs not weapons? Really? look up the CCC definition of a weapon. It's in the first 3 pages. And we do have property protection rights as per s454 CCC (RSC 1980, as amended). "No need to protect....another" What? Did you watch the video?
Hate to say this, but I'm not expecting change. If it comes I'll be very glad, but I'll be shocked if the Conservatives even get rid of the long-gun registry.
Meanwhile in Montreal, mobster Basil Parasiris was acquitted of shooting and killing a police officer who came to arrest him because he allegedly didn't hear them announce themselves as cops before breaking his door down...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is Canada! A person cannot carry a shotgun in public while confronting people. Move to the united States if you want to threaten people with guns. This is the stupidest argument I have ever heard.
@kateysfirearmsfacts HE HAD A GUN AND WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE SITUATION. There was no need to bring a shotgun out of his house! He should be punished.
I'm sure he's a good guy and had good intentions but he made a bad decision and should have to suffer the consequences....
@fretlessbass You're either a troll or you genuinely believe common sense has no place in life.
What, exactly, should Manzer be punished for? No one got hurt. No one got threatened. Must we punish a honest law-abiding man for spending 10 minutes on his front porch with an unloaded shotgun?
You say "he should have handled it differently"? Please elaborate. I'm quite keen to hear how you would have handled Manzer's situation. Perhaps then somebody else will pop up and demand YOU be punished.
@kateysfirearmsfacts 1) if he "didn't confront anyone", then how did he manage to "physically apprehend one of the young offenders"? 2) Please explain to me which crime Manzer is a victim of prior to being charged by the RCMP that I should be truly outraged about (according to the editorial you cited...). If the three teens were armed and had prior records of violent offense, ok, I can understand Manzer might have been in fear of his life. That didn't seem to be the case.
@0scottweise18 And how would you place the burden upon Manzer to determine the criminal past of the young offenders? Should he have asked them to fill out a questionnaire or provide police record checks? These punks were performing criminal acts. How the fuck is Manzer supposed to know how these assholes are going to act? They're fucking trespassing vandalizing criminals! It's fools like you who breed the attitude these morons had, which is summed up by "I'm untouchable. I'll do what I want."
@CJC1295DAC I am not sure who you think you are replying to, because nothing you've said has any actual relevance to my question for Katey, which is 1) her contradictory and potentially misleading description of the alleged incident, and 2) her interpretation of the criminal code.
@kateysfirearmsfacts you don't have to leave your porch to confront someone....especially when you have a weapon capable of hurling a projectile over measured distance. If he yelled at the kids from his porch...he confronted them.
@fretlessbass Many of my friends are Canadian and I admire them and thier country, but you need to understand that the right of self defence does not come from a government. It is an innate right that we all have from birth...unless we give it up to a goverment and make ourselves vulnerable to those that prey on the weak. kateysfirearmsfacts also has a point, he didn't even aim the gun at anyone. Fear of guns seems to be the motive here.
@fishndoc11 Unfortunately, there's no such thing as self-defense in Canada. When attacked, you have a "duty to retreat". Furthermore, anything that can be used as a weapon is illegal (pepper spray, tazers, batons, iron fists, and ironicly, hollow-point bullets are illegal (since they're made for self-defense/shooting people only, although normal bullets are legal).
@XanderCDN I didn't know that law was that draconian. I feel for you guys up there. My family is the most important thing in my life and I will not let anyone tell me that I can't defend them. If it ever gets like that here I will either be put prison or be killed when they try to take my guns.
@fishndoc11 Self defense doesn't mean bringing a shotgun out of your house! He wasn't even being directly threatened. This could have been handled much differently, and for that reason Manzer should be punished. There is a difference between self defense and carrying a weapon. Allowing him to get off the hook for this would just open the door for other cases involving firearms. Move to the USA if you want to carry a gun on you and get away with it...
@fretlessbass I already live in the US and because of your anti gun and self defense laws I would never consider living in Canada even though it is such a beautiful country. No sob story just don't come creeping around my house at night or you might get a surprise.
The charge was "possessing a weapon dangerous to the public peace." It doesn't matter what his intentions were, he still brought the shotgun out of his house, which is obviously considered a dangerous weapon. The public was involved, which further merits the charge. Quit the sob story, the court clearly made the right decision...
@fishndoc11 the government doesn't tell you that you can't have one, you can have as many as you want just as long as you abide by the laws that govern the acquisition, possession, storage, and use of said firearms. yes it is their place to tell you what you can have and how you can use it, because thats what the government does. don't like it, vote for someone else.
@hammer499 Maybe that is your governments place, the constution of the United States tells me that my right to keep and bare arms SHALL NOT BE IMFRINGED so it is not my governments place. I do vote for the politicians that suport my beliefs that is why CCW and castle law is becoming so popular in the states. Well, that and it reduces violent crime.
@fishndoc11 again you still have to abide by the laws that govern the acquisition, possession, storage, and use of your firearm, no matter how liberal; yes it IS the governments place to tell you this..if the government wanted to abolish your right to bare arms under some obscure legislation it could... it wouldn't last long because all your heads would explode, but that is what they can do. don't believe me, look at all the freedoms they can infringe on with your anti-terrorism legislation
@hammer499 Yes, you are right. He who has the power makes the rules. I am just saying the US Constitution guarantees a right that was born with me. You are right also, that my government is taking more and more of our rights and ignoring the constitution. The only right that people can keep are the ones they are willing to fight for. Thus the Revolution. I don't know what the future will bring, but it needs to start here with the exchange of ideas instead of bullets. I salute Katey.
@fishndoc11 self defense can not exceed the force it is used to counter, you cannot bring a gun to a fist fight. if he was being fired upon then yes there would be grounds for him to return fire if his life were in danger, but that still doesn't mean he wouldn't be held liable for the outcome. I still challenge katey to give solid evidence that he did not point the firearm at the individuals....'because he said he didn't' is a laughable response.
@hammer499 Self defense is the act of using force to protect one’s self against a perceived treat. He didn't know who was out there or what they had on them, just that they were there illegally. He just used the threat of force to scare them away. IMO whether he pointed it at them is immaterial, it wasn’t loaded. I think it should have been loaded in case it was a real criminal and any law that punishes someone for defending themselves or their neighbors is counterproductive.
@fishndoc11 you're right, but that force cannot exceed the level of threat. just having a person on your property illegally is not grounds to go right to deadly force. l if he went outside and got shot at, or saw a firearm then he would have grounds to meet the force appropriately. while you are entitled to your opinion, pointing a firearm (loaded or not) is an offence and one of the charges leveled against him so it is therefore not immaterial. the law is there to discourage vigilantism and...
@hammer499 He did not know what he was going to confront out there so he came prepared for the worst. Pointing a fire arm at someone who is comiting a crime is not an offence in America so that arguement does not stand with me. Finally defending ones self is not vigilantism. If a teen dies while trespassing that is tragic, but maybe the parents should have taught them it was wrong and dangerous. The land owner should not be held accountable for a misguided teens mistake.
@fishndoc11 'coming out prepared' is a ridiculous statement, there is only one reason why a person would have a firearm in a situation like that, to threaten to or commit grievous bodily harm or death against another person. It is taught at the most basic of weapon safety classes. that you NEVER point a firearm at something you do not intend to destroy, why would he even bring the weapon out if he wasn't ready and willing to use it? 'i just wanted to scare them is not at all a valid excuse to...
