Just ignore BS. He's one of those bleeding heart types who thinks a criminal becomes the victim the moment their intended victim turns the tables on them.
Man kills three suspected burglars with AR-15 rifle
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
It looks like that doesn't it. Three thugs went into a home with weapons that show clear intent to do violence if they choose to and are met with deadly force by the home owner.... but the home owner is now at fault because he defended himself.
da faq?
That is not that uncommon in the US. I am not that clear on their laws but if you are a party to a felony where it is reasonable to assume that violence might take place, even if you don't actively participate in it as was her case, and someone dies as a result, felony murder charges can be laid, as opposed to just being an accomplice. Convicts have met their end that way even when the actual murderers' capital sentences have been commuted to life. Weird for sure.
Well, they're legal for deer in many jurisdictions, so that says something.
No, I am someone who would be quite concerned if a crazed neighbour gunned down three criminals next to my home. Did the gunman even fire a warning shot or attempt to warn the criminal away? From the reports of the incident he only called the police after he had already killed the three intruders. That is the sort of vigilante justice that endangers the innocent as well as the guilty.
So someone who is fearful of their life becomes a "crazed neighbor" the second it becomes necessary to defend themselves?
3 people break into your house...is it reasonable to insist that the homeowner must ensure that they aren't christIan missionaries that have come to sing kumbayya?
Not much is known about the relative distances and movements of the 3 punks. I can assume with the lack of charges against the homeowner that the homeowner was reasonably in fear of his life from all 3 and there was not time for warning shots or negotiations.
Most burglars are cowards that want to sneak in and sneak out. If you startle them, their first instinct it to flee.
It is that 1 in a hundred that chooses to stay that you really need to worry about.
In this case, the party of 3 obviously wasn't planning on fleeing.
It is that 1 in a hundred that chooses to stay that you really need to worry about.
In this case, the party of 3 obviously wasn't planning on fleeing.
It is vigilantism pure and simple. Three teens are dead because they were stupid enough to commit a minor crime and US law allows panicked citizens to take the law into their own hands instead of calling the police. In Canada the shooter would almost certainly be charged.
Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
....In a 4-3 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts' dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine ruling that "[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists". The Court thus adopted the trial court's determination that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants, and therefore no specific legal duty existed between the police and the appellants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Here then, are the three things you absolutely must know about self-defense laws in Canada.
Number One: Defending yourself, contrary to popular belief, is NOT against Canadian law. The Criminal Code of Canada very specifically allows self-defense and defense of property in Sections 34 and 35.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-6.html#h-9
Number Two: Should you find yourself in the unfortunate position where you must defend yourself with deadly force, you will be arrested and charged with a crime. Crown prosecutors seemingly don’t like Canadians doing what is required to stay alive so you absolutely will go to trial on whatever charges are laid against you.
Number Three: Unless you’ve done something terribly wrong, the odds of you being convicted are on your side. The CSSA has dealt with many of these types of cases over the years, and in only one case was the individual convicted. To re-cap:
https://www.ammoland.com/2016/03/canadian-self-defense-law-three-things-you-absolutely-must-know/
....In a 4-3 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts' dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine ruling that "[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists". The Court thus adopted the trial court's determination that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants, and therefore no specific legal duty existed between the police and the appellants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Here then, are the three things you absolutely must know about self-defense laws in Canada.
Number One: Defending yourself, contrary to popular belief, is NOT against Canadian law. The Criminal Code of Canada very specifically allows self-defense and defense of property in Sections 34 and 35.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-6.html#h-9
Number Two: Should you find yourself in the unfortunate position where you must defend yourself with deadly force, you will be arrested and charged with a crime. Crown prosecutors seemingly don’t like Canadians doing what is required to stay alive so you absolutely will go to trial on whatever charges are laid against you.
Number Three: Unless you’ve done something terribly wrong, the odds of you being convicted are on your side. The CSSA has dealt with many of these types of cases over the years, and in only one case was the individual convicted. To re-cap:
https://www.ammoland.com/2016/03/canadian-self-defense-law-three-things-you-absolutely-must-know/
Last edited:
They showed up with weapons and the advantage of 3 people. Surely enough to beat the he'll out of the home owner.
Is it reasonable to insist that they knew how to do it without killing the homeowner? I know you don't believe that. One last boot to the head or club to the skull can easily make the difference between going to the hospital or the morgue.these 3 thugs were not in control of them selves enough to guarantee any sort of safety or well being for the homeowner.
