Jump to content

Man charged with murder after defending his home from a lunatic


West

Recommended Posts

There's nothing new to it, arbitrary disbalanced system where decisions are made pretty much randomly based on any number of factors except justice and law. Intelligent people saw these problems and created responsible, transparent democracies to solve them. And Canada is going the opposite direction, back down the timeline. Nothing to worry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks probably don't realize it, but Canada does have stand-your-ground laws, and you aren't required or expected to retreat if someone breaks into your home.  The only burden is that you don't respond disproportionally, so say, if some kid was climbing through your window and you blow him away with buckshot before he's even inside, you might get in trouble.  If you're facing 3-4 intruders in the middle of the night who are already in your house and you shoot one of them, it's less likely.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Folks probably don't realize it, but Canada does have stand-your-ground laws, and you aren't required or expected to retreat if someone breaks into your home.  The only burden is that you don't respond disproportionally, so say, if some kid was climbing through your window and you blow him away with buckshot before he's even inside, you might get in trouble.  If you're facing 3-4 intruders in the middle of the night who are already in your house and you shoot one of them, it's less likely.  

Happened a couple years ago in sask where a hero by the name of Gerald Stanley capped a guy after he came onto his yard and apparently started assaulting his wife/tried to steal his truck. 

Of course cause the guy who was shot had brown skin everyone convicted Stanley of being a full blown racist, no questions asked (even the prime minister)

Stanley's defense wasn't self defense, even tho in any NORMAL circumstances it should've been a classic example, but rather the "hang fire" defense which suggested his fire arm malfunctioned (not likely). 

Guy had every right to not find out whether the INTRUDERS onto his property were violent of not, especially with the RCMP hours away 

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can't expect someone who has lived his or her entire life without once having it threatened to act rationally if it is. 

Any intruder in my home who is even remotely threatening is going to get the full force of whatever I have in my hands at the moment.  They would have to have desperately unlucky timing to be shot, but if I'm chopping onions or changing a tire, so be it.

Whatever happens would not have happened if they had not come into my home, so it is entirely their fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Folks probably don't realize it, but Canada does have stand-your-ground laws, and you aren't required or expected to retreat if someone breaks into your home.  The only burden is that you don't respond disproportionally, so say, if some kid was climbing through your window and you blow him away with buckshot before he's even inside, you might get in trouble.  If you're facing 3-4 intruders in the middle of the night who are already in your house and you shoot one of them, it's less likely.  

This is quite true inside your home. there is no requirement to retreat. The courts have specifically recognized Castle principles in canada, which says in essence a man's home is his castle and his last refuge and he should never be expected to retreat from it.

IF - always if - the story is correct factually he will not be convicted of a crime

However - especially in ontario the police and prosecutors practice what's called "punishment by process".  In other words even if they know he will get off and be found innocent they run him through the ringer and hurt him as much as possible with legal process and hoops to try to discourage others who might also defend themselves.

He'll get off in the end but only after spending a fortune on his defense and being emotionally beaten up by the scumbag cops and prosecutors who know he did nothing wrong but want to punish him anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you kill someone you'll be charged.

There's a more narrow definition for justifying killing an intruder. if the guy was unarmed and not threatening, you could possibly get convicted with 2nd degree murder. If the shot was not meant to kill, it could be manslaughter. Or if the gun was loaded and just sitting there in your home you will get convicted of several gun related things and probably not get to own one again.
There's no blanket excuse to shoot people in Canada. The court will determine if there was.
And keep in mind charged and convicted are two different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, herbie said:

If you kill someone you'll be charged.

In ontario that is usually the case. Not so in other provinces. there are many many examples where people used firearms to defend themselves and no charges were laid.

6 minutes ago, herbie said:

. if the guy was unarmed and not threatening, you could possibly get convicted with 2nd degree murder.

Not exactly. His being unarmed is irrelevant.  if he's in your home and hes' not listening to commands the courts have recognized you must assume he's capable of anything and you're justified in stopping him.