@hammer499 Once again you are right. You should not point a gun at anything you are not williing to shoot. That is why if it had been me it would have been loaded and they would have surrendered if they were smart, but mischievous teens and I would have been prepared if they had been a real criminal intent on doing me harm. This is how you defend yourself since the bad guys rarely let you know in advance that they are coming.
@fishndoc11 your comment is all over the place here...and not really pertain to the case at hand, just what you'd do which sounds like commit MURDER for a MINOR property crime, which is wrong no matter how you look at it.
@hammer499 I'm sorry that you don't get it. Self defence is a right that we are all born with. To be able to defend yourself (since the government can't and won't) you have to be ready for the worst case scenario all the time, that is why this law is wrong. The fact that it turned out to be a couple of dumb ass kids is irrelevent. what if it was a murder instead. and no I do not ever want to shoot someone, but I will if I have to in defnce of myself or family.
@fishndoc11 seems like you're missing the boat on this one (explained why your screen name is fish?) i agree fully with you that self defence is a right, Section 26, 34(1)(2), 35, 36, 37, and 41 of the CANADIAN Criminal Code outline this right, most notably Section 37 : (1) everyone is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, IF HE USES NO MORE FORCE THAN IS NECESSARY to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.....
@fishndoc11 ...(2) nothing in this section shall be deemed to JUSTIFY THE WILFUL INFLICTION OF ANY HURT OR MISCHIEF THAT IS EXCESSIVE, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.
in laymans terms, you cannot bring a firearm to a petty property crime, lethal force or the threat of is excessive in this case. your statement of 'you have to be ready for the worst case scenario all the time' is a ridiculously paranoid statement which has no bearing....
@hammer499 I didn't advocate that anyone come out with guns blazing. That is your misconception. I only advocate that a person should be prepared to defend themself when walking into the unknown and I don't care what country you live in any law that keeps a person from doing that is wrong. If every country paid more attention to individual freedoms than government control the world would be a better place. Like I said before it's sad that you can't understand that.
@fishndoc11 no misconception at all as i have never claimed that was your point, your point from the beginning of our interaction was self defense. what you don't seem to get is that coming out with a firearm in your hand to 'be prepared to defend yourself when walking into the unknown' is a escalation of force by the person exiting the house with a firearm. Think, if an armed person is intent on stealing your car, and you confront him with a firearm what do you think is going to happen?....
@fishndoc11 ...that scumbag is going to engage you because by exiting your house armed, you have escalated the situation to the point where the scumbag will try to defend himself against YOU. Now i am not nor have never been against self defense, if you or your family are being attacked, or there is a real threat of attack, say someone in your house, then by all means use AS MUCH FORCE AS NECESSARY to repel that threat. What's truly sad fish is your paranoid big brother bs you're spouting....
@fishndoc11 ...you want to see government control, move to an arab country, where simple anti-government comments like the ones you've made would land you in jail or worse...THAT is government control. The freedoms we take for granted are mind blowing, and there a good number of men and women giving their lives to keep it that way.
@hammer499 I have been to more arab countries than I care to tell you as well as European, far eastern and African. I know what government control looks like and I know it starts small. Like arresting a man for having an unloaded shotgun. My only piont here is that I am with Katey, when you start taking the side of criminals over someone defending their home you are headed down the wrong path.
@fishndoc11 good then you know the freedom we enjoy is unparallelled in the world. I assure you it will never get that bad here, because the freedoms we have prevent the government from having that much control. If you are with Katey good for you, that's your choice. But when Mr Manzer came out with a shot gun for a situation that had NOTHING to do with his or his family's safety, nor the need for a firearm, HE BROKE THE LAW, whether you, or Katey agree with it is moot, he went too far....
@fishndoc11 ...we can agree to disagree on this subject. If this law is truly unjust it is up to the Supreme Court to decide, not us. But until that day, it is still in effect and therefore will be enforced.
@hammer499 OK agree to disagree. Thank you for the lively debate. It was much more civil than most I have had. Normally if you don't agree with them they start calling you names. Good life to you.
@fishndoc11 in Canadian civilian life. ever think that the reason why you yanks are so paranoid is because EVERYONE is carrying a weapon?
your statement that government can't and won't protect you is an insult to the men and women in your armed forces and emergency services who suit up every day to protect you, that kind of red neck, the reds are coming thinking is outdated and completely counter productive to a modern society.
@hammer499 coming out prepared is not a ridiculous statement. you come out armed because a lethal threat is not beyond the scope of your imagination for what you might find outside your house. if you go out unarmed, and there is a lethal threat, it's too damn late to go back inside and load up. if it's not a lethal threat, then the weapon wont be used. simple as that. this man has effectively been jailed for making preperations to put his life on the line to protect his family and his community.
@secretshadow87 it is a ridiculous statement because your imagination has no bearing on the law, there must be a PERCEIVED (not imagined) threat of grievous bodily harm or death before you can even think of using lethal force yourself. just because there is someone outside your house DOES NOT give you the right to jump straight to lethal force to counter a person. your statement of if there is no threat then the weapon wont be used outlines that you're not grasping the fact...
@secretshadow87 Canadians cannot carry firearms around except for the approved purposes outlined in legislation. this man was jailed and charged because he broke the law, not because he put his life on the line to protect his family as there was NO threat to his life from the vandals. Remember imagination has absolutely no bearing on the law.
Respond to this video... ..carry a dangerous weapon into a situation that did not warrant it. This is offense happened in Canada NOT America, so whether it 'stands' with you or not is completely moot. In Canada you cannot point a firearm at a person. He was not defending himself as he was not under attack, his property was. Regardless of what the shit rat's parents taught them, what Manzer did was wrong, the land owner is not being held accountable for the teens mistakes he is being held...
@hammer499 Not all laws are right. Some of them need to changed for the benefit of the people and that is what Katey is doing. Finally, people wanting to legislate eveything instead of holding the ones commiting the wrong accountable is why this world is in such a mess
@fishndoc11 you're right, not all laws are always in the best interest of the public it is enacted to protect for different reasons. Like i've said before that is why we have Section 1 of the Charter, but again it is not up to us to decide, that is what the Supreme Court of Canada is for. Katey isn't really advocating change, she is just making light of one case, she hasn't really made any argument for change. her only argument is that 'victims' should not be treated like criminals..
@fishndoc11 ...what she is not mentioning is that if the 'victim' takes action outside the realm of what he is legally entitled to do...he goes from victim to offender. Criminals, no matter if they're shit rats or not, have rights too, which were allegedly violated in this case.
@hammer499 Once a person unlawfully enters a property their rights have been forfit to the land owner defending himself. This is called castle doctrine and has proven very effective at reducing crime along with concealed carry here. If you haven't figured it out yet I don't think you will.
@fishndoc11 it seems it is you who hasn't figured anything out fish, i'll spell it out for you again. This situation happened in CANADA, a sovereign country with it's own government and laws, we are not as liberal with our firearms as you yanks are, that doesn't mean we don't love our firearms, we in fact have more per capita than your country. Also we do NOT have a 'castle doctrine' in this country, which wouldn't come into effect in this case anyway as it was not Manzers property which was...
@fishndoc11 being vandalized by the youths, it was his neighbors. You are doing yourself no favors by bringing american law or thinking into this situation, your laws and views shaped by those laws have absolutely nothing to do with this case.
@fishndoc11 ...accountable for his actions which were allegedly carrying and pointing a firearm at unarmed persons..whether they seemingly deserved it or not.
