Yet you continue to assume that there was no threat after the first punk was taken down.
Man kills three suspected burglars with AR-15 rifle
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Yet you continue to assume that there was no threat after the first punk was taken down.
Nobody knows yet what happened...it's all speculation at this point. It will all come out in Court. The truth is like cream, it always rises to the top.
We will find out Monday at noon. Ill be sleeping, night shift stuff. Tommorow he will be absolved of the crime but the debate will continue.
Last edited:
I backspaced over one word. I meant to say you had probably not tried that position, drawing and firing from the surrender position is actually taught and trained for, learned it from a former SAS instructor.
I Canada he would almost certainly be charged with something more serious than unsafe storage. But then Canada expects citizens to call the police rather than taking the law into their own hands.
Are Canadian Home Invaders that polite that they would allow you to use the phone?
No, its just that Canadians are so stupid to believe that a phone is going to save them. We live in a society where victimhood is some perverse badge of honour and the government would rather us be subservient to authority than take the initiative to take care of ourselves. The police chiefs and prosecutors really believe they are the law and be damned if any lowly civilian should attempt to usurp their authority. The tide is turning though, much as it has been in the UK the past few years where you had to accept being a victim at the hands of and assailant under penalty of prosecution, which has sickened a number of magistrates into favouring victims rather than perps.
Ever hear of the concept of innocent until proven guilty?
These guys invaded the man's home. They were armed. He was reasonably in fear that he might be harmed. They were stupid. They died.
No foul.
Quite simply put, self defense is NOT "taking the law into their own hands". It is your right, the most basic of all rights.
There is already legal precedent where in a particular case the prosecutor argued that the defendant did have time and means to exit his home but the judge ruled that the home is the last refuge and the use of deadly force in his self defense was justified. This was a case involving collection of a drug debt, so these were not nice folks in the first place but are still afforded protection under the rule of law. Yes it happened in Canada.
There will be no court. He will not be charged. Taking wagers now.............
BTW, he would not be charged in Canada with the actual shooting, although I have no doubt that our bureaucracy would find some way to punish him......unsafe storage charges, garbage at the curb on the wrong day charges, noise code violations, something............something frivolous.
Yeah....and Harper changed the law to make it clear that you do not have to flee in the face of criminal aggression.
Citizen?s Arrest and Self-defence Act
You arent cutting him àny break.
It is not reasonable to insist that all home owners are to lose their fear of life status after the first criminal goes does.
I am not capable of running due to physical limitations. If I was required to flee, it would be a death sentence for me.
Colpy,
When I stated "It will all come out in Court"...I was referring to a civil suit from the families of the 3 dead guys.
When I stated "It will all come out in Court"...I was referring to a civil suit from the families of the 3 dead guys.
It's called the felony-murder rule. If you are committing a felony, and somebody dies, that's murder on you. The idea is that if you had not committed the felony, nobody would have died.
Examples: If you and a friend are robbing a store, and a cop shoots your friend dead, that's murder on you.
If you are robbing that same store and the counterman drops dead of a massive heart attack, that's murder on you.
I find it questionable that a kid who calmly called the cops after barricading himself in a room was in a heightened sense of fear that he was so overcome with anxiety that he was able to calmly and coolly explain himself on the phone. I'm not questioning his right to defend himself im questioning the fact that just because the law is on his side it was a unnecessary cull, unless he got them all at once in a choke point. It appears that choke point was the kitchen, that i'm fine with and ive mentioned this previously.
How do we know that say for example an intruder was cornered, tried to surrender and was shot anyways (outside of this story). A bullet wound in the back should not be the only indicator of retreat but then again its impossible to prove without a witness. Thats a Cold Harbour Civil War mentality, and we have to think of some kind of controls or interlocks that can be included in the written law that could address these as best as possible...
Thats why i'm saying "Carte de Blanche" and why i wasn't and won't agree with what happened if it was proven these kids died in separate rooms. But its the one room, the kitchen.
We all bitch and complain about laws and how they are enforced...
Trespass quare clausum fregit, by itself, justifies deadly force in self-defense. In Oklahoma anyhow.
You're playing the 'what if' game again, Johnny. There has to be evidence to support what you are saying. How many people would be in prison if convictions were based on 'what if' evidence? Not circumstantial evidence, but suggestions to the judge or jury.
What if they had their hands up and had surrendered, but he shot them anyway? The entry wounds would have been in their chests!
Hmmm, you're right! Guilty!
Even in Canada, you cannot enter a person's house in the middle of the night while attempting to burglarize it, or for any other reason, and think that you cannot be shot. Later, should the police find the perps were armed with a knife, brass knuckles or other hardware, it further reduces the likelihood that you will be charged.
This doesn't apply in OK, but here is the reference for you for the use of deadly force in Canada. Taking the news story at face value, the homeowner's son would not have been charged in Canada either.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Defences/Self-Defence_and_Defence_of_Another
What if they had their hands up and had surrendered, but he shot them anyway? The entry wounds would have been in their chests!
Hmmm, you're right! Guilty!
Even in Canada, you cannot enter a person's house in the middle of the night while attempting to burglarize it, or for any other reason, and think that you cannot be shot. Later, should the police find the perps were armed with a knife, brass knuckles or other hardware, it further reduces the likelihood that you will be charged.
This doesn't apply in OK, but here is the reference for you for the use of deadly force in Canada. Taking the news story at face value, the homeowner's son would not have been charged in Canada either.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Defences/Self-Defence_and_Defence_of_Another
Last edited: