Self-defence argument wins day for Winnipeg man

[Locutus]

charged in near-fatal assault



A jury has acquitted a Winnipeg man who argued that he stabbed another man in self-defence because he feared for his life after he was shoved and blasted twice with bear spray.

David Roberts was found not guilty Wednesday of aggravated assault in a 2011 confrontation with Christopher Pate in a quiet central-area neighbourhood.

Court heard Roberts chased Pate’s son down an alley, thinking he had been involved in local car break-ins.


more


Self-defence argument wins day for Winnipeg man charged in near-fatal assault | Metro

 

[shadowshiv]

Maybe if he had not chased the other guy's son this wouldn't have even happened. Call the police. That is what they are there for. Someone almost died because of this.

 

[JLM]

Maybe if he had not chased the other guy's son this wouldn't have even happened. Call the police. That is what they are there for. Someone almost died because of this.

But they have to respond!

 

[shadowshiv]

But they have to respond!

Better to wait for them to respond about some stolen car radios than having them respond to someone bleeding to death on the sidewalk or road, and YOU caused those injuries. Right?

 

[SLM]

They don't say one way or the other whether this kid was actually involved in any car break-ins but I have to say, the other way to view this story is that a man tried to protect his son from an aggressor and got stabbed for his troubles.

I'm not sure this Roberts should have been exonerated completely here, he was as much an aggressor as Pates was.

 

[JLM]

Upon rereading the account, I wonder if we have enough information to take sides in this. Does being sprayed with bear spray have fatal ramifications?

 

[SLM]

Upon rereading the account, I wonder if we have enough information to take sides in this. Does being sprayed with bear spray have fatal ramifications?

Don't forget he also shoved him as well, so he got physical in other ways beside the bear spray.

But my point is that this particular story doesn't really read like one person is completely innocent. It may well have been self-defense in that moment but, I don't know, I just think perhaps when you participate in escalating a situation (like chasing a kid-they do refer to him as a boy) into an alley, you kind of mitigate your self-defense position somewhat.

 

[JLM]

Don't forget he also shoved him as well, so he got physical in other ways beside the bear spray.

But my point is that this particular story doesn't really read like one person is completely innocent. It may well have been self-defense in that moment but, I don't know, I just think perhaps when you participate in escalating a situation (like chasing a kid-they do refer to him as a boy) into an alley, you kind of mitigate your self-defense position somewhat.

I hear you! There has to be accountability by people who get themselves into "sticky" situations. At the same time I can understand why he chased the kid. (There was a time when I probably would have done the same thing, but I don't any more because I'd probably get beat up)

 

[SLM]

I hear you! There has to be accountability by people who get themselves into "sticky" situations. At the same time I can understand why he chased the kid. (There was a time when I probably would have done the same thing, but I don't any more because I'd probably get beat up)

I can completely understand chasing off some kid you thought was breaking into cars too. I think most people can. But at the same time, I can also understand a father coming to the aid of his kid too.

 

[JLM]

I can completely understand chasing off some kid you thought was breaking into cars too. I think most people can. But at the same time, I can also understand a father coming to the aid of his kid too.

Yep, years ago I defended mine when they were being little buggers. -

 

[Twila]

I {don't} remember the days when a fist fight was a fist fight. Bare knuckle brawling was how you solved certain issues of family honour and such.

If you got beaten up, you got beaten up and you didn't seek revenge for it, you worked out. Got a re-match. Nobody needed to die or come close to it.

We should have this form of 'retribution'. You could sell tickets. It could be a family event.

 

[Colpy]

We weren't there, but if the man witnessed a crime, he had every right to persue the perpetrator and attempt a citizen's arrest............

If he was attacked while engaged in that perfectly legal (and laudable) activity, he had every right to defend himself.

I think that is the basis of the court's decision.

 

[JLM]

I {don't} remember the days when a fist fight was a fist fight. Bare knuckle brawling was how you solved certain issues of family honour and such.

If you got beaten up, you got beaten up and you didn't seek revenge for it, you worked out. Got a re-match. Nobody needed to die or come close to it.

We should have this form of 'retribution'. You could sell tickets. It could be a family event.

What????????? Promote violence? -

 

[SLM]

We weren't there, but if the man witnessed a crime, he had every right to persue the perpetrator and attempt a citizen's arrest............

