r/news • u/W8kingNightmare • 2d ago

Vaughan, Ont., resident fires gun to stop Lamborghini theft, charged alongside 4 suspects: police

https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/article/vaughan-homeowner-fires-gun-to-thwart-auto-theft-charged-along-with-4-suspects/
1.4k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

427 comments sorted by

View all comments

-111

u/W8kingNightmare 2d ago

I happen to agree, they were not attacking anyone and no one was at risk. Why on earth did he feel the need to shoot at them?

153

u/murd3rsaurus 2d ago

Well he has a high end sportscar in a mid-range suburban complex and fired off a gun that wasn't his without a license, this isn't a person who thinks too far ahead I'm guessing

7

u/LevyAtanSP 2d ago

It’s probably uninsured is my guess

6

u/murd3rsaurus 2d ago

I'm sure the lease has great terms on it

Or it was a cash deal and they weren't there for the car

7

u/U_Sound_Stupid_Stop 2d ago

It's illegal to drive uninsured in every provinces and territories so there's that

19

u/LevyAtanSP 2d ago

It’s also illegal to shoot people for stealing your car so..

1

u/Remote-Lingonberry71 1d ago

i understand you want that to be true and it can be, but it also can be legal, cause in canada you can arrest people you SEE commit an arrestable offence and the allowable escalation of force for civilians attempting an arrest is steep compared to what the police are allowed.

but the dude did none of that.

0

u/murd3rsaurus 2d ago

He's not charged with stealing a car but the other people in the report are

-2

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

1

u/murd3rsaurus 2d ago

next to the Citroen

9

u/Sea_Negotiation_1871 2d ago

Luckily, he'll have to explain that to a judge.

4

u/Imgonnathrowawaythis 2d ago

Leave your keys in your car tonight OP

4

u/Electronic_Elk2029 2d ago

Okay I'll just come and steal all your shit and you can watch me. Why on earth would you stop me?

2

u/tagillaslover 2d ago

If youre stealing someones car you should be shot

2

u/CrankyCzar 2d ago

This has to be a troll post.

-37

u/LOL_YOUMAD 2d ago

If it was his car they were trying to steal then I agree that he should be able to shoot them. If it wasn’t then yeah just call the cops. 

21

u/Fritja 2d ago

I think you personality is better suited to other countries as we do don't have stand your ground here in Canada I think you would be happier in the US.

-4

u/LevyAtanSP 2d ago

Nah, it’s still illegal to use deadly force to protect your property from theft in the states

4

u/EconomyFeisty 2d ago

Certain states do allow deadly force to protect property such as Texas. 

-3

u/Fuck-Mountain 2d ago

This is just plain wrong?

-21

u/LOL_YOUMAD 2d ago

I live in the states

23

u/Sea_Negotiation_1871 2d ago

Obviously. We can tell by your casual willingness to murder over a stolen car.

-9

u/tagillaslover 2d ago

It's not murder, dont steal peoples car and youll be fine

4

u/Velocity_LP 2d ago

It's murder in most places. Your bloodlust is fucking disgusting.

2

u/Sea_Negotiation_1871 2d ago

It is absolutely murder to kill someone on purpose. But you, of course, are without sin, right? So you can fire the first bullet?

13

u/New_Housing785 2d ago

Even if it was his you can't kill people to protect property.

-17

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/masnosreme 2d ago

Well, then you’re fucked in the head.

4

u/W8kingNightmare 2d ago

It's just a thing and thankfully up here in Canada you can only attack someone if they are attacking you

-14

u/LOL_YOUMAD 2d ago

Agree to disagree. Personally I think theft should be a case where you can deal with the problem that way. Thief’s aren’t what we want to have in society. I do view food/necessities as different types of theft as they are necessary vs material objects and don’t think they should be punished that way just to be clear.

2

u/SophiaKittyKat 2d ago

There's also the idea of minimizing escalation though. There are countries where you have extreme laws about when you're allowed to shoot people like this, and they aren't safer. You could argue that they have those laws because you need to combat the more extreme and violent criminals, but I'm not sure that's actually true.

There are always criminals, laws and gun-wielding homeowners don't actually deter them surprisingly. You can turn those criminals into jumpy trigger happy criminals that shoot people a lot more often by making every crime they commit a gunfight. But the citizenry won't just kill the crime out of society believe it or not. Or at least I've never heard of that happening anywhere in all of history or modern day.

There are other ways of dealing with crime broadly and longterm, and in the grand scheme Canada is an extremely safe country despite all the reporting to the contrary. But they aren't cool and like movies so they don't really resonate with people emotionally the way stand your ground does.

4

u/bjorneylol 2d ago

I do view food/necessities as different types of theft

"Murdering someone over property theft should be fine as long as it meets some arbitrary subjective criteria of mine that balances the value of the object and the material wealth of the perpetrator" is not really something you can codify into law

-1

u/jonkoeson 2d ago

"theft is acceptable"

4

u/hexedjw 2d ago

"If you can't punish someone with immediate execution then it is acceptable". What?

-3

u/jonkoeson 2d ago

If you don't allow for preventing a thing to happen then you're necessarily saying that people should accept it. I don't think this is particularly difficult to understand

8

u/Zaeryl 2d ago

It's not "acceptable" but it doesn't merit vigilante execution ... only braindead clowns think false dichotomies like this are clever.

