Man finally exonerated in killing three during home invasion.

[JLM]

No.

He should have a new trial.


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.....

Not to mention state of mind! Confusion and fear can change the scenario significantly!

The attitude of physical violence arises when you get transient workers in bars drinking, typically.

I know at least one of the men involved in this was from Edmonton. I'm not certain about the other four.

Yep, absolutely, like in Burns Lake, B.C. many many years ago when the beer parlours were divided into Men's side and Ladies and Escorts. Bunch of loggers rolled into town for a Saturday afternoon of drinking and decided after being in the pub for awhile they wanted to sit with the wimmen. Of course not having any ladies with them they were told they couldn't do that. So out the door they go to the pickup, grab some chainsaws and proceed to cut down the partition.

 

[Sal]

Yep, absolutely, like in Burns Lake, B.C. many many years ago when the beer parlours were divided into Men's side and Ladies and Escorts. Bunch of loggers rolled into town for a Saturday afternoon of drinking and decided after being in the pub for awhile they wanted to sit with the wimmen. Of course not having any ladies with them they were told they couldn't do that. So out the door they go to the pickup, grab some chainsaws and proceed to cut down the partician.

that made me lol.

 

[DaSleeper]

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.

methinks this statement would qualify as an urban legend.;-)

 

[JLM]

methinks this statement would qualify as an urban legend.;-)

Maybe more of a rural legend! -

 

[Nuggler]

I wish the man luck at his next trial.

If someone who was threatening you, even with death, is in the act of running away, and you shoot them in the back, you could be in deep do do.

If someone whom you've shot is lying on your lawn and you finish them off - more do do.

Dunno all the facts here, but I like to think I'd quit shooting when they ran. With the adrenalin pumping, hooooooonose?

I'd like to believe my aim would be good enough to drop the first three through the door - without using all 25 shots.

Good thing the guy had a rifle. Sounds like he might have been in a body bag if not.




Maybe it's time to trade the 870 in for a riot gun with an 10 shot mag. the NRA would love me.

 

[karrie]

I wish the man luck at his next trial.

If someone who was threatening you, even with death, is in the act of running away, and you shoot them in the back, you could be in deep do do.

If someone whom you've shot is lying on your lawn and you finish them off - more do do.

Dunno all the facts here, but I like to think I'd quit shooting when they ran. With the adrenalin pumping, hooooooonose?

I'd like to believe my aim would be good enough to drop the first three through the door - without using all 25 shots.

Good thing the guy had a rifle. Sounds like he might have been in a body bag if not.

I don't think anyone's a good enough shot with a semi-automatic rifle, to hit only the right guys at the right time, in a fray where five men are trying to kill you.

 

[JLM]

I wish the man luck at his next trial.

If someone who was threatening you, even with death, is in the act of running away, and you shoot them in the back, you could be in deep do do.

If someone whom you've shot is lying on your lawn and you finish them off - more do do.

Dunno all the facts here, but I like to think I'd quit shooting when they ran. With the adrenalin pumping, hooooooonose?

I'd like to believe my aim would be good enough to drop the first three through the door - without using all 25 shots.

Good thing the guy had a rifle. Sounds like he might have been in a body bag if not.




Maybe it's time to trade the 870 in for a riot gun with an 10 shot mag. the NRA would love me.

There's five guys but it only takes one to kill you, so unless you are absolutely sure they are all leaving the property it might be wise to know where they all are and that they are going to stay there!

 

[JamesBondo]

when someone has tried to murder you, do you let them run away so they can try again tomorrow? perhaps you won't be so lucky tomorrow.

 

[Colpy]

when someone has tried to murder you, do you let them run away so they can try again tomorrow? perhaps you won't be so lucky tomorrow.

Legally, yes.

Or you will be keeping even meaner people company as a guest of the gov't....for a long time.

 

[JLM]

Legally, yes.

Or you will be keeping even meaner people company as a guest of the gov't....for a long time.

Yep, that's the way the illustrious P.E.T. has it set up!

 

[damngrumpy]

Taxslave you are absolutely right were they running away or regrouping for a second round?
I think he did what a reasonable person would do defend himself against those who were in
fact breaking into his house with intent to do him harm.
OK I guess he should be charged with having an illegal clip but other than that what is done is
done, he defended himself that is it.

 

[CDNBear]

His lawyer is going to have his work cut out for him selling self defence to a jury or a judge.

