What Can One Do During Home Invasion?

[bush_cheney2004]

This case has proven a very old adage..."better to be judged by twelve than carried by six".

 

[?Impact]

38 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

This case has proven a very old adage..."better to be judged by twelve than carried by six".

Some was carried by six, the question is could that have been avoided.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Some was carried by six, the question is could that have been avoided.

 

No...obviously it "could" have been avoided, but both actors rejected that route.

[Cum Laude]

16 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Some was carried by six, the question is could that have been avoided.

Easy for some of us to be armchair judges.

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, Cum Laude said:

Easy for some of us to be armchair judges.

Yes, there is way too much of that. That is why I never expressed an opinion on the trial, I stated clearly what facts I had known and the results of the trial.

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Please take your own advice.

I am free to express my opinions here in the forum. Why are you attacking me?

[OftenWrong]

4 hours ago, Cum Laude said:

Do you think Stanley should be locked up for life, knowing what you know about this case?

No, but he might have committed manslaughter which I think is 15 years. I don't know the particulars of the case which might include extenuating circumstances. One can kill in self defence, for example, and I read that the guy in the car drove aggressively towards Stanley, swerved his vehicle at him but blew out a tire in a culvert. If that's true, I think it would change the sentence.

[eyeball]

Better hope all this talk of home invasion and standing your ground doesn't take root amongst native people getting fed up with being moderate.

Edited February 11, 2018 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

Don't forget to be inclusive...shoot any home invader regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

[betsy]

We won't know how we will react until it happens.   Facing that kind of  danger - it's a natural instinct to get into survival mode.  However, some will  hesitate, or freeze, and would assume that, "if the intruders get what they came for they'll leave us unharmed."

To assume is to gamble.  You could be right.....or you could be wrong.

Edited February 11, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

21 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Example:
“His only mistake was leaving witnesses,”

 

I wonder how many caught criminals had had that very same thought.  They saw where they've made their biggest mistake.

 

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

18 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Some was carried by six, the question is could that have been avoided.

If they've got their faces covered the whole time, maybe......maybe it wouldn't be that dire for you and your family.  But if not, what are the chances you'll live? 

If you ever face that situation - let us know what happened. If you can.

 

Don't ever forget the fact that you're not only a victim in this scenario.  You're also a witness.

 

Are you willing to gamble your family's life on it?

Edited February 11, 2018 by betsy

[dialamah]

17 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

No, but he might have committed manslaughter which I think is 15 years. I don't know the particulars of the case which might include extenuating circumstances. One can kill in self defence, for example, and I read that the guy in the car drove aggressively towards Stanley, swerved his vehicle at him but blew out a tire in a culvert. If that's true, I think it would change the sentence.

The vehicle Boushie was in had a flat tire.  They tried unsuccessfully to steal a vehicle from a neighboring farm.

The arrived on Stanley's farm and one of them headed toward an atm.  Stanley's son, Sheldon, chased him off the ATV and smashed the windshield of the vehicle Boushie was in as they were trying to back out of the yard.   They crashed into Mrs. Stanley's car.

Stanley ran to the house and got his shotgun, came out and shot warning shots into the air.  Two men left the vehicle and ran away.  

Sheldon, Stanley's son, said the bullet that killed Boushie was shot as his father walked towards the vehicle.  Stanley says he was at the vehicle when it discharged accidentally.  

The defence claims the gun "hung", which means the bullet didn't leave the barrel till some time after the trigger was pulled.  The prosecution said that the gun worked perfectly and even if it did hang, it would be under a second and not the length of time it took to walk down the driveway.   The defense attempted to use reddit to prove their theory; the prosecution used actual experts.

The jury was all white and it took them 15 hours to acquit.

Link.

My conclusion is that in the heat of the moment, Stanley didn't care if he shot one of them or not.  The "gun misfire" was what he came up with afterward.  One wonders about the son contradicting his father's story.  While the defense claimed that the intruders escalated the situation, it seems they were intent on leaving, not escalating.  If Stanley really thought his wife was trapped, then his actions make more sense.  I think he is gulty of manslaughter at the very least.  

Edited February 11, 2018 by dialamah

[Hal 9000]

I hate, hate, hate the idea that a guy is minding his own business in his own house and because some punk decides to rip him off, the guy has his life ruined.  Even manslaughter is too much.  I know the idea of "well, it's only fair, he did take a life", but why should that guys life be ruined?  These punks created their own situation and one person paid with their life, the guy should never even had charges against him. 

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

I hate, hate, hate the idea that a guy is minding his own business in his own house and because some punk decides to rip him off, the guy has his life ruined.  Even manslaughter is too much.  I know the idea of "well, it's only fair, he did take a life", but why should that guys life be ruined?  These punks created their own situation and one person paid with their life, the guy should never even had charges against him. 

 

I agree with this.  The incident in question was not an actual home invasion, but in any case like this, the invader has put the homeowner in the position they are in, not the other way around.  Given the situation, any action by the homeowner, right or wrong in the opinion of any who are not there, is excusable.  It's hard to imagine the stress, the adrenaline rush, the complete absence of rational thought that such a situation could engender in the homeowner.

Whatever happens to the invader, it's their own fault, and just too damn bad.

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 .... It's hard to imagine the stress, the adrenaline rush, the complete absence of rational thought that such a situation could engender in the homeowner.