If he was attacked while engaged in that perfectly legal (and laudable) activity, he had every right to defend himself.

I think that is the basis of the court's decision.

Perhaps you're right as far as the witnessing goes but the way the article is phrased it doesn't come across that way. Just that he 'thought' he was involved in the car break-ins. Honestly, I'd be hard pressed to find a reason why, if he indeed witnessed it, they wouldn't just state that. Possibly it's just sloppy writing. But that's the one point where it seems a bit sketchy to me. Following someone because you think they were involved with a crime is very different from witnessing someone committing a crime and pursuing them. If it was the latter then I'm in full agreement with your and the courts opinion. If it was the former then I'm still of the mind that it was a questionable decision.

 

[Tonington]

We weren't there, but if the man witnessed a crime, he had every right to persue the perpetrator and attempt a citizen's arrest............

Thinking a kid has been involved in break-ins is not the same thing as witnessing a break-in. And in Canada, a citizens arrest has requirements to meet. I can't make a citizens arrest if I see someone take your garden gnomes Colpy:

Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act
3. (1) Subsection 494(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Arrest by owner, etc., of property

(2) The owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property, may arrest a person without a warrant if they find them committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property and
(a) they make the arrest at that time; or
(b) they make the arrest within a reasonable time after the offence is committed and they believe on reasonable grounds that it is not feasible in the circumstances for a peace officer to make the arrest.

That said, I really doubt the six short paragraphs we've been presented with tell anything close to the whole story.

 

[JLM]

Perhaps you're right as far as the witnessing goes but the way the article is phrased it doesn't come across that way. Just that he 'thought' he was involved in the car break-ins. Honestly, I'd be hard pressed to find a reason why, if he indeed witnessed it, they wouldn't just state that. Possibly it's just sloppy writing. But that's the one point where it seems a bit sketchy to me. Following someone because you think they were involved with a crime is very different from witnessing someone committing a crime and pursuing them. If it was the latter then I'm in full agreement with your and the courts opinion. If it was the former then I'm still of the mind that it was a questionable decision.

That is a sensible interpretation of the incident! I too, have nagging doubts!

 

[gerryh]

Yep, years ago I defended mine when they were being little buggers. -

There's no big surprise. Personally, I never "defended" my kids when they did something wrong and it pissed me off no end when I saw parents who did "defend" their kid and make excuses for behaviour or even out right deny their child's culpability. The fact that you admit to doing it, is no surprise.

 

[Colpy]

Thinking a kid has been involved in break-ins is not the same thing as witnessing a break-in. And in Canada, a citizens arrest has requirements to meet. I can't make a citizens arrest if I see someone take your garden gnomes Colpy:

Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act
3. (1) Subsection 494(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Arrest by owner, etc., of property

(2) The owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property, may arrest a person without a warrant if they find them committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property and
(a) they make the arrest at that time; or
(b) they make the arrest within a reasonable time after the offence is committed and they believe on reasonable grounds that it is not feasible in the circumstances for a peace officer to make the arrest.

That said, I really doubt the six short paragraphs we've been presented with tell anything close to the whole story.

Believe me, I have taught this stuff for years....I could quote the section verbatim.....which is why I said " if the man witnessed a crime"

You are completely correct......but my point is better illustrated in 494 (1) :

494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant

• (a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence

But we don't know with the scant information offered.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Maybe if he had not chased the other guy's son this wouldn't have even happened. Call the police. That is what they are there for. Someone almost died because of this.

The guy witnessed his son being chased in an alley, & just happened
to have bear spray to hit the other guy with.....twice.

I can't speak for the Winnipeg Police Service, but here in Regina they
might show up eventually, or just try to give you a file# over the phone
for insurance reasons and not bother, etc...the Police are there (here)
for sorting things out after the fact, & sometimes well after the fact.

You have to rely on yourself and those around you, and not hold your
breath waiting for police to see when/if they'll show up.

 

[JLM]

There's no big surprise. Personally, I never "defended" my kids when they did something wrong and it pissed me off no end when I saw parents who did "defend" their kid and make excuses for behaviour or even out right deny their child's culpability. The fact that you admit to doing it, is no surprise.

You never heard of innocent until proven guilty? After they were found guilty they got the big club!