Man charged with murder after defending his home from a lunatic

[Army Guy]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

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

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.

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.

Sure, i think your playing with words , but sure, the intention is to stop them from harming you or your family, if and when they stop being a threat meaning they are no longer have a weapon in their hands, or clearly unconscious, then yes the engagement would stop. in a perfect world. 

Again word games, We are on the same page, just going to get there on a different path..

You don't need a finishing blow if you continue to engage until "you" think they are no longer a threat. Watch some recordings of police shootings, where they empty their magazines on one person, this becomes more important where there is more than one target in the house.

Yes but there also seem to be dozens of people whom are arrested for the same thing this guy was, and pay for it with everything they own...

 

 

[Army Guy]

41 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

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 ).

 

The military, and it works for me, And I'm sure i can get into action a little quicker with a little motivation  like some uninvited person in the house.

I live in New Brunswick, we have very few break and enters, and if they do mange to get my gun safe out of the house, it is going to make it that much harder to sell it quickly.

Apart from a few B&E we don't have a huge problem with armed criminals maybe due to the fact every second person in NB is a hunter or redneck not sure which one....with exception of biker gangs and they are perfectly OK with staying in their lane as long as i do the same.

My greatest threat comes from wild life, 2 encounters with bears in the last 2 years, each time ended with a dead bear on my property.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

The military, and it works for me, And I'm sure i can get into action a little quicker with a little motivation  like some uninvited person in the house.

I'm sure

6 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

My greatest threat comes from wild life, 2 encounters with bears in the last 2 years, each time ended with a dead bear on my property.

And mine as well. Athough we're more reluctant to kill bears out this way if we can avoid it - we constantly have bear issues in bc so you'd be killing a lot of bears. I think i read we have something like 25 percent of the world's populations of black bears.  No grizzlies down this way. Yet.

But some big cats and such as well. So far i've run the bears off with a paddling.  (literally. I've got a paddle i throw at them.) but it's some nice to have the shotgun in hand when i do.

[herbie]

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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.

Bullshit.
The damned charge laid filed proves that specifically. Are you another person that thinks what you believe over-rides the law of the land? Then welcome to join the local peanut gallery.

Edited February 23, 2023 by herbie

[CdnFox]

How's this for timely?

 

Quote

Why Ontario man faces murder charge for defending his home, while a N.S. man doesn't

An Ontario case raises the thorny question of how far Canadians can go to protect themselves and their property from attack — and avoid criminal charges

https://nationalpost.com/news/self-defence-laws

 

 

Edited February 23, 2023 by CdnFox

[Army Guy]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I'm sure

And mine as well. Athough we're more reluctant to kill bears out this way if we can avoid it - we constantly have bear issues in bc so you'd be killing a lot of bears. I think i read we have something like 25 percent of the world's populations of black bears.  No grizzlies down this way. Yet.

But some big cats and such as well. So far i've run the bears off with a paddling.  (literally. I've got a paddle i throw at them.) but it's some nice to have the shotgun in hand when i do.

I'm normally a big fan of wild life, but my family was in the yard both times unaware both times, grand kids in the pool, bear was within 50 feet and making it's way towards them. I've since put up a  5 foot wire fence , won't stop them if they are determined, but might slow them down.... it gives me some peace of mind...I Have never has any issues with bears before, normally they stay in their lane. 

Have never come face to face with any big cats, aside from lynx's, but there has been some sightings in ST John NB of cougars...

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Bullshit.
The damned charge laid filed proves that specifically. Are you another person that thinks what you believe over-rides the law of the land? Then welcome to join the local peanut gallery.

Yeah - that's not how law works. A CONVICTION might prove that. Charges don't. People are charged and found to be innocent all the time.

But hey little guy - thanks for coming out and trying your best!

[CdnFox]

53 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

but my family was in the yard both times unaware both times, grand kids in the pool, bear was within 50 feet and making it's way towards them.

Gotta do what you gotta do. Even here we have to put them down sometimes.

53 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Have never come face to face with any big cats, aside from lynx's, but there has been some sightings in ST John NB of cougars...

I see what you did there

[herbie]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

But hey little guy - thanks for coming out and trying your best!

Try learning a little about law. And reading the very links your post, the circumstances of the i2 cases are different.

The difference ultimately comes down to how prosecutors apply the facts to the Criminal Code’s self-defence rules. Sections 34 and 35 of the code say someone is not guilty of an offence if their actions were a “reasonable” response to a threat of or actual use of force, or to stop someone from entering or damaging property without permission.

There is no self-defence of property.

