Man finally exonerated in killing three during home invasion.


gerryh
#2
won't know until his trial.
 
Sal
+2
#3
I just don't know how someone lives with themselves after they have shot people in the back who were retreating from him and killed them.
 
captain morgan
+4
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

I just don't know how someone lives with themselves after they have shot people in the back who were retreating from him and killed them.


I see this verdict as a strong message that society is firmly behind the victims of crime.
 
SLM
+2
#5
Well the conviction wasn't overturned permanently, the appeals court found the trial judge erred in his/her ruling of what was admissible for the jury to hear. A new trial has been ordered. In short, they haven't made any determination on the merit of the argument just that the argument could be made.

As to the rest of the story, I honestly don't even know what to think. No one, neither the homeowner nor the men who broke into his house, is exactly a true 'innocent' are they? It's just not that black and white in my opinion.

We'll see what the new trial establishes.
 
JLM
+2
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

I just don't know how someone lives with themselves after they have shot people in the back who were retreating from him and killed them.

I'm glad I'm not the one, deciding the outcome of this, on the one hand you have a guy shooting other people in the back, on the other hand the victims were where they had no business being - with criminal intent. Was the guy doing the shooting thinking rationally or was he just reacting to a situation he didn't have a chance to fully evaluate, while in a mindset of rage and fear?
 
Sal
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I see this verdict as a strong message that society is firmly behind the victims of crime.

How so CM?

I agree that all of the evidence should have been admissible. I hate that part of our legal system where facts can be omitted and things twisted and manipulated to appear a certain way. It just obscures the truth, but then I guess "truth is relaltive to where one stands when viewing it".

I just truly do wonder about the back shots...sounds like cold blooded murder on one hand. But then on the other, like I have stated before, if someone came at me or mine with the intent to do grave harm, once I decided to fire, I would not stop until the chamber was empty.
 
karrie
+2
#8
The instant they made the choice to follow him home, there was no coming back for any of them. Dead or in jail was the only way individuals were walking away from that.

What a tragedy.

Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

I just truly do wonder about the back shots...sounds like cold blooded murder on one hand. But then on the other, like I have stated before, if someone came at me or mine with the intent to do grave harm, once I decided to fire, I would not stop until the chamber was empty.

If you hunt someone down in an isolated area and attempt to kill them, you have to expect that they will try to kill you first, and might forget 'the rules' while doing so.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+3
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I'm glad I'm not the one, deciding the outcome of this, on the one hand you have a guy shooting other people in the back, on the other hand the victims were where they had no business being - with criminal intent. Was the guy doing the shooting thinking rationally or was he just reacting to a situation he didn't have a chance to fully evaluate, while in a mindset of rage and fear?

In a situation like this, I would think the rush of adrenaline and 'fight or flight' should qualify as 'temporary insanity'. In that type of situation, I think it reasonable to think that he would not be behaving in a rational manner.
 
Sal
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

The instant they made the choice to follow him home, there was no coming back for any of them. Dead or in jail was the only way individuals were walking away from that.

What a tragedy.



If you hunt someone down in an isolated area and attempt to kill them, you have to expect that they will try to kill you first, and might forget 'the rules' while doing so.

Yes. I don't think these things get "thought through" before hand.

Also it could have been him dead or permanently disabled either from the beating or the sword.
 
Cliffy
+7
#11  Top Rated Post
As a cop told a friend, if you wound someone who is trying to do you harm, finish him off. That way he can't sue you for damages.
 
captain morgan
+4
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

How so CM?

I agree that all of the evidence should have been admissible. I hate that part of our legal system where facts can be omitted and things twisted and manipulated to appear a certain way. It just obscures the truth, but then I guess "truth is relaltive to where one stands when viewing it".

The perps have a history of home invasions. That in itself doesn't justify that their life be extinguished, but that one of the risks of doing that kind of crime I guess.

The 'victims' track record notwithstanding, how much latitude do we provide the criminals in sheltering them from the consequences of their actions?


Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

I just truly do wonder about the back shots...sounds like cold blooded murder on one hand. But then on the other, like I have stated before, if someone came at me or mine with the intent to do grave harm, once I decided to fire, I would not stop until the chamber was empty.


The way I see it, that's the chance that the home invaders took when they made a premeditated decision to take their actions... The article stated that the invaders didn't intend to kill him - I had to chuckle; one with a sword and another with a golf club... I'm trying to imagine the degree of permanent injury that would result if they guy actually survived the assault.

I really don't have any sympathy for the invaders and just because they ran away once they realized they brought a knife to a gun fight, doesn't change my mind
 
Sal
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

The perps have a history of home invasions. That in itself doesn't justify that their life be extinguished, but that one of the risks of doing that kind of crime I guess.

The 'victims' track record notwithstanding, how much latitude do we provide the criminals in sheltering them from the consequences of their actions?





The way I see it, that's the chance that the home invaders took when they made a premeditated decision to take their actions... The article stated that the invaders didn't intend to kill him - I had to chuckle; one with a sword and another with a golf club... I'm trying to imagine the degree of permanent injury that would result if they guy actually survived the assault.

I really don't have any sympathy for the invaders and just because they ran away once they realized they brought a knife to a gun fight, doesn't change my mind

I agree with everything you have said. The place where I will fault him is on the alteration of the weapon.

