00:10:33.240You have a responsibility to hold your community accountable to the highest degree.
00:10:38.880And if you don't do that, you are part of the problem.
00:10:41.640And so I will hold Afghans and Iraqis and Muslims to a high degree, to the highest degree I possibly can in terms of accountability, because Canadians expect that. As Canadians, we should be holding all of ourselves accountable and equally. But we have a duty to do that the same.
00:10:58.880And so when people say, Sondra, and you're a racist for doing this, I say, you are honestly
00:11:02.300low IQ individuals, but I will continue to try to educate you.
00:11:05.600I'll continue to try to make you understand that what makes us powerful in this country
00:11:11.720is our one identity of being Canadian and holding people accountable.
00:11:16.080And when people say, oh, but he didn't know, he's not familiar with the law, that is not
00:12:38.200It takes two seconds to find out if you could spray paint on the rocks.
00:12:40.680But you shouldn't even need to do that because there should be common sense.0.99
00:12:45.500Unbelievably crazy and disgusting.0.97
00:12:47.160I hope the RCMP catches this person.0.93
00:12:48.820and i hope the rcmp makes an example out of this person because we cannot allow the trashing and
00:12:54.680vandalism of our country and rant onto the onto the next onto the next crazy part which is a
00:13:02.140whitney ban was found guilty for protecting his family and children and i have a perspective on
00:13:08.160this that i think all of you will agree with and there's a nuance here but i want you to watch this
00:13:13.140video first watch this insanity the court of appeal has upheld a two-year conditional sentence
00:13:18.720for a whippy man named jason munro found guilty of reckless discharge of a firearm for protecting
00:13:24.620his son his family were victims of an armed home invasion four years ago on june 17th 2022 armed
00:13:31.400intruders forced their way into a home on underwood drive the court found there was an altercation
00:13:36.500and mr munro's son was shot munro then wrestled a handgun from one of the intruders and shot him
00:13:42.320According to the court of appeal decision, the intruders fled the house. Mr. Monroe chased them. He then stood on his porch and shot at them approximately three times as they were fleeing in their car. Monroe did not hit anyone. The court of appeal noted the trial judge found that Monroe was not guilty to any charges related to what happened inside the house, but found that Mr. Monroe was no longer acting in self-defense when he shot at the intruders from his porch. The trial judge found Mr. Monroe guilty.
00:14:08.540This is not true. And I'll explain prohibited firearm. The court of appeal dismissed the
00:14:13.580crown's appeal on Monroe's sentence, finding it was appropriate. The court of appeal said
00:14:18.080in its decision regarding the Whitby case that there were significant mitigating factors that
00:14:22.560supported a two year conditional sentence. Also pointing out that Monroe is subject to several
00:14:28.440onerous conditions, including house arrest and GPS monitoring. This is the crux of this issue.
00:14:34.380the judge and the way the law is written today is correct in the sentence and that is the problem
00:14:40.620there is in no way that this can be acceptable and i'm going to make it very clear about what
00:14:45.600what is wrong when people argue that this is right i'm going to tell you what is wrong right now
00:14:49.760these criminals broke into this man's house they shot his son in the leg okay he managed this hero
00:14:56.800of a father to grapple in the face of this adversity imagine the level of shock that you
00:15:01.960are in. Okay. Your son is shot in the leg and you are trying to protect your family. He grappled
00:15:07.620the gun away from them. And in a state of shock, followed them back out on top of his porch and
00:15:12.960shot at them three times as they were fleeing and escaping inside of the car. And because in the law
00:15:18.780today, the law states that just simply because in that moment they were in the act of fleeing,
00:15:24.520that firing upon them is not acceptable. And that's why he was charged. He wasn't charged
00:15:29.560for firing at them in the home, but on his porch while they were in that moment fleeing,
00:15:35.800they were charged for this. This is my perspective on why this is wrong and why we need this law to
00:15:40.940be changed. Listen very carefully to this. How on earth can a man, a father in a state of shock
00:15:49.560determine that he is actually safe? How can we hold judgment on that man, that hero, that father
00:15:55.420to make this rational decision that actually the danger is no longer ceasing, that the danger is
00:16:01.860not there anymore. That is irrational because we deem people who stab and murder people in this
00:16:06.920country not criminally responsible because they have mental health issues. But we can't apply
00:16:11.860that same logic and thinking to somebody, a victim, a father who is broken in, in a state
00:16:17.060of shock. We can't apply the same measure. And the law charges him for doing what he believes
00:16:21.980he needed to do at the time to protect his son and his family. That is insane and unacceptable.
00:16:28.280Okay. And this is what I'm going to tell all Canadians right now. Who knows if those people
00:16:33.420are fleeing at that moment, they're running to the car. How do you know that they're not going
00:16:37.840to get another weapon because that man just disarmed them? How do you know that they're
00:16:42.060not going to come back and come finish the job? How do you know all this? And how do you know,
00:16:47.080And how can you lean judgment on this man, this hero, to process all of this while his son is bleeding out out of the leg in a state of shock at four in the morning when his house got invaded?