@fishndoc11 pointless death for minor crimes like the ones the kids were engaged in. let's play THE DEVILS ADVOCATE for a sec. and think, what if manzer came out and blasted these kids....shit rats or not.... do they deserve do die for tagging some property?
@hammer499 One of the problems in this (Canada) country's laws is that too many of them assume the worst in people. Carrying a firearm when making an arrest (citizens or otherwise) should not be illegal. An arrest made under the authority of the CCC has the same weight whether carried out by a peace officer or a private citizen.
People who point to an action and say "that's illegal" need to look at the "law" being broken and ask if it is just.
@JDGWRedneck aaahh you're going to have to explain that a bit more to make your argument, examples would be warranted in your explanation. Most of the laws are brought about BECAUSE of the worst in people, a quick flip through the Criminal Code (CC...not CCC. CCC is Canadian Criminal Case, or case law) and you'll find the most heinous of crimes outlined all because someone has done them. you're on the right track with regards to arrest there are some glaring differences between a civilian....
@JDGWRedneck ..arrest and a PO arrest but i will not get into them here. I don't follow your thinking that carrying a firearm when effecting an arrest should not be illegal. first off you say citizen or otherwise...well it is not illegal for an on duty PO to carry a firearm when effecting an arrest...but for a citizen, unless they have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, cannot..because citizens of this country cannot carry firearms unless engaging in a legally sanctioned event (hunting etc.)
@JDGWRedneck your argument that people should look at the law and ask if it's just or not is not up to the people to decide, it is up to the courts that is why we have Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I encourage you to look into that and research the case law with regards to some of the laws that have been deemed demonstrable and subsequently struck down.
Hopefully one day you will have to confront some hoods skulking around your back yard at night. You can show us all your "Canadian" sensibilities in dealing with the situation. Then when you are beaten severely and left with permanent brain damage we can all praise you for your "Canadian" way of handling of the situation.
But, I'm probably reading this wrong. YOU are probably the hood that does the skulking and YOU don't want to be confronted with a gun...
@fretlessbass You sir, are a moron. You clearly did not watch the ENTIRE video. Was that too difficult for you? People, legally defending their property and families, were charged with crimes that are, clearly, sheer nonsense.
I really hope that NO one ever forces you into the same situation.
This man did the right thing, and thanks to the new Conservative majority, others in his situation will be protected. Even you.
Translation "This is Canada! A person cannot protect their life against criminals or those that would do you harm! If you want rights and freedoms move to the United States!
@fretlessbass Why don't you move to China you anti-gun freak! Thank God the U.S. has guns... that way criminals think twice before committing crime or pay a heavy price when they do. Guess what? Only anti-gun helpless victims catch the worst of it, why??? Because they don't have a gun to defend themselves. You are a socialist living the socialist dream, but I wonder how you'll feel when three animals rape your girlfreind (or boyfriend in your case)? You'll wake up then and wish for a gun. Loser!
Next time when the law does not show up and take care of th problem..sue the hell out of them. Since the government want sto play God and hold the high ground and they don't. Pull them into court.
cases like this piss me off. the kids that got arrested must be connected to someone who has pull in the community. it has caused an embarrasment for that person that their kids are delinquents and now they are pushing for punishment of the innocent so that their kids look less at fault. Give the consevatives a majority and lets scrap the long gun registry. at least that will be one step in the right direction
Too bad he can't sue RCMP for 6 months dereliction of duty! If I were Mr Manzer every tv/radio/Internet outlet I could get to listen to me I'd be on. Why can't he hold these fools he calls his government accountable for what they have not done? Why is the onus his own?
You should start a letter campaign to the magistrate that will be overseeing his case. A dew thousand outraged letters could make a difference.
The Canadian law system can be manipulated so easily. I was happy to hear there are others out there getting out of trouble much like I did. Keep up the good work kids.
Soon - even with the Constitution, i fear that America will have numerous cases like this because that is what "justice" has become - protecting criminals and punishment of the innocent
Not just the people of New Brunswick. All of Canada. We all have to start waking up to this slippery slope we are walking down. It is the thin end of the wedge folks. Political correctness, special interest groups with PUBLICLY funded bureaucracies in the government. The list goes on. We have to wake up and realize that freedom is being usurped by a bunch of self-indulgent (living large off the public purse) control freaks. Just look at the UK! Wake up Canadians.
We cannot not allow ourselves to be cajoled to those who would gain. Its the classic situation of problem (crisis) reaction, and solution. The socialist media propagates fear to make people malleable. Once in such a state the public seems more willing to sacrifice their liberties for the so-called better good. The tragic L'Ecole Polytechnique killings are such an example. It became hi-jacked to serve a political agenda. This is why this man is being charged. Glad to hear he has support.
The people of New Brunswick need to raise this issue and speak VERY loud! Especially at election time!!! Not too long ago, a grocer in chinatown Toronto (David Chen) was charged with kidnapping and forcible confinement for catching a shoplifter. The people raised their voices and the Conservative Government listened. Not only were the charges dropped, but Harper introduced new legislation designed to protect victims of crime making civilian arrests! Call your MP's!!!
A few nights ago here in Phx,AZ a young pregnant woman was home alone when her DB was rung at 11:30, PM. Then she heard noise in her backyard. Then she saw an arm reach in the doggy door trying to unlock the backdoor. She got the household gun, knew how to turn off the safety, and fired at the door.The intruder quickly left. Later, the Phx.PD,& local media praised her courage. P.S Think that criminal will ever be back to that house,or any house? He's learned criminal life is very dangerous.
boomer1954ful 1 week ago
Comment removed
MrScottJMiller 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boomer1954ful So if the intruder was killed for that it would be ok?
MrScottJMiller 6 days ago
It's money / individuals. By decietful, maybe intelligent blokes.
Nexgcs 2 weeks ago
CASE UPDATE - mistrial was declared, Manzer was free to go, nothing else will happen.
degenret01 1 month ago
You look 10 years older how?
superthundereagle 1 month ago
Awe. You cut your pretty blond hair!
N9QJA 1 month ago
Katey what ever happened to this case?
DSketti 2 months ago
I commented on two of your other videos.
I didn't realize you're Canadian
Here in the US our GUARANTEED right to
be armed has been unlawfully infringed..
An ARMED citizenry is a FREE citizenry.
- Safe, too.
tomken8dy 3 months ago
Was the “technicality” he did nothing to get arrested in the first place?
mp5man 3 months ago
Katey you are gorgeous!
stevesaporito 3 months ago
Mam, sad part is this trend is across Canada and the US. its a shame of the stupidity of the governments in charge.
45acpreloading 3 months ago
Does Castle law apply in this area?
Snapshot290 3 months ago
i totally understand. america is doing the same thing in america. theres a bill up to put serial number on rounds.... trust me we are getting the same shaft here. in Ny some one got charged for shooting at a burgler... makes sense right?!
TEXmex2092 4 months ago
Individual rights slowly being taken away all across the world. Even as screwed up as the US is I'm still very glad I live here.