Now - if you say He came at me and i decided to kill him, then you go to jail. If you say 'he came at me and i shot him to stop the attack, then you're innocent.

Inside the home there is absolutely no requirement to use 'minimal' force or the like. But you can't deliberately intend to kill - if however the person happens to die while you're stopping them then that's fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, herbie said:

If you kill someone you'll be charged.

There's a more narrow definition for justifying killing an intruder. if the guy was unarmed and not threatening, you could possibly get convicted with 2nd degree murder. If the shot was not meant to kill, it could be manslaughter. Or if the gun was loaded and just sitting there in your home you will get convicted of several gun related things and probably not get to own one again.
There's no blanket excuse to shoot people in Canada. The court will determine if there was.
And keep in mind charged and convicted are two different things.

So you believe you should take the "wait and see" approach to see if the lunatic breaking into your home is armed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

you're justified in stopping him

but not always of killing him, that's what I pointed out. If there's evidence of wrongdoing. charges can be laid, so there obviously was. And the laws in Ontario are the same as everywhere else in the country.

Once had a local pi-sstank I didn't know at the time barge in the front door while the wife and I were watching TV. I frogmarched him out kicked him in the ass and told him I'd call the cops if I saw him in my yard ever again. If I'd panicked and shot him, I'd be in jail.

 

The operational word is proportional response, not minimal or maximum.

Edited by herbie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Insane to me, if he gets charged. I mean you break into someone's home with a gun (hunch being that it is illegal), and a home owner with a legal firearm should have the right to give a warning (if possible) then open fire if you as little as raised your pistol.

If one shot killed him, then he showed incredible restraint under immense duress. He should get a medal for that.

Charging the guy puts the thief in almost victimhood status.

The moral of the story should be not to rob a house at gun point, not to hesitate before defending your family and property.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, herbie said:

but not always of killing him,

Yes always. If he dies while you're trying to stop him then you're justified,

If you're TRYING to kill him (or say that you were) then that's a whole different matter.

2 hours ago, herbie said:

If I'd panicked and shot him, I'd be in jail.

Sadly it depends a lot on the province.  BC or Alberta? Probably not. Ontario? Probably.

Of course it depends slightly on the details but if someone bursts into your home unlawfully you are justified to use any force to stop them even if that results in their death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2023 at 12:02 AM, bcsapper said:

I imagine when he gets in front of a jury he'll be okay.

Well, he'd be okay if I was on the jury.

Canadian juries tend to be like Canadians in general; placid, obedient, and law-abiding.

They'll do whatever the judge tells them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2023 at 11:11 AM, Moonbox said:

Folks probably don't realize it, but Canada does have stand-your-ground laws, and you aren't required or expected to retreat if someone breaks into your home.  The only burden is that you don't respond disproportionally, so say, if some kid was climbing through your window and you blow him away with buckshot before he's even inside, you might get in trouble.  If you're facing 3-4 intruders in the middle of the night who are already in your house and you shoot one of them, it's less likely.  

And yet he is still charged with murder.

He shot the man one time. Yet multiple shots were fired. This at least suggests the intruder with the gun also fired. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or he has bad aim.  The truth is we don't really know anything, but when someone's killed I suspect the courts/law enforcement would prefer to prosecute on general principle just to make sure that people aren't shooting willy-nilly.  The case may not end up going anywhere, but that's at least what I think the logic is behind it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Or he has bad aim.  The truth is we don't really know anything, but when someone's killed I suspect the courts/law enforcement would prefer to prosecute on general principle just to make sure that people aren't shooting willy-nilly.  The case may not end up going anywhere, but that's at least what I think the logic is behind it.  

And screw the fact this will put enormous stress and pressure on the poor guy who was just defending himself.