Sorry but you are so full of BS when you call it vigilante. Not even you can piece toget her a reasonable enough argument for that.
The Harper government rewrote the laws on the use of lethal force in canada. A citizen used to have to pass through several legal gates before it was allowed. Now the wording is in favor of the citizen instead of the criminal. I wish I could easily cite the two versions of law. I believe that this is one place where the Harper government truly fixed some of the liberals screwed up way of thinking.
Sorry but you are sounding like the usual right wing gun nut. The shooter had more than enough time to call the police. He even had enough time to leave the house. As I said, in Canada he would almost certainly be charged.
If i were involved in this i would be looking to levie 2 murder charges on this kid. Yes i know stand your ground and all but here is why i would charge him with 2 counts of murder or at least attempt it.
He the homeowner had the only gun, now he wouldn't have known the intruders were armed with only a knife at first but he would have found out pretty quickly after shooting the first person, because...
Normally when you shoot people who are armed with a firearm they tend to shoot back going "Heeyah" or blow themselves up proclaiming "Allahu Akabar". Its what we called a shoot out. That didnt happen.
There was no shoot out but the bullets kept flying in one direction and then the homeowner barricaded himself in his room and called the cops. That doesn't sound like someone who was in a continued state of danger, that sounds like someone who controlled the tempo of the situation and ended up going to far because he was either scared, or horny with power.
This does not sound like a person who is competent in the use of a firearm as some news outlets claim he is. Here is why i say this:
1) You don't kill unless your in imminent danger. After shooting the first person it would have become apparent that there was only one gun, that being of the homeowners. If there was a second gun that was operated by the intruders and they fired back or showed it off then i would say he would be within his right to continue culling the lot.
2) Did the two other kids rush the homeowner after the first intruder was shot dead? Did they gamble on a quick rush and ended up being killed? If yes then i would say he is actually defending himself and that shooting the 3 would have been justified. Did he have to seek the other two out to shoot them? If yes then i would say thats murder.
3) After shooting the first person he should of identified himself and gave them a chance to leave. He never received bullets in kind so it would have been obvious that he was in control and that he abused that control.
4) Like i said earlier 4 people, 1 gun, 3 dead. Not even Wyatt Earp could boast a record like that at the OK Corral and he was looking for a fight.
All competent gun owners will use a gun as the last resort to take a life. Its not about how well you shoot that makes you a competent gun owner its how you manage the firearm that makes you a competent gun owner.
He the homeowner had the only gun, now he wouldn't have known the intruders were armed with only a knife at first but he would have found out pretty quickly after shooting the first person, because...
Normally when you shoot people who are armed with a firearm they tend to shoot back going "Heeyah" or blow themselves up proclaiming "Allahu Akabar". Its what we called a shoot out. That didnt happen.
There was no shoot out but the bullets kept flying in one direction and then the homeowner barricaded himself in his room and called the cops. That doesn't sound like someone who was in a continued state of danger, that sounds like someone who controlled the tempo of the situation and ended up going to far because he was either scared, or horny with power.
This does not sound like a person who is competent in the use of a firearm as some news outlets claim he is. Here is why i say this:
1) You don't kill unless your in imminent danger. After shooting the first person it would have become apparent that there was only one gun, that being of the homeowners. If there was a second gun that was operated by the intruders and they fired back or showed it off then i would say he would be within his right to continue culling the lot.
2) Did the two other kids rush the homeowner after the first intruder was shot dead? Did they gamble on a quick rush and ended up being killed? If yes then i would say he is actually defending himself and that shooting the 3 would have been justified. Did he have to seek the other two out to shoot them? If yes then i would say thats murder.
3) After shooting the first person he should of identified himself and gave them a chance to leave. He never received bullets in kind so it would have been obvious that he was in control and that he abused that control.
4) Like i said earlier 4 people, 1 gun, 3 dead. Not even Wyatt Earp could boast a record like that at the OK Corral and he was looking for a fight.
All competent gun owners will use a gun as the last resort to take a life. Its not about how well you shoot that makes you a competent gun owner its how you manage the firearm that makes you a competent gun owner.
In canada, the firearms safety course does not discuss any protocol during a self defense scenario.
The homeowner with a firearm will react according to what is reasonable in his fearful panicked untrained state of mind and his lawyer will have no problems defending his actions once fear for life is established.
It is not reasonable to expect an untrained firearms owner whose only experience is safe gun handling practises and duck hunting - it is nOT reasonable to expect him to behave like a seasoned police officer.
Hell, you are in a fools paradise if you expect all young police officers to behave like a seasoned police officer.