I still wonder what killing like that does to one's psyche. It can't be good.
 
JLM
+2
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

As a cop told a friend, if you wound someone who is trying to do you harm, finish him off. That way he can't sue you for damages.

No one can accuse Cliffy of not seeing the practical side.-
 
Sal
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

No one can accuse Cliffy of not seeing the practical side.-

lmao... gotta look at all possible consequences
 
taxslave
+2
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

I agree with everything you have said. The place where I will fault him is on the alteration of the weapon.

I still wonder what killing like that does to one's psyche. It can't be good.

Irrelevant. He changed nothing on the weapon. Clips are interchangeable. Not that long ago they were legal to own as well.
 
karrie
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

Yes. I don't think these things get "thought through" before hand.

Also it could have been him dead or permanently disabled either from the beating or the sword.

It's not like this was a robbery gone bad. They showed up with the express purpose of killing him. If he'd survived the night, it would have been by accident. It's not a 'could have been him dead'. Making him dead was why they showed up. That's what makes this case such a cut and dry in my mind. So often these are 'robberies gone bad', etc. This case was pure self defense.
 
taxslave
+3
#18
IMO he was fully justified to shoot the invaders as they were retreating. We don't know if they were leaving or just regrouping with more firepower and as usual the police arrived just in time to bust the victim. One thing for sure, they will not be repeat offenders.
 
Sal
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Irrelevant. He changed nothing on the weapon. Clips are interchangeable. Not that long ago they were legal to own as well.

Hm, thanks for the info taxslave.

I wonder then, which army he thought was arriving. Because they did.
 
JLM
#20
There is one other dimension here that might be worth investigating/considering. It happened in Cambridge Bay (which I know and probably lots of others know next to nothing about) which might not be the same little cozy community with white picket fences that is found in southern Canada.
 
Sal
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

There is one other dimension here that might be worth investigating/considering. It happened in Cambridge Bay (which I know and probably lots of others know next to nothing about) which might not be the same little cozy community with white picket fences that is found in southern Canada.

So how would that change things JLM?
 
JLM
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

So how would that change things JLM?

I don't know................maybe it would maybe it wouldn't.
 
Sal
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I don't know................maybe it would maybe it wouldn't.

hm, well I guess all that will come out at trial.
 
petros
#24
Those 3 will never rob another house.
 
karrie
+3
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post


I really don't have any sympathy for the invaders and just because they ran away once they realized they brought a knife to a gun fight, doesn't change my mind

The use of the term 'home invaders' is a mislead. They fought with him at the bar, and followed him home to have 5 men beat him with weapons. They were attempted murderers.
 
PoliticalNick
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

As a cop told a friend, if you wound someone who is trying to do you harm, finish him off. That way he can't sue you for damages.

They also can't testify against you which is an added bonus.

The way I see this is he was fully justified. Our laws on this are weak to be polite. They were thet to do him grave harm if not to kill him and if he left them wounded they would most likely be back with their own guns at some point. I am fully behind him being acquitted in a new trial. These were not first time offenders trying to steal his tv, they were problematic individuals with a history of violence. He did society a big favor here, they certainly won't reoffend and we won't spend a ton of money on trials and keeping them in jail. If he does get off it will definitely give pause to some others who might be following the same path as these perpetrators and that is a good thing.
 
karrie
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

So how would that change things JLM?

Help, medical care, police aid.... when you're isolated you have to count on yourself, you can't count on any of those things. As it was, I should try to find anything that talks about how long the bodies lay outside with police guards keeping the wildlife away, before a crime scene unit could arrive to deal with the scene. I recall it being three days, but I won't count on that.
 
captain morgan
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

The use of the term 'home invaders' is a mislead. They fought with him at the bar, and followed him home to have 5 men beat him with weapons. They were attempted murderers.

Fair enough. From what I recall in the article, the aggressors kicked-in the door. Clearly they weren't invited in and the events unfolded as they did.
 
Sal
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Help, medical care, police aid.... when you're isolated you have to count on yourself, you can't count on any of those things.

I thought that might be what he meant.

Quote:

As it was, I should try to find anything that talks about how long the bodies lay outside with police guards keeping the wildlife away, before a crime scene unit could arrive to deal with the scene. I recall it being three days, but I won't count on that.

omg... three days...wow
 
PoliticalNick
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Fair enough. From what I recall in the article, the aggressors kicked-in the door. Clearly they weren't invited in and the events unfolded as they did.

Not only did they kick in the front door, which apparently took them a while, but then they kicked in his bedroom door too. It wasn't until they entered his bedroom, the 'last refuge' as the court said, that he opened fire. He was facing multiple armed intruders with a sword and whatever else. I would have done the same thing he did....save my life and make sure they weren't coming back for more. He actually showed great restraint until he was left with no option and then did the job well.
 

Similar Threads

25
Woman 2, thugs 0 after home invasion
by Stretch | Jul 28th, 2010
6
Finally! Honour killing is a CRIME in Jordan!
by dancing-loon | May 14th, 2008
83
Invasion
by string | Sep 26th, 2007
0
Truscott acquitted, but not exonerated
by CBC News | Aug 28th, 2007
no new posts