The politically motivated government prosecuted a cop in my city and spent over three and a half years doing it because the guy he arrested died. And it wasn't until the trial we learned he had an 80% occluded heart and could have keeled over from a strong wind. The coroner couldn't even say what had killed him since he'd fought with other people, then run from police before resisting arrest. Sure, the cop was found not guilty of all charges. And what did we pay for that? A million dollars in legal and court costs? Two million? Not to mention the cost of his salary for almost four years of doing nothing. And the stress and pressure unfairly placed on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

He'll get off in the end but only after spending a fortune on his defense and being emotionally beaten up by the scumbag cops and prosecutors who know he did nothing wrong but want to punish him anyway.

Because they can. Somewhere, in some places crown attorneys are elected by the public to defend impartial and independent justice. But that's another place almost like another universe. How are decisions made by governments and their numerous branches? Who can check it, verify and control? Only two options possible long-term: either the system will enter chaos mode, random, arbitrary and unpredictable decisions; or it would grind to a halt. Which one would be better anybody cares to ask?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

This is quite true inside your home. there is no requirement to retreat. The courts have specifically recognized Castle principles in canada, which says in essence a man's home is his castle and his last refuge and he should never be expected to retreat from it.

IF - always if - the story is correct factually he will not be convicted of a crime

However - especially in ontario the police and prosecutors practice what's called "punishment by process".  In other words even if they know he will get off and be found innocent they run him through the ringer and hurt him as much as possible with legal process and hoops to try to discourage others who might also defend themselves.

He'll get off in the end but only after spending a fortune on his defense and being emotionally beaten up by the scumbag cops and prosecutors who know he did nothing wrong but want to punish him anyway.

Well it is hard to see the Castle principles in this case, the home owner is in jail, awaiting an expensive court process to clear his name, and gain his freedoms.. when the facts are very clear he was being robbed by multiples  persons and one guy was found dead in his home...And on an another important note, Granma is now home alone left to pay the bills, plus is court costs, while the other robbers are free to come back for another vist...And we call this justice...one that leans more  on protecting the criminals. 

One would think that the cops would be happy to have a criminal taken off the street.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Army Guy said:

Well it is hard to see the Castle principles in this case,

You'll see it in court.

 

Just now, Army Guy said:

the home owner is in jail, awaiting an expensive court process to clear his name, and gain his freedoms.

Punishment by process. ."we can't find him guilty but we can hurt him plenty till hes' found innocent so lets do that'.

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

And we call this justice...one that leans more  on protecting the criminals. 

Yep. Welcome to trudeau's canada.

Things got better for many in this respect when the conservatives (and shockingly the ndp) helped pass the "lucky moose" laws for citizens arrest and self defense a ways back - but that doesnt' stop dishonest prosecutors from pursuing their own brand of "justice" against those who would DARE defend themselves.  In other provinces this would never have gone to court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yes always. If he dies while you're trying to stop him then you're justified,

If you're TRYING to kill him (or say that you were) then that's a whole different matter.

Sadly it depends a lot on the province.  BC or Alberta? Probably not. Ontario? Probably.

Of course it depends slightly on the details but if someone bursts into your home unlawfully you are justified to use any force to stop them even if that results in their death.

What does that mean IF your trying to kill him...sorry i'm struggling with the concept... you pick up a fire arm, point it at someone with the intention of defending your home and family and you've already made the decision your going to use it and someone is going to get F***up.

Hopefully they will will run at the sight of an armed person, if they don't then, It is game time, you or them "they" made the decision for you. at this point there is no aiming to wound, or scare them,  your heart beat will be racing your adrenaline pumping like mad, things are going seem like they are in slow motion, you are not going to remember the noise or screams, recoil from the weapon, the sound of the weapon going off, and you might not even feel getting shot yourself you'll be super focused your objective is to put rounds on target, as many as you can becasue your probably not going to be hitting much to start with.. Remember at this point of time your committed, he is trying to kill you and your trying to kill him... 