SoulSurvivorX2 5 months ago
A shotgun loaded with light shot fired low is a huge deterrent to a criminal. It's better to have thugs run with a backside full of # 6 shot as opposed to the alternative, which could be potentially far more brutal. Criminals don't respect laws and have no empathy. If I were the creep I would be thankful for getting shotgun pellets picked out of my ass (rather A .45 ACP bullet from my spine) and would learn a salient lesson I hope.
brianl890 5 months ago
Here is a good man who seems by all accounts to be morally centred. Simply brought out his shotgun (unloaded) to make a statement. He wasn't going to take it anymore and just wanted to make a symbolic stand posing with his shotgun. Not pointing it at anyone! Now he has to face a slew of charges? This is an absolute disgrace.
brianl890 5 months ago
Im not attempting to start anything, but God, I love America!
dirkbikeman1001 5 months ago
also, you should have made a video for the mistrial information, would have been nice to hear instead of finding out 2 months later. you should do another video when the long gun registry is finally sacked :D.
flamedrag18 5 months ago
happy to hear that it was mistrialed, but I would have preferred a not guilty verdict, would have done a lot more for our gun rights.
flamedrag18 5 months ago
i am just trying to pick up on the Canadian gun laws so forgive me if I'm wrong here. Are you trying to get gun laws in Canada where everyone can carry a concealed weapon? What if the kids had guns? Wouldn't that be worse?Guns aren't the solution, a better Police force/government is. Same here in the UK. I know I wouldn't want to hear off people being shot because someone mistook an enquiry for a robbery as happpened to two drunken Scotsmen in America a few years back.
MrScottJMiller 5 months ago
@MrScottJMiller from your comment, you know nothing about gun rights, laws or facts of your own nation let alone of Canada.
flamedrag18 5 months ago
@flamedrag18 CAN YOU READ?! You know about the "gun rights, laws or facts" in the UK do you? By your comment your an ignorant adolescent.
MrScottJMiller 5 months ago
@MrScottJMiller
Dear Mr.Miller, Bless your naive heart but the right to carry arms actually REDUCES violent crimes, esp. the gun holder's safety. I understand your belief. I believe you've been taught to be against guns by your media and your gov't. Guns don't shoot people. People shoot people.Guns are merely a tool.There is no such thing as 'a better police force or gov't.' They may get BIGGER and more EXPENSIVE, but never better. I can give stats to support if you are interested. Sincerely,B
boomer1954ful 1 week ago
@boomer1954ful Dear Mr Boomer, How wrong you are! Wait a minute, you are saying that I should ignore the media and "my gov't" yet you say you can supply stats? Where are those stats coming from exactly? An "independent" survey? In the UK since guns have become more available from the former eastern block, there has been a huge increase of gun crimes especially with kids.
MrScottJMiller 6 days ago
@boomer1954ful Now, if those guns were NOT available there wouldn't be those crimes so i don't see where having the right to carry arms would decrease GUN crimes and i doubt very much it would make a difference to violent crimes.Violent crimes will happen in the UK if there are guns or not...what won't happen is people being shot when someone "panics" and believes that someone is going to attack them when in fact they could be trying to help them.
MrScottJMiller 6 days ago
@boomer1954ful I live in Scotland where handguns are banned after a maniac went into a primary school and murdered kids....it hasn't happened since then....How many times has there been mass shootings in schools in America?
MrScottJMiller 6 days ago
its growing because the liberals and NDP know they need the criminal element and I dont mean to be racist but most are either refugees or illegals to get into or stay in power.this is why our laws need to be changed,especially when it comes to the youth criminal justice act.This act allows juvenille offenders to become adult offenders when they should have been given an adult sentence in the 1st place.if your old enough to do the crime your old enough to do the time.we need the death penalty.
ranchai100 5 months ago 2
Come to Texas! We love our guns and our gun rights and exercise them freely :D
JoyousinJesus 5 months ago
Glad to hear the charges were dropped, keep up the good work and thanks from a fellow Canadian gun nut :)
hogsnplanes 6 months ago
I just found your channel and as a fellow Canadian I think your doing a excellent job in pointing out the inadequacies of Canadian gun laws, I agree with you 100% on all your view points Ive seen so far. I will be watching your channel religiously now. Keep up the good work.
kdo54 6 months ago
Please do make the link that the RCMP are Police Officers. They are not. Real Police Officers are better trained and more in tune with society. Police Officers are there for the victims of crime not to enable the criminal.
iamjustacomber 6 months ago
That is CRAZY!!! Move down here to TEXAS!!! :)
HerbWalker 6 months ago
Your glasses were on crooked the entire video. XD
Kunosachiaka 7 months ago
Fuck! Common sense is going to be a chargeable offense before too long.
SamBaine91 7 months ago
Katey, you are gorgeous! Keep fighting the good fight.
doc1buc 7 months ago
The charge is "possession of a weapon FOR A PURPOSE dangerous to the public peace" but, then, I realize that you, are only repeating the garbage spouted by anti-gun reporters, police officers and prosecutors.
Let's hope the Judge has a brain!!
speedosam1950 7 months ago
@speedosam1950 Either you can't comprehend my position on "gun control" or you don't believe anyone should be able to defend themselves, their families or their neighbours in times of trouble. If the former, watch the video again. I support Mr. Manzer fully. If the latter, I sure hope you're never in a situation where you need "a man with a gun" to keep you safe from harm. FYI, the case was dismissed yesterday afternoon on a technicality.
kateysfirearmsfacts 7 months ago 5
Actually, I do believe that every Citizen has the right to defend him/her self with a firearm if/when necessary. When I used the phrase "garbage spouted by anti-gun reporters" I was referring to the fact that the press SEEMS to love mis-representing that section of the Criminal Code of Canada and when doing so, of course, they invariably infer that any use of a weapon by anyone who is not a Police Officer constitutes "danger" to everyone else.
speedosam1950 7 months ago 2
@speedosam1950 Still don't get why you said that I'm the one spouting off that way. I'm not. I'm doing everything I can to FIGHT that garbage in the press and everywhere else.
kateysfirearmsfacts 7 months ago 3
@kateysfirearmsfacts As an American I can say that I REALLY appreciate what you are doing for Canada. I feel that many people have an unrealistic understanding of what it means to be in need of defense. It takes less than 10 seconds for something deadly to occur, and 3 minutes at BEST for police to respond. People do not recognize that the police are a clean up crew. I myself live a pretty far distance outside of town, so if I need help I have to do it on my own. Keep it up!
gat0rbball 6 months ago
@kateysfirearmsfacts you don't really give a position on gun control, and like i've said before, he was not defending himself as he was not being assaulted. Heck it wasn't even HIS property that was being violated. The only thing he should have done was call 911 and the 'men with guns' would have been there to deal with the situation accordingly. I agree with speed, WHEN NECESSARY i believe a person has a right to defend him/herself with a fire arm 100%...this case was....
hammer499 7 months ago
@kateysfirearmsfacts ..not one of those situations. I must also take issue with your critique of the crown and their election of a summary trial, both situations are a right of a Canadian citizen to have, it is the job of the crown to get a conviction of a suspected criminal so that punishment for a wrong can be administered. If they only have enough evidence to commence with a summary trial than so be it, this is a reason why so many offenses are duel....
hammer499 7 months ago
@kateysfirearmsfacts ..also a summary trial is not only cheaper but less time consuming. Also you make mention that there was no police response for the vandalism and break ins for 6 months until this incident happened... I find that very hard to believe, if people report a crime, police will respond, please provide evidence which substantiates your claim. keeping in mind, citing a lack of police reports is not viable evidence, if people do not report a crime, police will...
hammer499 7 months ago
@kateysfirearmsfacts ..not respond. Anyway all of this matters not anymore, as you said a technicality, which has set so many criminals free in the past, has again saved a person from being held accountable for his actions. He gets his time in the spot light...maybe a book deal about the big bad cops arresting him on a holy day, you're happy....life goes on. It's just a good thing no one was killed for a petty crime.
hammer499 7 months ago
Great video. I've been following this case and it makes me sick. I congratulate Manzer for his actions and think, if anything, the shotgun should have been loaded, just in case. Bring on Castle doctrine. Hopefully, PM Harper's new laws which will soon be discussed will improve the situation and they are supposed to. BTW: The new hair looks great.
contondant 7 months ago
Excellent video. We have very similar issues here in Australia, unfortunately.