Once they were no longer a threat, he should have ceased firing.

 

[SLM]

His lawyer is going to have his work cut out for him selling self defence to a jury or a judge.

Once they were no longer a threat, he should have ceased firing.

While I don't disagree that is what he should have done, I've tried looking at this by putting myself (somewhat) in his position. Now I know that he had a role to play in the whole thing, being involved in whatever was going on earlier. (Not that that justifies them breaking into his home but that does differentiate it from other home invasions.)

So I look at it from the point of view of 'what if that was my home they were breaking into'. Right now I don't have any weapons (for self defense or other purposes) in my home. I live in the city, in a condo with a security entrance in a pretty safe neighbourhood. I am comfortable enough with the response times of emergency services to feel safe. But were I in an isolated area where I was the sole means of protection, I would definitely have protection handy (a gun, a dog, perhaps both). Despite any kind of proper training, I'm still not a soldier, not a police officer, I can not envision this scenario with me in it where fear would not be running rampant. I can't honestly say that fear would not cause me to 'over react' or 'over reach' in terms of 'self defense'.

I think what I find the most worrisome about this situation becoming the 'test case' for self defense with this type of scenario is that I'm not sure this guy represents the average citizen who would be/could be faced with defending themselves within their home. I can see the decision going against him, and in all honesty it probably should. But at the same time I can also envision other situations of the same basic scenario (firing when they turned away, etc) where self defense could conceivably be a not inappropriate ruling.

Is this the case to set that precedent?

 

[Colpy]

Taxslave you are absolutely right were they running away or regrouping for a second round?
I think he did what a reasonable person would do defend himself against those who were in
fact breaking into his house with intent to do him harm.
OK I guess he should be charged with having an illegal clip but other than that what is done is
done, he defended himself that is it.

That is why we have juries.........to decide these things.

But they need to have proper instruction.

Now, I don't know everything about what happened here.........but I do know that shooting a downed man that has no chance of harming you (he didn't have a gun) is simply outside the Pale. Without some kind of extenuating factor, this guy is in big trouble.

 

[CDNBear]

That's why exonerated is a bit of a stretch. He's been granted a new trial.

He still has to convince a court that what he did was actually self defence.

 

[JamesBondo]

Legally, yes.

Or you will be keeping even meaner people company as a guest of the gov't....for a long time.

I know for myself, when I'm scared, I tend to punch not cover up.

I think it would be interesting if eventually a case similar to this one goes to court where someone asserts that once they were fearful of their life, they entered a temporary state of insanity and survival instinct took over.

Hence, the plea would be 'not guilty by reason of insanity' with the fear/survival instinct/attempted murder all as evidence that suggested that the person went into that temporary state. All you need is a doctor that would confirm that it is possible to be scared out of your wits end.

 

[captain morgan]

His lawyer is going to have his work cut out for him selling self defence to a jury or a judge.

Once they were no longer a threat, he should have ceased firing.

I'm curious if he'll take the temporary insanity angle.... Fear, adrenaline, more fear... Poor lad wasn't in any state of mind to make a rational decision

 

[karrie]

I think it's hard to view this one as legal precedent because it's so unusual. The isolated location, the repeated attempts to get away from them and not engage, the size of the gang attempting to harm him.

As I was telling a friend, I simply can't view him as having to follow the law about not shooting a retreating assailant, if the whole group wasn't retreating. After all that, in a fight for your life against five men, I can't fathom stopping until they were all dead or immobilized.

 

[captain morgan]

Gotta agree on the precedent setting potential... I haven't looked into it, but I don' recall hearing/reading about any home invasions that were specific about harming a person (ie: not burglary) where the 'victim' successfully turned the tables.

I certainly don't condone the loss of life, but I am hoping that the courts fall on the side of supporting the victims

 

[JLM]

Gotta agree on the precedent setting potential... I haven't looked into it, but I don' recall hearing/reading about any home invasions that were specific about harming a person (ie: not burglary) where the 'victim' successfully turned the tables.

I certainly don't condone the loss of life, but I am hoping that the courts fall on the side of supporting the victims

Sorry to have to agree to disagree, but those A$$holes followed the guy home with weapons only meant to do serious harm/murder and they broke down two doors. Had it been me I would have done similar. They were the author of their own demise. Actually I think when you are being threatened in your OWN home, murder is a ridiculous charge!