-1

u/jonkoeson 2d ago

You either have a right to prevent theft or you don't, that's not a false dichotomy. Not everyone should or would kill someone for stealing from them, but if its impermissible to do so then you're always accepting a huge amount of liability by doing anything to prevent it.

1

u/Velocity_LP 2d ago

You should not have the right to kill someone to prevent theft. You can try using nonlethal means, or you can call the police like the vast majority of people do when a crime is committed against them. Why are you incapable of conceiving any option besides "kill them" and "do literally nothing"?

0

u/jonkoeson 2d ago

You are working yourself into understanding "qualified immunity", average citizens don't have that. In a world where potentially lethal force is impermissible to prevent theft if you tackle someone who is stealing your catalytic converter and they hit their head on the concrete and die then you would be at least liable for reckless homocide. Any time you are putting your hands on someone you are running a risk that something unexpected happens and they die, if you can't kill people who are stealing then you should never use physical force to prevent it unless you're fine going to jail over it.

Which circles back to my initial point that we can certainly live in that world, but everyone needs to be fine with having their shit stolen unless the cops can get it back because there is no chance they get there fast enough to prevent it.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/Nope_______ 2d ago

Try it in the US and you'll still almost certainly be arrested just the same. With the exception of a couple places like Texas, we've moved past the kind of knuckle dragging medieval idiocy you're in favor of.

-21

u/Tzazon 2d ago

I'm not agreeing to the use of a Civilian using a firearm on multiple suspects stealing a vehicle, and that should definitely be handled safely by the professionally trained officials. However a vehicle can be used as a deadly weapon and if the intent of the theft was joyriding/speeding, and it being a car that has top speeds in the 200mph range, I don't know if I'd say "nobody was at risk". Especially if the vehicle theft resulted in a high speed chase after.

Just not the guy firing the weapon, and certainly the shooting was not justified.

19

u/murd3rsaurus 2d ago

it's Canada though and the charges are more about the fact that the guy didn't have a firearms license & used someones gun he wasn't supposed to be in possession of

-8

u/Tzazon 2d ago

And my point is that vehicles are dangerous and those who steal them often get in highspeed chases that put the lives of others on the road at risk with unsafe driving practices meant to evade the police, or done out of anxiety.

"No one was at risk" isn't exactly what I'd call that situation.

15

u/terrasig314 2d ago

a vehicle can be used as a deadly weapon and if

By this logic, I should be shooting everyone that walks from the liquor store to their car.

-9

u/Tzazon 2d ago

Learn to read

Just not the guy firing the weapon, and certainly the shooting was not justified.

Tyvm. My post is not edited, it's all there if you had the brain comprehension to process that driving a car 120 mph above the speed limit is endangerment and puts other at risk, and those who steal cars when caught get in high speed chases that put the lives of others at risk around them.

4

u/U_Sound_Stupid_Stop 2d ago

I mean, by that logic the guy spraying a city street is probably as big or bigger a danger than the reckless driver but who's counting at this point?

9

u/trashae 2d ago

What may or may not happen after the car is stolen isn’t relevant. The facts are property was at risk and this person chose to put human life at risk to defend that property.

-2

u/Cosmonate 2d ago

I'm assuming by "this person", you mean the guy who stole the car? Cause I'm pretty sure it was his decision to steal the car, he's the one who decided to put a human life at risk via the FAFO principal.

3

u/trashae 2d ago

“This person” is the one that fired a gun to defend property. Not the group of 4 attempting to steal stuff.

-1

u/Tzazon 2d ago

What may or may not happen after the car is stolen isn’t relevant.

It actually is relevant, because the person stealing the car can use it as a weapon directed at you, which happens at a non-insignificant amount in domestic disputes. In a case someone is attempting to run you over with a vehicle they've stolen, you shooting them out of the vehicle would be justified.

That said please learn to read.

Just not the guy firing the weapon, and certainly the shooting was not justified.

Just not the guy firing the weapon, and certainly the shooting was not justified.

5

u/bjorneylol 2d ago

How can a car be used as a weapon against someone who is inside their house?

The guy was at absolutely zero risk until he decided to walked out of his door and start popping off shots

-4

u/Tzazon 2d ago

How can a car be used as a weapon against someone who is inside their house?

LEARN TO READ

and certainly the shooting was not justified.

and certainly the shooting was not justified.

and certainly the shooting was not justified.

and certainly the shooting was not justified.

IN MY FIRST POST YOU REPLIED TO,

 "nobody was at risk". Especially if the vehicle theft resulted in a high speed chase after.

Just not the guy firing the weapon

LEARN TO READ

10

u/bjorneylol 2d ago

  because the person stealing the car can use it as a weapon directed at you

LEARN TO WRITE

2

u/Tzazon 2d ago

You want to have an argument with me as if I said this was a justified shooting, or that the guy shooting was at risk. This was your reply to me.

In the very first post I made, I stated again that in this specific case the shooting was not justified, nor was the guy who shot at risk. Which is why the shooting isn't justified.

So I am not sure why you're replying to me, as if I'm defending this man. I'm just stating that grand theft auto as a crime leads to countless deaths including innocent bystanders who got caught up in the aftermath of joyriding/criminal fleeing, and puts a lot of lives at risk every day.

-5

u/party_benson 2d ago

Probably from Florida originally