Rancher’s case resonates with rural residents

They want to know how far they can go to defend their families and homes

I don’t know what specifically happened that fateful February morning on Eddie Maurice’s property near Okotoks, Alta., and therefore, whether charges against him are appropriate.

I can’t say what the rancher should have done differently, nor what I might have done in a similar situation.

What this case needs is clarity. It’s unfair to Maurice that he doesn’t have clarity, and it’s unfair to the broader community that they don’t have it, either.

Maurice was back in Okotoks court last Friday for a fourth time and, once again, his case was put off for another two weeks. Maurice’s lawyer expressed her frustration at the ongoing delays, saying the Crown has yet to provide crucial evidence for them to review. So that just adds to the emotional and financial burden the family is already dealing with.

The basic facts appear to be as follows: In the wee hours of Feb. 24, Maurice confronted two alleged thieves and trespassers who were rummaging through his vehicle. Shots were fired and one of the two uninvited visitors ended up with a gunshot wound to the arm.

Maurice has been charged with aggravated assault, pointing a firearm and careless use of a firearm — far more serious allegations than the trespassing, mischief and theft charges the other two are currently facing.

Did Maurice come bursting out of his house, guns-a-blazing ? Did he warn the two to leave? Did they ignore him? Did they come toward him or the house?

Maurice’s wife revealed last week she was away when the incident occurred and her husband was home alone with their two young children, so that certainly would speak to his mindset at the time.

It’s possible Maurice overreacted. But what specifically was it that crossed the line?

As we saw in the case of Brian Knight, a farmer from central Alberta, firing a gun to stop a property crime does not necessarily warrant jail time. Back in March 2009, Knight was awoken in the middle of the night by thieves on his property. He got in his truck, pursued a thief riding his stolen ATV, rammed the ATV, and fired his shotgun as the thief fled on foot.

In 2012, the Court of Appeal overturned Knight’s conviction and gave him a suspended sentence. The judges agreed that Knight was entitled to apprehend the thief and that he did not intend to cause the person serious harm. They did find his use of a firearm to be reckless in that purpose, though.

Furthermore, changes to the Criminal Code in 2013 spell out more clearly that Canadians do have rights when it comes to protecting property and that “reasonable force” can be used to block or remove someone from your property, or to stop someone from taking, damaging or destroying property.

So while Maurice deserves to know what the evidence against him is, and deserves to mount a full and vigorous defence, everyone else deserves to know how far we’re allowed to go in defending ourselves and defending our property.

The reason why Maurice’s case has resonated with as many people as it has, is that so many other people in rural Alberta have been similarly victimized and can easily put themselves in Maurice’s shoes.

If Maurice acted wrongly, what should he have done instead? What could he have done differently to have kept himself and his family safe, as well as his property, but still have fallen within the bounds of the law? It’s not just an academic question for those rural dwellers who might awake to a similar situation.

While there are obvious reasons we don’t want Canadians overreacting in such situations, we certainly don’t want people putting themselves in danger due to a fear of facing legal consequences for their actions.

The case against Eddie Maurice will succeed or fail on its own merits, but we need to know a lot more about what those merits are.