[myata]

9 hours ago, herbie said:

were a “reasonable” response to a threat

You're woken up at 2 am by an armed robber, with your family in the house and the first thing you're thinking is how should I be reasonable? Who knows where "reasonable" ends in such cases, like what would go through the mind of the criminal in the next few instants? Some supreme judicial wisdom would know that, sure?

What a bs place is this? Do we even care anymore?

Edited February 24, 2023 by myata

[RedDog]

Canada’s swan dive off the cliff continues. Those actually supporting these charges scare me. It being central Canada, I have no doubt a jury will convict.

[CdnFox]

11 hours ago, herbie said:

Try learning a little about law. And reading the very links your post, the circumstances of the i2 cases are different.

Awww little guy - are you still mad because you said something pretty  stupid and i pointed it out, and now you're trying to massage your ego?  

The person who doesn't understand the difference between being charged and being convicted has nothing to teach me about law.

11 hours ago, herbie said:

The difference ultimately comes down to how prosecutors apply the facts to the Criminal Code’s self-defence rules. Sections 34 and 35 of the code say someone is not guilty of an offence if their actions were a “reasonable” response to a threat of or actual use of force, or to stop someone from entering or damaging property without permission.

There is no self-defence of property.

Nobody ANYWHERE on this thread that i can see ever suggested that there's "defense of property" law.

So because your previous point proved to be wrong completely, now you are trying to create some sort of argument you think you CAN win by inventing something nobody was talking about and saying that somehow is now your point.  That's pretty childish

And what's worse - your logic is entirely wrong.  The article points out there are NUMEROUS CASES WHERE SOMEONE DID DEFEND THEMSELVES WITH A GUN AND WERE NOT CHARGED.   So - if your theory was correct and there was NO defense then EVERYONE would be charged. So there obviously IS a defense under the law (not necessarily of property - nobody mentioned that) but what the article says is the defense is applied differently in practice by different jurisdictions.

Further, as i said to you before CHARGED is not CONVICTED.  So the fact that SOME jurisdictions choose to CHARGE and some choose not to is NOT EVIDENCE OF THE VALIDITY OF A DEFENSE. You would have to look at CONVICTIONS and see if that defense held up in court after being charged.   And i can tell you that yes, it does, even in ontario.

So you're wrong many times over.

I don't know what kind of preschoolers you usually discuss things with to think that those kinds of debate tricks and that kind of childish argument was a good one, but step it up a bit. You're wasting my time and we're all a little dumber for having read your reply.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, myata said:

You're woken up at 2 am by an armed robber, with your family in the house and the first thing you're thinking is how should I be reasonable? Who knows where "reasonable" ends in such cases, like what would go through the mind of the criminal in the next few instants? Some supreme judicial wisdom would know that, sure?

What a bs place is this? Do we even care anymore?

The actual judges are pretty good about that and 'reasonable' isn't always what you think. It doesn't necessarily mean YOU were being 'reasonable' at the time - just that a 'reasonable' person (ie not insane or the like) would have reacted in a similar way in those circumstances.

And again - they are talking about what the prosecutors will charge on, not what the judges will convict on. There are tonnes of cases especially in ontario where the judge will find the person not guilty even if the other person is dead. I suspect if the facts we've heard are true and complete that this kid will be run through the ringer, pressured like hell to plead guilty to some crime and if he sticks it out he'll be found innocent.

If you want to have some fun go poke around Canlii.org searching for firearm self defense cases.  The judges reasonings will generally show you that at least in most cases the judges are reasonable, even if the prosecution is not

[myata]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I suspect if the facts we've heard are true and complete that this kid will be run through the ringer, pressured like hell to plead guilty to some crime and if he sticks it out he'll be found innocent.

Does what you described sound like justice in a modern democratic society? Or like a 'see what we can because we can" in a 3.5th world imitation of? Why should a law-abiding citizen, in their own place, committing no crime being "run through the ringer"? Where: in Venezuela or in a first world democracy?

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, myata said:

Does what you described sound like justice in a modern democratic society?

I've commented on this already.  "punishment by process" is bad.

19 minutes ago, myata said:

Why should a law-abiding citizen, in their own place, committing no crime being "run through the ringer"?

They shouldn't. It's an abuse of power. For many years the firearms community fought back against this kind of nonsens by crowdfunding for teh person's defense whenever anything like this came up to cover the costs and send a message to the prosecutors. I've been out of that for a while so i don't know if they still do but a lot of cases were eventually won based on that.

[RedDog]

The then mayor of Miami once shot and killed two intruders in his home.

When did central Canada get Canada so messed up?

[herbie]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Awww little guy - are you still mad because you said something pretty  stupid and i pointed it out, and now you're trying to massage your ego?  

The person who doesn't understand the difference between being charged and being convicted has nothing to teach me about law.

