Man finally exonerated in killing three during home invasion.
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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.
No.
He should have a new trial.
One man was hit and down when he shot him again. That is acceptable if the man down was still trying to attack him........and had the capability of doing so, but I don't believe both those things are possible in this case.
The three requirements for use of lethal force are intent, weapon, delivery system. If the guy was already fleeing, and shot and down, he was probably missing intent and delivery ability.....
That said, anyone immediately under violent attack deserves some benefit of doubt, IMHO.
The problem appears to be with the judge's instructions, in which it seems he instructed the jury self-defense was not a possibility.
Oops.
Honestly, just from the little we know of this, he probably should be found guilty again......
The perps acted in a manner that excluded any mercy - in a way, I'm supportive of the notion that they weren't shown any either
Just think of it this way....would you rather stand trial for murder or be the victim of somebody else's murder trial? I'll take my own trial anyday.
lmao.... that was funny... Hope the self defense works out for ya....:shaking2:Hope you have a nice funeral then
I'm taking my chances with self-defense.
A couple years ago there was a home invasion just a few blocks away from where we live. We(the neighbors and I) talked about it
for quite a while and we decided that home invaders should be stopped in the most efficient way possible. We decided that there was no sense trying to wound somebody. Two of the neighbors are policemen............Not a good neighborhood for home invaders.
for quite a while and we decided that home invaders should be stopped in the most efficient way possible. We decided that there was no sense trying to wound somebody. Two of the neighbors are policemen............Not a good neighborhood for home invaders.
I would agree with you if it were a case of some robbers retreating. Or vandals caught in the act and making a break for it.
But when you're alone. And isolated. And you know the sole intent of their visit is to beat you to death. When you've left the bar where the altercation started. When you've put two locked doors between you and them. You've called the police.... and STILL they're coming for you. I would not trust anything but dead. Self defense at that point, with those odds, in his situation, is when they have all stopped moving.
But when you're alone. And isolated. And you know the sole intent of their visit is to beat you to death. When you've left the bar where the altercation started. When you've put two locked doors between you and them. You've called the police.... and STILL they're coming for you. I would not trust anything but dead. Self defense at that point, with those odds, in his situation, is when they have all stopped moving.
Actually to be honest I didn't have anything specific in mind, just suggesting as it no doubt is a community with differences from the norm, that possibly factors should be looked at, the demographics, the attitudes etc. Of course now the old gun issue will rear its ugly head again. I would hazard a guess that an attitude of physical survival, might be more to the forefront there than what it would be in say British Properties. (The "Beverly Hills" of Vancouver)