 

Maybe....others are completely prepared and ready to dispatch the threat within legal limits.   Most firearms training courses spend more time on legal liability than weapons safety and skill.    The ability and capacity to shoot has already been established...all that is left is the decision to do so.

 

Quote

Whatever happens to the invader, it's their own fault, and just too damn bad.

 

Indeed....but it still gets very messy even when legal/justified.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Maybe....others are completely prepared and ready to dispatch the threat within legal limits.   Most firearms training courses spend more time on legal liability than weapons safety and skill.    The ability and capacity to shoot has already been established...all that is left is the decision to do so.

 

 

Indeed....but it still gets very messy even when legal/justified.

Perhaps in the US.  I have a restricted firearms licence and it was never mentioned.

Still, such cursory training is no real preparation for the real thing.  I have to do advanced driver training every two years and I still just about wet myself every time I lose control of my vehicle. 

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Perhaps in the US.  I have a restricted firearms licence and it was never mentioned.

Still, such cursory training is no real preparation for the real thing.  I have to do advanced driver training every two years and I still just about wet myself every time I lose control of my vehicle. 

 

OK, but others can have a "make my day" confidence about such matters.    Layered security and warnings are fine before escalation, but sometimes we are not dealing with rational individuals.    The government taught me how to shoot people at a young age.

My neighbour (with Canadian wife) even mows his lawn while packing a side arm....she wanted him to shoot some trespassers last year.  He knew better....

[?Impact]

I see that telephone tree is working it's magic, lots of the above comments about the 'facts' of the case are grossly in error.

[mowich]

On 2/10/2018 at 12:47 PM, ?Impact said:

Some was carried by six, the question is could that have been avoided.

It could have been avoided had the people in the car not been bent on mayhem as was amply proven in the trial.  It appears that personal responsibility for one's own actions was sadly lacking by these young people and a young life was taken and that is very sad. 

Now the natives are all up in arms over the not guilty verdict.  Where were they when the youths took off on a day of drinking, shooting off their rifle and invading two farms?  Where were the parents?  How did the youths get the rifle and who did it belong to?  There are consequences to one's actions and it is about time the Native community stepped up and took some. 

[OftenWrong]

On 10/02/2018 at 1:29 PM, ?Impact said:

I love how those who actually are making statements about the case blame others who didn't. I listened to his short statement (clearly not a statement but a response to a reporters questions - he wasn't even wearing a suit he was obviously approached), and he clearly stated that he was not going to comment on the specific case.  Please take your own advice.

Several people who are knowledgeable about the law, politics and political interference have come forward to criticize the Liberals (as well as the NDP's Singh) for weighing in on a case that may not be fully resolved yet.

 Toronto criminal lawyer Sean Robichaud (tweeted) it was "wholly inappropriate for elected officials to publicly undermine findings of a lawfully delivered verdict, particularly when it is one of a jury." In an interview, Robichaud said any public comments from the prime minister or justice minister questioning the credibility of the judiciary pose a threat to Canada's democratic system, in which the courts are equal to the legislature. They could also have the reverse effect of what Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould may want, he added, by making it more difficult to appeal the decision because of perceptions any future jury would be tainted.

Link

This last point is the one I raised here in this thread. It becomes increasingly difficult to appoint an unbiased jury when the PM and other ministers give their "opinion" on a case, especially when they most likely don't even know all the details themselves. I suggest you do some research and learn how the law works, before attacking forum members based on your position of ignorance.

Edited February 12, 2018 by OftenWrong
added link

[betsy]

On 2/10/2018 at 4:08 PM, ?Impact said:

Yes, there is way too much of that. That is why I never expressed an opinion on the trial, I stated clearly what facts I had known and the results of the trial.

What exactly do you claim to know?  Where did those info come from?

You're not a member of the jury who deliberated over the FACTS!

Edited February 12, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

20 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

I hate, hate, hate the idea that a guy is minding his own business in his own house and because some punk decides to rip him off, the guy has his life ruined.  Even manslaughter is too much.  I know the idea of "well, it's only fair, he did take a life", but why should that guys life be ruined?  These punks created their own situation and one person paid with their life, the guy should never even had charges against him. 

 

Even if he's acquitted to everything - just the fact that you're forced to get a lawyer to defend yourself (which translate to expenses), and to get into that kind of stress....is a hateful scenario.  

[eyeball]

21 hours ago, bcsapper said:

 I agree with this.  The incident in question was not an actual home invasion, but in any case like this, the invader has put the homeowner in the position they are in, not the other way around.  Given the situation, any action by the homeowner, right or wrong in the opinion of any who are not there, is excusable.  It's hard to imagine the stress, the adrenaline rush, the complete absence of rational thought that such a situation could engender in the homeowner.

Whatever happens to the invader, it's their own fault, and just too damn bad.

Would you feel the same way about any trespassing invasion that is violently resisted?

The particulars of an incident notwithstanding just how far and wide does the principle behind standing one's ground extend?

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

Even if he's acquitted to everything - just the fact that you're forced to get a lawyer to defend yourself (which translate to expenses), and to get into that kind of stress....is a hateful scenario.  

So are you suggesting that when I report a dead guy on my property, I can just say "He was here to steal something, so I shot him", the police should just nod and say "OK", even if someone else says "That's not what happened"?