Schiff flooding instead of deflection your specialty? Fling shit in every direction and hope something sticks?

It's pretty simple actually: self-defence means right to defend you or someone else. not property.
If someone's stealing your car or breaking into your home you can wave a gun and chase them away or hold a gun to their head and hold them til the cops get there, but if you shoot they will review it and you MAY be charged and/or convicted.

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, herbie said:

Schiff flooding instead of deflection your specialty?

Buzzwords instead of addressing the issue must be yours.  You couldn't come up with a single rebuttal to the facts i posted i see.

39 minutes ago, herbie said:

t's pretty simple actually: self-defence means right to defend you or someone else. not property.

So why did you mention property then? No one else did - that was you . So - it's so simple that you couldn't understand it?   LOL!!!!

40 minutes ago, herbie said:

If someone's stealing your car or breaking into your home you can wave a gun and chase them away or hold a gun to their head and hold them til the cops get there, but if you shoot they will review it and you MAY be charged and/or convicted.

First off - i love that you went from 'THERE"S NO LEGAL DEFENSE" to "you MAY be charged... " LOL. You are nothing if not amusing

As to the rest - breaking into a car and a home are radically different things. Canada recognizes the castle principle. If someone invades your home you have the right to assume they mean you harm just by that fact and can act accordingly. That's got nothing to do with defense of property.

As to defense of property you can arrest someone who's stealing your property and if they resist and try to harm you then you can shoot them if necsesary. Same as the  police. But again that's still self defense.

I don't know where you got the whole 'property' thing from but that's really not what's being discussed.

[myata]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's an abuse of power.

"Power without effective and ongoing checks and controls will be abused". That should have been the first line in the Constitution. Just too bad.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, myata said:

"Power without effective and ongoing checks and controls will be abused". That should have been the first line in the Constitution. Just too bad.

You're not wrong.

[myata]

22 hours ago, RedDog said:

When did central Canada get Canada so messed up?

Not when, why: because they can.

[myata]

And again: someone wakes up at 2am to see a robber in the house where his family sleeps. Or wakes up to the sound of house being broken into. What is "rational" here? What will happen in the next split second: the criminal flees; takes out a knife; or fires a gun? What supreme almighty justice would know that?

The answer is easy but it lies in a different plane: Canada's justice system is moving in the same, arbitrary, bureaucratic direction as the rest of the public administration. It is not limited by anything, not even common sense so a voodoo ritual, the priest cries Blah Goooo! and sure we have the decision! sending reporters busy scrambling. Criminal's intention has to be taken into account and sure, the priest in a mantle can figure that out, while modern science can't sorry, not possible with a ton of equipment connected to the brain, live, right at the moment of the event.

This looks more and more like a one-way tunnel. And that's just too bad. In a matter of decades, we may no longer recognize the place.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, myata said:

What is "rational" here?

the law doesn't ask people to be 'rational'.  The law asks 'how would a reasonable man react'. That's very different. It's entirely fair to say a reasonable man in those circumstances would take ANY actions necessary to be sure his family was safe including the use of lethal force.

The criminals intent does NOT come into it very much at all. If the homeowner was reasonably fearful for his life and feared death or grevious bodily harm was a real possiblity then he's justified in stopping the attacker with lethal force. And just having the guy in the house like that is reason enough to believe that.

I honestly believe you don't understand the law here or the problem.  The problem is NOT that the law wouldn't allow for you to shoot an intruder in your home. It absolutely does.  The problem is for their own petty reasons beurocrat types will use the system itself to harass and hurt those who dare to exercise this right.  Despite the fact they know the person was within their rights.

It is a gross abuse of power that many in the public ignore because they think using guns for defense is 'so american'.  But they don't realize that if you allow crap like this eventually it will be used on people You DO like.

[myata]

45 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I honestly believe you don't understand the law here or the problem. 

Here we come to a very actual (for Canada) question: what is "law"? Is law the pretty paper its printed on, in black at times color characters? An inspirational professor lecture to the first years? Wise figures in expensive robes and tall chairs, solemn poses? Or is it the factual reality, what's being done with it in the reality, daily practice? See, Putin has "laws", Xi and Un have them too. Are they the "law" too, like the word is the same, anyone can spell it?

A picture, image and perception, or the reality? I would state that the law is the reality. And so, as soon as the practice of the law begins to deviate significantly from the pretty scripture its that, the former one that becomes the real law. And we're heading straight into the Un's territory (eventually) forget the scripture.

53 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It is a gross abuse of power that many in the public ignore because they think using guns for defense is 'so american'.  But they don't realize that if you allow crap like this eventually it will be used on people You DO like

Indeed.