Man finally exonerated in killing three during home invasion.

[CDNBear]

I think what some are missing here is, he followed.

Not only did he drive them from his home, mortally wounded, he followed them outside and for intents and purposes finished them off.

When does self defense turn into revenge?

I think we really need to hear the backgrounds on the 'victims' here.

I know that in the Caribana case that my lawyer tried and won, his client disarmed one of the two men that came to kill him, and then killed them both. For fear that if he simply wounded them or retreated that they would come back again, to kill him.

The background of these men is what won the case.

 

[JLM]

I think what some are missing here is, he followed.

Not only did he drive them from his home, mortally wounded, he followed them outside and for intents and purposes finished them off.

When does self defense turn into revenge?

I think we really need to hear the backgrounds on the 'victims' here.

I know that in the Caribana case that my lawyer tried and won, his client disarmed one of the two men that came to kill him, and then killed them both. For fear that if he simply wounded them or retreated that they would come back again, to kill him.

The background of these men is what won the case.

I think it will probably all hinge on state of mind! You have 5 guys trying to kill you, I wouldn't expect you to be too rational.

 

[CDNBear]

I think it will probably all hinge on state of mind! You have 5 guys trying to kill you, I wouldn't expect you to be too rational.

If you're going to point a loaded weapon at another human being, rational is something one should really be.

 

[JLM]

If you're going to point a loaded weapon at another human being, rational is something one should really be.

Agreed..............................up to the point of where it's preservation of life!

 

[CDNBear]

Agreed..............................up to the point of where it's preservation of life!

Agreed.

But shooting wounded is not really self defense.

 

[captain morgan]

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!

I wasn't very clear in the post that you responded to... I am fully behind Chris Bishop.

That said, I am not stating that I am glad he killed those people (or even shot them for that matter) - but I am of the same opinion of yourself relative to the actions taken by the intruders

 

[Nuggler]

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.

Yah, but, it was in a "room". They were coming through the door. Pretty close quarters to miss. There should have been at least three or four on top of one another in the doorway..................and I'd still have half a clip or more left for target shooting the next day.

Heck they only had spears , golf club, and such. Pretty good odds.

;-)

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.

Maybe they were running to find more golf clubs and sticks. moot point, eh:lol:

 

[JLM]

I wasn't very clear in the post that you responded to... I am fully behind Chris Bishop.

That said, I am not stating that I am glad he killed those people (or even shot them for that matter) - but I am of the same opinion of yourself relative to the actions taken by the intruders

I just reread the news report- the main problem I have with Mr. Bishop is the fact he killed the wounded man who fell down in the snow, I think he went too far there. Having said that I think it all comes back to mindset. He definitely needs a good lawyer. I think justice would best be served if he is released, with time served as being an adequate sentence for whatever he's found guilty of. Anything more than that just gives the wrong message to the likes of the perpetrators (career criminals intent on committing mayhem).

 

[JamesBondo]

woe! someone doesnt have their story straight. one person says he chased after them, another said he was in a room and they were coming through the door. how do you shoot someone in the back while they are coming through the door?

 

[gerryh]

woe! someone doesnt have their story straight. one person says he chased after them, another said he was in a room and they were coming through the door. how do you shoot someone in the back while they are coming through the door?

Didn't read the article, or you have comprehension problems......which is it?

 

[CDNBear]

Didn't read the article, or you have comprehension problems......which is it?

Half dozen of one six of the other.

 

[JLM]

woe! someone doesnt have their story straight. one person says he chased after them, another said he was in a room and they were coming through the door. how do you shoot someone in the back while they are coming through the door?

I think the cowards found Mr. Bishop to be a little formidable and turned tail and ran. The problem I find with the law is, it often doesn't cover the entire scenario- in this case five A$$holes, looking to seriously harm/hill a guy, smash their way into his own house and then due to their own stupidity, change the "rules of the game" they established. I have absolutely NO sympathy for the A$$holes- they were the ones who caused the situation Mr. Bishop responded to rightly or wrongly.

 

[captain morgan]

I just reread the news report- the main problem I have with Mr. Bishop is the fact he killed the wounded man who fell down in the snow, I think he went too far there. Having said that I think it all comes back to mindset. He definitely needs a good lawyer. I think justice would best be served if he is released, with time served as being an adequate sentence for whatever he's found guilty of. Anything more than that just gives the wrong message to the likes of the perpetrators (career criminals intent on committing mayhem).

Fair enough.. Bishop did shoot them in the back and essentially executed the wounded man... I don't support that, but I have no sympathy for those that were prepared to take his Bishop's life (or take the chance of killing him).