Ironwulf2000 8 months ago
I was living in Canada about six years ago. I'm so glad that I am not living there now. Despite the election of Stephen Harper, Canada for the most part is still way too Marxist-like for my tastes.
What point is there for Canadians to own guns legally in their own homes if they are just going to get arrested on trumped up charges as soon as they use their guns to defend their own homes?
blanckepi 8 months ago
If it was me it would be a loaded .45 1911. It's time this stops and good people are allowed to defend themselves in a reasonable and responsible manner. This was reasonable and it introduced a bit of fear into these thugs. We are not sheep to be herded, but individuals who value life and liberty. This man is a good man and deserved to be charged with nothing! Better yet, accolades should be given to him.
brianl890 8 months ago
I am not from the UK, but the same thing is going on there, it is all part of the plan to get you to drop the silly notion that you can be responsible for yourself. How many 'Lawrence Manzers' do they have to arrest to get you to stop acting like a Citizen and start acting like a Subject. Yes, this is what Serfdom is all about.
coolzip 8 months ago
how do you know he didn't point his weapon at the teens? were you there?
you have to understand also that a person, including a police officer can only use appropriate force when apprehending a person. a firearm against unarmed people is an unnecessary escalation of force for a civilian, and is unacceptable in Canadian society. theft and vandalism are not violent crimes, he unnecessarily brought a weapon into a situation that did not need one, he is therefore liable for his actions.
hammer499 9 months ago
Comment removed
hammer499 9 months ago
we need a new and improved justice system and we should start with new laws and a new national police force. Good luck lawrence
goddamesmith64 9 months ago
Sounds like Canada can use a little American justice. "Stand your ground" laws help honest people like this be able to do what's needed to rid the neighborhoods of putrid wastes of human life.
agentsirus 9 months ago
I might be able to tell you why, but you might not believe me.
JackTheWeazel 9 months ago
More like holding a firearm. In Canada it seems you can be charged with holding a firearm, even in repose on your own front step. In my days, a person carrying and displaying a shotgun never bothered me. If it was a fine shotgun it would be the focus of conversation. This all seems to me that the urban liberal elites now want to dictate what goes on in all of Canada. I don't buy it because my roots are rural and firearms were never perceived as a threat to anyone.
brianl890 9 months ago
Judge and NO jury = show trial.
Stalin did it. Hitler did it. I guess we are doing it too.
CanadianReich 9 months ago 2
@CanadianReich it's actually the defendant who chooses to be tried by judge alone or jury trial. Try to do a little research next time eh.
hammer499 9 months ago
@hammer499
Do go on....what were his exact choices? Lay out the pros and cons for me. why would he chose no jury?
CanadianReich 8 months ago
@CanadianReich ...didn't do your research eh? only two choices....trial by judge and jury or by judge alone. I can't speak for why the guy chose judge only, personally if it were me I would choose trial by jury because I'd be banking on having a few people with the american style thinking like the majority of people commenting on this post to sway the vote and at least get a hung jury, keep my ass out of jail for a few more months....hint that is one of the pros for trial by jury.
hammer499 8 months ago
From a guy who likes to play a guitar with frets, I respect your opinion and this is all grist for the mill of conversation and freedom of expression. Nothing personal. I just don't agree with you.
brianl890 9 months ago
Fretlessbass. I am sure that Mr. Manzer is a moral and good-hearted person. He was fed up and took action. An unloaded shotgun for Christ's sake! Give me a break! Are we all in the process of allowing the state to dictate everything to us now. We gobble it up like the sheep we have become; so placated that when we are threatened by thugs we have to let them run rampant over us in the name of political correctness. A new form of tyranny has taken root.
brianl890 9 months ago
Okay, for one, you cannot possibly know whether he pointed a gun or not. There is no video footage, you weren't there. You're just so consumed by gun rights for some odd reason that you're making assumptions. If there are 3 witnesses saying he pointed a gun at them then that is more evidence than the 1 man saying, no I didn't. You don't know whether the kids were actually in anyone's back yard. Logical thing to do is call the police and NOT go outside with a gun.
Jennivision 9 months ago
That's how it works in Canada. The whole justice system is set up to defend the criminals and punish anyone with a gun. the only reason for this is to discourage gun ownership and ban whatever guns they can for any reason they can. Why do that? Communism. Don't believe me? Trudeau banned mashine guns and the carrying of handguns after some guy shot up a school with a mini 14 which is not a handgun or mashine gun. Donate bullets, to the revolution.
Xdust5 9 months ago
Just did my PAL & Restricted PAL and we discussed this case with the instructor. Lawrence Manzer was unfortunately not within the law here. Because there was no need for self-defense to protect him-self, or to protect another, he was in the wrong. In Canada we have no property protection (such as the USA's Castle Doctrine law). It would have been very different if the kids were in his home, (even then he'd be in a mess). The folks in that neighborhood should have rented guard dogs. : (
gymteacherhump 9 months ago
@gymteacherhump You had a lawyer teach you your PAL and R-PAL class? Manzer was charged with "possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace." So you now advocate that the neighbourhood should have rented their weapons instead, right? Or are guard dogs not weapons? Really? look up the CCC definition of a weapon. It's in the first 3 pages. And we do have property protection rights as per s454 CCC (RSC 1980, as amended). "No need to protect....another" What? Did you watch the video?
CJC1295DAC 9 months ago
The Liberals are Toast! Things will change now :)
hogsnplanes 9 months ago
@hogsnplanes ...
Hate to say this, but I'm not expecting change. If it comes I'll be very glad, but I'll be shocked if the Conservatives even get rid of the long-gun registry.
gymteacherhump 9 months ago
@gymteacherhump They will :)
hogsnplanes 9 months ago
Meanwhile in Montreal, mobster Basil Parasiris was acquitted of shooting and killing a police officer who came to arrest him because he allegedly didn't hear them announce themselves as cops before breaking his door down...
XanderCDN 9 months ago 2
Canada's fucked up, but even if he didn't leave his property he was still outside in public view.
TheAKOmnicide 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is Canada! A person cannot carry a shotgun in public while confronting people. Move to the united States if you want to threaten people with guns. This is the stupidest argument I have ever heard.
fretlessbass 9 months ago
@fretlessbass You obviously weren't paying attention. He didn't confront anyone. He never left his front porch.
kateysfirearmsfacts 9 months ago 8
@kateysfirearmsfacts HE HAD A GUN AND WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE SITUATION. There was no need to bring a shotgun out of his house! He should be punished.
I'm sure he's a good guy and had good intentions but he made a bad decision and should have to suffer the consequences....
fretlessbass 9 months ago
@fretlessbass You're either a troll or you genuinely believe common sense has no place in life.
What, exactly, should Manzer be punished for? No one got hurt. No one got threatened. Must we punish a honest law-abiding man for spending 10 minutes on his front porch with an unloaded shotgun?
You say "he should have handled it differently"? Please elaborate. I'm quite keen to hear how you would have handled Manzer's situation. Perhaps then somebody else will pop up and demand YOU be punished.
DanVielwerth 9 months ago
@kateysfirearmsfacts 1) if he "didn't confront anyone", then how did he manage to "physically apprehend one of the young offenders"? 2) Please explain to me which crime Manzer is a victim of prior to being charged by the RCMP that I should be truly outraged about (according to the editorial you cited...). If the three teens were armed and had prior records of violent offense, ok, I can understand Manzer might have been in fear of his life. That didn't seem to be the case.
0scottweise18 9 months ago
@0scottweise18 And how would you place the burden upon Manzer to determine the criminal past of the young offenders? Should he have asked them to fill out a questionnaire or provide police record checks? These punks were performing criminal acts. How the fuck is Manzer supposed to know how these assholes are going to act? They're fucking trespassing vandalizing criminals! It's fools like you who breed the attitude these morons had, which is summed up by "I'm untouchable. I'll do what I want."
CJC1295DAC 9 months ago
@CJC1295DAC I am not sure who you think you are replying to, because nothing you've said has any actual relevance to my question for Katey, which is 1) her contradictory and potentially misleading description of the alleged incident, and 2) her interpretation of the criminal code.
0scottweise18 9 months ago
@kateysfirearmsfacts you don't have to leave your porch to confront someone....especially when you have a weapon capable of hurling a projectile over measured distance. If he yelled at the kids from his porch...he confronted them.
hammer499 9 months ago
@fretlessbass Many of my friends are Canadian and I admire them and thier country, but you need to understand that the right of self defence does not come from a government. It is an innate right that we all have from birth...unless we give it up to a goverment and make ourselves vulnerable to those that prey on the weak. kateysfirearmsfacts also has a point, he didn't even aim the gun at anyone. Fear of guns seems to be the motive here.
fishndoc11 9 months ago
@fishndoc11 Unfortunately, there's no such thing as self-defense in Canada. When attacked, you have a "duty to retreat". Furthermore, anything that can be used as a weapon is illegal (pepper spray, tazers, batons, iron fists, and ironicly, hollow-point bullets are illegal (since they're made for self-defense/shooting people only, although normal bullets are legal).
XanderCDN 9 months ago
@XanderCDN I didn't know that law was that draconian. I feel for you guys up there. My family is the most important thing in my life and I will not let anyone tell me that I can't defend them. If it ever gets like that here I will either be put prison or be killed when they try to take my guns.
fishndoc11 9 months ago
@fishndoc11 Self defense doesn't mean bringing a shotgun out of your house! He wasn't even being directly threatened. This could have been handled much differently, and for that reason Manzer should be punished. There is a difference between self defense and carrying a weapon. Allowing him to get off the hook for this would just open the door for other cases involving firearms. Move to the USA if you want to carry a gun on you and get away with it...
fretlessbass 9 months ago
@fretlessbass I already live in the US and because of your anti gun and self defense laws I would never consider living in Canada even though it is such a beautiful country. No sob story just don't come creeping around my house at night or you might get a surprise.
fishndoc11 9 months ago
The charge was "possessing a weapon dangerous to the public peace." It doesn't matter what his intentions were, he still brought the shotgun out of his house, which is obviously considered a dangerous weapon. The public was involved, which further merits the charge. Quit the sob story, the court clearly made the right decision...
fretlessbass 9 months ago
@fishndoc11 you don't need a gun to defend yourself
hammer499 9 months ago
@hammer499 That is not the point. I want one and it is not the governments place to tell me I can't have one.
fishndoc11 8 months ago
@fishndoc11 the government doesn't tell you that you can't have one, you can have as many as you want just as long as you abide by the laws that govern the acquisition, possession, storage, and use of said firearms. yes it is their place to tell you what you can have and how you can use it, because thats what the government does. don't like it, vote for someone else.
hammer499 8 months ago
@hammer499 Maybe that is your governments place, the constution of the United States tells me that my right to keep and bare arms SHALL NOT BE IMFRINGED so it is not my governments place. I do vote for the politicians that suport my beliefs that is why CCW and castle law is becoming so popular in the states. Well, that and it reduces violent crime.
fishndoc11 8 months ago
@fishndoc11 again you still have to abide by the laws that govern the acquisition, possession, storage, and use of your firearm, no matter how liberal; yes it IS the governments place to tell you this..if the government wanted to abolish your right to bare arms under some obscure legislation it could... it wouldn't last long because all your heads would explode, but that is what they can do. don't believe me, look at all the freedoms they can infringe on with your anti-terrorism legislation
hammer499 7 months ago
@hammer499 Yes, you are right. He who has the power makes the rules. I am just saying the US Constitution guarantees a right that was born with me. You are right also, that my government is taking more and more of our rights and ignoring the constitution. The only right that people can keep are the ones they are willing to fight for. Thus the Revolution. I don't know what the future will bring, but it needs to start here with the exchange of ideas instead of bullets. I salute Katey.
fishndoc11 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 self defense can not exceed the force it is used to counter, you cannot bring a gun to a fist fight. if he was being fired upon then yes there would be grounds for him to return fire if his life were in danger, but that still doesn't mean he wouldn't be held liable for the outcome. I still challenge katey to give solid evidence that he did not point the firearm at the individuals....'because he said he didn't' is a laughable response.
hammer499 7 months ago
@hammer499 Self defense is the act of using force to protect one’s self against a perceived treat. He didn't know who was out there or what they had on them, just that they were there illegally. He just used the threat of force to scare them away. IMO whether he pointed it at them is immaterial, it wasn’t loaded. I think it should have been loaded in case it was a real criminal and any law that punishes someone for defending themselves or their neighbors is counterproductive.
fishndoc11 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 you're right, but that force cannot exceed the level of threat. just having a person on your property illegally is not grounds to go right to deadly force. l if he went outside and got shot at, or saw a firearm then he would have grounds to meet the force appropriately. while you are entitled to your opinion, pointing a firearm (loaded or not) is an offence and one of the charges leveled against him so it is therefore not immaterial. the law is there to discourage vigilantism and...
hammer499 7 months ago
@hammer499 He did not know what he was going to confront out there so he came prepared for the worst. Pointing a fire arm at someone who is comiting a crime is not an offence in America so that arguement does not stand with me. Finally defending ones self is not vigilantism. If a teen dies while trespassing that is tragic, but maybe the parents should have taught them it was wrong and dangerous. The land owner should not be held accountable for a misguided teens mistake.
fishndoc11 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 'coming out prepared' is a ridiculous statement, there is only one reason why a person would have a firearm in a situation like that, to threaten to or commit grievous bodily harm or death against another person. It is taught at the most basic of weapon safety classes. that you NEVER point a firearm at something you do not intend to destroy, why would he even bring the weapon out if he wasn't ready and willing to use it? 'i just wanted to scare them is not at all a valid excuse to...
hammer499 7 months ago
@hammer499 Once again you are right. You should not point a gun at anything you are not williing to shoot. That is why if it had been me it would have been loaded and they would have surrendered if they were smart, but mischievous teens and I would have been prepared if they had been a real criminal intent on doing me harm. This is how you defend yourself since the bad guys rarely let you know in advance that they are coming.
fishndoc11 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 your comment is all over the place here...and not really pertain to the case at hand, just what you'd do which sounds like commit MURDER for a MINOR property crime, which is wrong no matter how you look at it.