That person breaking into your home knows the risk, most likely not the first time he has been around your home , they know your home, therefore is not scared of your actions, in fact he is depending on your fear to paralyze you ... the fact that they were armed is clear intention they were willing to use it so they could carry out their robbery, they are ready to use deadly force..

If you going to pick up a weapon to defend yourself use it like your life depends on it, fire it until your target is out of the fight, (on the ground and not making any threating movements)and if that takes more than one round then so be it...keep firing until those conditions are meet, then reload.. disarm the person, clear the rest of the home ensure his buddies are down or gone and your family is safe, then check their vitals ,phone the cops,  perform first aid if needed.

. once the threat has left your home it is time to phone the cops, place your firearm away from yourself, and wait for them in the front door way

We already know your going to jail, that is a fact of your choice to pick up a weapon and use it, or you could have rolled the dice and hoped the bad guys don't hurt your family...as they made a choice to use violence once they entered your home...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, herbie said:

but not always of killing him, that's what I pointed out. If there's evidence of wrongdoing. charges can be laid, so there obviously was. And the laws in Ontario are the same as everywhere else in the country.

Once had a local pi-sstank I didn't know at the time barge in the front door while the wife and I were watching TV. I frogmarched him out kicked him in the ass and told him I'd call the cops if I saw him in my yard ever again. If I'd panicked and shot him, I'd be in jail.

 

The operational word is proportional response, not minimal or maximum.

If your guns are locked up as per the law insists , your example would be the only way, there would be no time to involve a firearm, for me to get at my firearms i first have to open the gun safe, then open the locked storage of the ammo and bolt assembly, put the weapon together , looking at maybe 5 mins...the kids use to leave their their baseball bats and hockey sticks in the mud room. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

What does that mean IF your trying to kill him...sorry i'm struggling with the concept... you pick up a fire arm, point it at someone with the intention of defending your home and family and you've already made the decision your going to use it and someone is going to get F***up.

It may sound technical but you don't shoot them to kill them - you shoot them to stop the attack. Sure - they die.  But that wasn't the goal, the goal was simply to stop them. If they HAPPEN to survive the shot as long as they're on the ground and not attacking you then you're fine with that right?

That's the important distinction. IF you intend to kill them then it's not defense, it's murder. If you intend to stop them and prevent them from harming you, and that happens to mean they die as a result, that's not murder it's self defense.

The law is odd :)

9 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Remember at this point of time your committed, he is trying to kill you and your trying to kill him... 

No no - he is trying to kill you, and you are trying to stop his attack. By shooting him. Till he stops. :) The intent is important even though your actions may be the same in either case. 

Legally that's how it goes. The reality is he'll probably die but your goal is NOT to kill, your goal is to make sure you and those under your protection are safe, and if killing him happens to be the best way to achieve that then fine.

And this is where many get in trouble. They shoot or injure the home invader, he goes down, then they administer a 'finishing blow' and kill him. Well at that point it's murder - once the attack is stopped and the bad guy can't attack further then you have to stop as well.

13 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

We already know your going to jail,

There are dozens and dozens and dozens of cases where a homeowner shot in self defense and was not arrested. Or was arrested and released immediately while they investigated.

Like i say, it depends a lot on the province and other factors. The most common times people get arrested is when they shoot someone running away or give that 'one last bullet to finish him'.  You can shoot till the bad guy is not attacking and that's about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

If your guns are locked up as per the law insists , your example would be the only way, there would be no time to involve a firearm, for me to get at my firearms i first have to open the gun safe, then open the locked storage of the ammo and bolt assembly, put the weapon together , looking at maybe 5 mins...the kids use to leave their their baseball bats and hockey sticks in the mud room. 

Dude - where'd you learn your firearms law. 

The gun and ammo can be in the safe without further locks. No need to also lock the ammo or bolt.  I've practiced, it is 6 seconds for me to go from in front of my gun safe to loaded firearm. (practiced with snap caps :) ).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...