That said, should Bishop be held accountable - absolutely, but in my eyes; not for murder

 

[JLM]

Fair enough.. Bishop did shoot them in the back and essentially executed the wounded man... I don't support that, but I have no sympathy for those that were prepared to take his Bishop's life (or take the chance of killing him).

That said, should Bishop be held accountable - absolutely, but in my eyes; not for murder

Sheesh, we agree........................either manslaughter or cruelty to dumb animals! -

 

[captain morgan]

..... or cruelty to dumb animals! -

Damn near spit my coffee onto the screen on that one

 

[karrie]

I think what some are missing here is, he followed.

Not only did he drive them from his home, mortally wounded, he followed them outside and for intents and purposes finished them off.

When does self defense turn into revenge?

I think we really need to hear the backgrounds on the 'victims' here.

I know that in the Caribana case that my lawyer tried and won, his client disarmed one of the two men that came to kill him, and then killed them both. For fear that if he simply wounded them or retreated that they would come back again, to kill him.

The background of these men is what won the case.

There was a history of violence. One of the news articles even states so.

If you're going to point a loaded weapon at another human being, rational is something one should really be.

I agree to an extent.

I expect that I you grab a gun as your first line of defense, you had best be clear headed and able to think rationally. This applies to robberies, vandalism, moments of uncertainty.

Bishop did not grab a gun as his first line of defense. Bishop went home as his first line of defense. As his second line of defense he locked himself in his house. He then put yet another locked door between himself and his attackers. He called the police.

4 attempts at defusing the situation and defending himself, were put into play before he went for his gun. His gun was his absolute last resort. When you're talking absolute last resorts, I do not have the same expectation for rational thought, that I have for Jo Blow grabbing his gun when he hears a noise outside.

There's a difference there somehow.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Agreed.

But shooting wounded is not really self defense.

I think it could be. If there is a serious concern they will be back to finish what they came for at a later time then making sure they can't could reasonably be considered self-defense. Their intentions were to either kill or maim him and I can understand not wanting to give them another opportunity down the line somewhere.

 

[JLM]

There was a history of violence. One of the news articles even states so.



I agree to an extent.

I expect that I you grab a gun as your first line of defense, you had best be clear headed and able to think rationally. This applies to robberies, vandalism, moments of uncertainty.

Bishop did not grab a gun as his first line of defense. Bishop went home as his first line of defense. As his second line of defense he locked himself in his house. He then put yet another locked door between himself and his attackers. He called the police.

4 attempts at defusing the situation and defending himself, were put into play before he went for his gun. His gun was his absolute last resort. When you're talking absolute last resorts, I do not have the same expectation for rational thought, that I have for Jo Blow grabbing his gun when he hears a noise outside.

There's a difference there somehow.

You should get your lawyerin' papers, Karrie................if I ever needed one you'd get my business.-

I think it could be. If there is a serious concern they will be back to finish what they came for at a later time then making sure they can't could reasonably be considered self-defense. Their intentions were to either kill or maim him and I can understand not wanting to give them another opportunity down the line somewhere.

I think you're right Nick, the only way these A$$holes aren't a threat is DEAD!

 

[petros]

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

Booze.

A chick I knew was in a hooker fight and stabbed a guy in the neck, He bled out in just a minute or two. Because she was drunk and quasi defending herself (she was bigger than he was) she got 3 years manslaughter and was out in 2 years and one year parole.

 

[wulfie68]

You make some good points for discussion, Bear, but how rational can one be, if someone has busted through 2 doors and appears to be trying to kill them? From accounts I've read on various conflicts, even soldiers, who are trained to deal with lethal combat situations aren't always able to instantly come back from the edge, so to speak. Once the adrenaline runs high and you're in action-instinct mode, can we reasonably expect someone, especially someone who is not trained to deal with these situations, to turn it off instantly?

As Karrie and others have stated, he retreated to his home, locked the door, retreated to his bedroom and tried to lock/barricade that (as well as calling police) before grabbing the gun and opening fire. The testimony in the article definitely doesn't paint anyone in a favourable light: there are allusions to a fight in the bar, histories of violence and criminal behaviour, and the accused supposedly bragging about shooting someone in the past. The illegal magazine is troubling but only slightly so to me.

I don't envy the jury, but from what little I know, it seems like self defense to me. I just can't agree with the dissenting minority view from the appellate judges that his use of lethal force was not justifiable when the others broke into to his home with bodily harm in mind.