hammer499 7 months ago
@hammer499 I'm sorry that you don't get it. Self defence is a right that we are all born with. To be able to defend yourself (since the government can't and won't) you have to be ready for the worst case scenario all the time, that is why this law is wrong. The fact that it turned out to be a couple of dumb ass kids is irrelevent. what if it was a murder instead. and no I do not ever want to shoot someone, but I will if I have to in defnce of myself or family.
fishndoc11 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 seems like you're missing the boat on this one (explained why your screen name is fish?) i agree fully with you that self defence is a right, Section 26, 34(1)(2), 35, 36, 37, and 41 of the CANADIAN Criminal Code outline this right, most notably Section 37 : (1) everyone is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, IF HE USES NO MORE FORCE THAN IS NECESSARY to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.....
hammer499 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 ...(2) nothing in this section shall be deemed to JUSTIFY THE WILFUL INFLICTION OF ANY HURT OR MISCHIEF THAT IS EXCESSIVE, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.
in laymans terms, you cannot bring a firearm to a petty property crime, lethal force or the threat of is excessive in this case. your statement of 'you have to be ready for the worst case scenario all the time' is a ridiculously paranoid statement which has no bearing....
hammer499 7 months ago
@hammer499 I didn't advocate that anyone come out with guns blazing. That is your misconception. I only advocate that a person should be prepared to defend themself when walking into the unknown and I don't care what country you live in any law that keeps a person from doing that is wrong. If every country paid more attention to individual freedoms than government control the world would be a better place. Like I said before it's sad that you can't understand that.
fishndoc11 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 no misconception at all as i have never claimed that was your point, your point from the beginning of our interaction was self defense. what you don't seem to get is that coming out with a firearm in your hand to 'be prepared to defend yourself when walking into the unknown' is a escalation of force by the person exiting the house with a firearm. Think, if an armed person is intent on stealing your car, and you confront him with a firearm what do you think is going to happen?....
hammer499 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 ...that scumbag is going to engage you because by exiting your house armed, you have escalated the situation to the point where the scumbag will try to defend himself against YOU. Now i am not nor have never been against self defense, if you or your family are being attacked, or there is a real threat of attack, say someone in your house, then by all means use AS MUCH FORCE AS NECESSARY to repel that threat. What's truly sad fish is your paranoid big brother bs you're spouting....
hammer499 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 ...you want to see government control, move to an arab country, where simple anti-government comments like the ones you've made would land you in jail or worse...THAT is government control. The freedoms we take for granted are mind blowing, and there a good number of men and women giving their lives to keep it that way.
hammer499 7 months ago
@hammer499 I have been to more arab countries than I care to tell you as well as European, far eastern and African. I know what government control looks like and I know it starts small. Like arresting a man for having an unloaded shotgun. My only piont here is that I am with Katey, when you start taking the side of criminals over someone defending their home you are headed down the wrong path.
fishndoc11 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 good then you know the freedom we enjoy is unparallelled in the world. I assure you it will never get that bad here, because the freedoms we have prevent the government from having that much control. If you are with Katey good for you, that's your choice. But when Mr Manzer came out with a shot gun for a situation that had NOTHING to do with his or his family's safety, nor the need for a firearm, HE BROKE THE LAW, whether you, or Katey agree with it is moot, he went too far....
hammer499 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 ...we can agree to disagree on this subject. If this law is truly unjust it is up to the Supreme Court to decide, not us. But until that day, it is still in effect and therefore will be enforced.
hammer499 7 months ago
@hammer499 OK agree to disagree. Thank you for the lively debate. It was much more civil than most I have had. Normally if you don't agree with them they start calling you names. Good life to you.
fishndoc11 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 deal, i concur, well debated, cheers.
hammer499 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 in Canadian civilian life. ever think that the reason why you yanks are so paranoid is because EVERYONE is carrying a weapon?
your statement that government can't and won't protect you is an insult to the men and women in your armed forces and emergency services who suit up every day to protect you, that kind of red neck, the reds are coming thinking is outdated and completely counter productive to a modern society.
hammer499 7 months ago
@hammer499 coming out prepared is not a ridiculous statement. you come out armed because a lethal threat is not beyond the scope of your imagination for what you might find outside your house. if you go out unarmed, and there is a lethal threat, it's too damn late to go back inside and load up. if it's not a lethal threat, then the weapon wont be used. simple as that. this man has effectively been jailed for making preperations to put his life on the line to protect his family and his community.
secretshadow87 7 months ago
@secretshadow87 it is a ridiculous statement because your imagination has no bearing on the law, there must be a PERCEIVED (not imagined) threat of grievous bodily harm or death before you can even think of using lethal force yourself. just because there is someone outside your house DOES NOT give you the right to jump straight to lethal force to counter a person. your statement of if there is no threat then the weapon wont be used outlines that you're not grasping the fact...
hammer499 7 months ago
@secretshadow87 Canadians cannot carry firearms around except for the approved purposes outlined in legislation. this man was jailed and charged because he broke the law, not because he put his life on the line to protect his family as there was NO threat to his life from the vandals. Remember imagination has absolutely no bearing on the law.
hammer499 7 months ago
Respond to this video... ..carry a dangerous weapon into a situation that did not warrant it. This is offense happened in Canada NOT America, so whether it 'stands' with you or not is completely moot. In Canada you cannot point a firearm at a person. He was not defending himself as he was not under attack, his property was. Regardless of what the shit rat's parents taught them, what Manzer did was wrong, the land owner is not being held accountable for the teens mistakes he is being held...
hammer499 7 months ago
@hammer499 Not all laws are right. Some of them need to changed for the benefit of the people and that is what Katey is doing. Finally, people wanting to legislate eveything instead of holding the ones commiting the wrong accountable is why this world is in such a mess
fishndoc11 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 you're right, not all laws are always in the best interest of the public it is enacted to protect for different reasons. Like i've said before that is why we have Section 1 of the Charter, but again it is not up to us to decide, that is what the Supreme Court of Canada is for. Katey isn't really advocating change, she is just making light of one case, she hasn't really made any argument for change. her only argument is that 'victims' should not be treated like criminals..
hammer499 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 ...what she is not mentioning is that if the 'victim' takes action outside the realm of what he is legally entitled to do...he goes from victim to offender. Criminals, no matter if they're shit rats or not, have rights too, which were allegedly violated in this case.
hammer499 7 months ago
@hammer499 Once a person unlawfully enters a property their rights have been forfit to the land owner defending himself. This is called castle doctrine and has proven very effective at reducing crime along with concealed carry here. If you haven't figured it out yet I don't think you will.
fishndoc11 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 it seems it is you who hasn't figured anything out fish, i'll spell it out for you again. This situation happened in CANADA, a sovereign country with it's own government and laws, we are not as liberal with our firearms as you yanks are, that doesn't mean we don't love our firearms, we in fact have more per capita than your country. Also we do NOT have a 'castle doctrine' in this country, which wouldn't come into effect in this case anyway as it was not Manzers property which was...
hammer499 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 being vandalized by the youths, it was his neighbors. You are doing yourself no favors by bringing american law or thinking into this situation, your laws and views shaped by those laws have absolutely nothing to do with this case.
hammer499 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 ...accountable for his actions which were allegedly carrying and pointing a firearm at unarmed persons..whether they seemingly deserved it or not.
hammer499 7 months ago
@fishndoc11 pointless death for minor crimes like the ones the kids were engaged in. let's play THE DEVILS ADVOCATE for a sec. and think, what if manzer came out and blasted these kids....shit rats or not.... do they deserve do die for tagging some property?
hammer499 7 months ago
@hammer499 One of the problems in this (Canada) country's laws is that too many of them assume the worst in people. Carrying a firearm when making an arrest (citizens or otherwise) should not be illegal. An arrest made under the authority of the CCC has the same weight whether carried out by a peace officer or a private citizen.
People who point to an action and say "that's illegal" need to look at the "law" being broken and ask if it is just.
JDGWRedneck 7 months ago
@JDGWRedneck aaahh you're going to have to explain that a bit more to make your argument, examples would be warranted in your explanation. Most of the laws are brought about BECAUSE of the worst in people, a quick flip through the Criminal Code (CC...not CCC. CCC is Canadian Criminal Case, or case law) and you'll find the most heinous of crimes outlined all because someone has done them. you're on the right track with regards to arrest there are some glaring differences between a civilian....
hammer499 7 months ago
@JDGWRedneck ..arrest and a PO arrest but i will not get into them here. I don't follow your thinking that carrying a firearm when effecting an arrest should not be illegal. first off you say citizen or otherwise...well it is not illegal for an on duty PO to carry a firearm when effecting an arrest...but for a citizen, unless they have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, cannot..because citizens of this country cannot carry firearms unless engaging in a legally sanctioned event (hunting etc.)
hammer499 7 months ago
@JDGWRedneck your argument that people should look at the law and ask if it's just or not is not up to the people to decide, it is up to the courts that is why we have Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I encourage you to look into that and research the case law with regards to some of the laws that have been deemed demonstrable and subsequently struck down.
hammer499 7 months ago
@fretlessbass
Hopefully one day you will have to confront some hoods skulking around your back yard at night. You can show us all your "Canadian" sensibilities in dealing with the situation. Then when you are beaten severely and left with permanent brain damage we can all praise you for your "Canadian" way of handling of the situation.
But, I'm probably reading this wrong. YOU are probably the hood that does the skulking and YOU don't want to be confronted with a gun...
EruditeCanadian 9 months ago
@fretlessbass You sir, are a moron. You clearly did not watch the ENTIRE video. Was that too difficult for you? People, legally defending their property and families, were charged with crimes that are, clearly, sheer nonsense.
I really hope that NO one ever forces you into the same situation.
This man did the right thing, and thanks to the new Conservative majority, others in his situation will be protected. Even you.
Blacksmith1964 9 months ago
@fretlessbass
Translation "This is Canada! A person cannot protect their life against criminals or those that would do you harm! If you want rights and freedoms move to the United States!
CanadianReich 9 months ago
@fretlessbass Why don't you move to China you anti-gun freak! Thank God the U.S. has guns... that way criminals think twice before committing crime or pay a heavy price when they do. Guess what? Only anti-gun helpless victims catch the worst of it, why??? Because they don't have a gun to defend themselves. You are a socialist living the socialist dream, but I wonder how you'll feel when three animals rape your girlfreind (or boyfriend in your case)? You'll wake up then and wish for a gun. Loser!
Nehribus 9 months ago
@fretlessbass In the united States we don't threaten people w/ guns we shoot them
johnmaylivesv 8 months ago
That's why I moved to the USA 28 years ago.......Canada sucks.....
davidwadams 9 months ago
That's why I moved to the USA 28 years ago.......Canada sucks.....
davidwadams 9 months ago
@davidwadams and you can damn well stay there fucking turncoat
hammer499 9 months ago
In America if a defendant is charged with a FELONY & he requests a jury the judge MUST give him a jury
VinnyS914 9 months ago 2
Let's hope America never gets THIS fucked up
VinnyS914 9 months ago
This is disgusting. This is not the Canada I want!
TomSamulak 9 months ago
@TomSamulak no body cares what you want
hammer499 9 months ago
@hammer499 What's your problem? LOL!
TomSamulak 8 months ago
CANADAS FOR FAGGOTS!
bobsaget22122 9 months ago
Next time when the law does not show up and take care of th problem..sue the hell out of them. Since the government want sto play God and hold the high ground and they don't. Pull them into court.
blackpowderbill 9 months ago
cases like this piss me off. the kids that got arrested must be connected to someone who has pull in the community. it has caused an embarrasment for that person that their kids are delinquents and now they are pushing for punishment of the innocent so that their kids look less at fault. Give the consevatives a majority and lets scrap the long gun registry. at least that will be one step in the right direction
sparky6523 9 months ago
Too bad he can't sue RCMP for 6 months dereliction of duty! If I were Mr Manzer every tv/radio/Internet outlet I could get to listen to me I'd be on. Why can't he hold these fools he calls his government accountable for what they have not done? Why is the onus his own?
You should start a letter campaign to the magistrate that will be overseeing his case. A dew thousand outraged letters could make a difference.
spodee55 9 months ago
The Canadian law system can be manipulated so easily. I was happy to hear there are others out there getting out of trouble much like I did. Keep up the good work kids.
BCFJTrain 10 months ago
Soon - even with the Constitution, i fear that America will have numerous cases like this because that is what "justice" has become - protecting criminals and punishment of the innocent
kirkstandpointe 10 months ago
Keep up the good fight Ms. Montague.. There are plenty of Americans who agree with you!
vegasnative83 10 months ago
"Securicor can defend a bag of money with a gun in public, but you can't defend your daughter with one."
Dr. Mike Ackermann
mrryencoke 10 months ago 10
@mrryencoke and their guns are loaded and armed...
dirtyann 8 months ago
the insanity!
ThisIsNotPictureTube 10 months ago
Its all about job security.
420Leprikon 10 months ago
The law is the law. If you don't like it, change it.
cartoonconn 10 months ago
@cartoonconn uh duh...why do you think she's been making videos for so many years?
hibraisil 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hibraisil troll go away
cartoonconn 10 months ago
...Put your glasses on straight...
Stinnie89 10 months ago
Hey tell u what gun control works just ask the experts, Hitler and Stalin, worked well for them.
striker517 10 months ago
Not just the people of New Brunswick. All of Canada. We all have to start waking up to this slippery slope we are walking down. It is the thin end of the wedge folks. Political correctness, special interest groups with PUBLICLY funded bureaucracies in the government. The list goes on. We have to wake up and realize that freedom is being usurped by a bunch of self-indulgent (living large off the public purse) control freaks. Just look at the UK! Wake up Canadians.
brianl890 10 months ago 5
oops..."BY those who....
brianl890 10 months ago
We cannot not allow ourselves to be cajoled to those who would gain. Its the classic situation of problem (crisis) reaction, and solution. The socialist media propagates fear to make people malleable. Once in such a state the public seems more willing to sacrifice their liberties for the so-called better good. The tragic L'Ecole Polytechnique killings are such an example. It became hi-jacked to serve a political agenda. This is why this man is being charged. Glad to hear he has support.
brianl890 10 months ago
The people of New Brunswick need to raise this issue and speak VERY loud! Especially at election time!!! Not too long ago, a grocer in chinatown Toronto (David Chen) was charged with kidnapping and forcible confinement for catching a shoplifter. The people raised their voices and the Conservative Government listened. Not only were the charges dropped, but Harper introduced new legislation designed to protect victims of crime making civilian arrests! Call your MP's!!!
mrryencoke 10 months ago
I feel ashamed to be Canadian... oh and one more thing F*** THE POLICE
FirearmFreedom 10 months ago
Comment removed
hammer499 9 months ago
seriously? WTF? the cops in Canada suck, socialism failure at its best
rev2it 10 months ago
Canada sucks...
davidrjin 10 months ago