Home owner charged in home invasion after shooting suspect

[gwill]

Im at a loss for words.... a few suspects do a home invasion on a home. One home owner is getting beaten up when the other home owner grabs his shotgun and shoots one of the burglars.

Home owner gets charged and ends up in the same jail as those who did the home invasion.

WTF

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/home-invasion-charges-against-suspect-and-homeowner-1.3329817

[The_Penguin]

Because not USA.

[gwill]

There must be more to the story... Can you not defend yourself in your own home? We are talking a home invasion with multiple suspects and the one home owner ends up with worst charges then the guy the police arrested for the home invasion.

[Darell_n]

If he shot him properly it would have been the end of it.

[killramos]

Welcome to our asinine society of victims justice system.

Next time make sure they don't survive to testify.

One note is the homeowner was charged for possessing a weapon while prohibited. If he had an actually firearms prohibition order then yea he should be in jail for having possession of a shotgun.

The discharging a weapon with intent is the charge that concerns me.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[gwill]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
I believe you have to use equal force to stop them or something stupid

I have a can of bear mace in my nightstand and a golf club; I figure that would be enough to thwart a home invader without sending me to jail.

Equal force? Interesting. Would this relate to any type of crime your defending yourself with? I had an insane guy road rage on me and had to think twice with how I was going to defend myself.

Either way it seems like a bit of discretion by the police would be great. Charge the guy for not having proper paperwork but why charge him for shooting a guy who broke into his house.

[revelations]

Yea the exact lettering of home defense in canada is equal force.


9\10 times these shitheads are packing knives / weapons anyway so a gun is equal force (deadly)....but i guess a weapon wasnt produced.

My guess is that the defendants have a history of their own......this should prove interesting though as case law will be made here.

[tirebob]

Might be the guy was running away and the homeowner shot him in the back. I might be wrong but I think if the thief is leaving you would not be within you right to shoot him. Pretty tough spot for the home owner to be in. If someone was in my house and attacked my family, I don't know if I would know to back off. Emotions and adrenalin would be running pretty frigging high!

[gwill]

Normally I'd be questioning what type of friends these home owners have but I had a sketchy neighbour kick in my door one time.... The fucker was stalking the wife at the time and decided one day that he had enough of me recording him. Apparently The guy had some serious brain issues where he had to live with his mom.

After he kicked in my door we had a crazy good scrap in my kitchen.... Eventually he went running away... Luckily the wife and son had left to school and work. By the sounds of this story If I had stabbed him I would have been charged.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Interested in seeing the details, I know for me that if you invade my home while I'm in it I am going to try and kill you. How the fuck do I know what your intentions are?

[revelations]

Originally posted by gwill

After he kicked in my door we had a crazy good scrap in my kitchen.... Eventually he went running away... Luckily the wife and son had left to school and work. By the sounds of this story If I had stabbed him I would have been charged.


Lets re-phrase:

He found a knife in the kitchen and you defended yourself with equal force.

[Anomaly]

possession of a weapon and ammunition while prohibited means he probably didn't possess a PAL, will be interesting to hear all the details....

[Mista Bob]

These days a burglar could break into your house while you were away, slip on a rug injuring themselves and then proceed to sue you and win. What a world we live in......

[roopi]

A. Homeowner is a dealer.

B. Prohibited charge clearly means there has been issues charges in the past.

Sure if this was a random home makes no sense but whatever imo.

[cancer man]

If a robber broke into my house i would have to run downstairs unlock my gun safe then unlock where the ammo is and load..Good Luck.
This guy was ready for action.
Two scum bags are out of society.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by cancer man
If a robber broke into my house i would have to run downstairs unlock my gun safe then unlock where the ammo is and load..Good Luck.


Your method is not the only legal way to store a firearm and ammunition. The law specifically states that ammunition can be kept with a firearm depending on the method of storage.

[speedog]

Let's be honest here - these folks weren't exactly run of the mill people.

It's kind of like the house in my community that has a shooting in front of it a couple of weeks ago and this past week they find a body in the alley behind the exact same house - the identified people in both cases were not saints by any stretch of the imagination.

We've been living in our current home for 19+ years and have never had anything out of the ordinary happen aside from an emblem being peeled off of one of our vehicles while parked in the alley overnight many moons ago - hell, our double garage has been left open overnight a number of times and nothing has gone missing, same for neighbors. No vehicle prowlings, no B&E's, no assaults, nil and same goes for all the neighbors up and down the block.

But then, we and all the neighbors are regular middle class schmoes whose main tasks are raising their families and just living a regular life - Halloween decorations, Christmas decorations, taking the dog far a walk, etc.. Can't even remember the last time I saw a police presence on our street aside from a friend in CPS stopped by for a coffee and that was 10+ years ago.

[Seth1968]

Let's say you have a kid.

Such kid would be charged to even carry pepper spray for defense.

I confirmed and checked this out with the cops. The guy's response? "It's the law".

:guns:

[raceman6135]

It's also not unheard of for the police to lay a multitude of charges, knowing that they only have a 50/50 chance of them sticking. Regardless, it's better for them (in their opinion) to lay a bunch of charges so that when the plea bargain happens, they get some of them to stick.

Without knowing the details of this particular case, though, it could very well be a case of dealer/buyer gone wrong.

[gwill]

Even if your a dealer shooting someone without a pal you don't deserve to get charged for defending your home. The context of the scenario doesn't matter IMO when you keep it simple.

[OTown]

Originally posted by Anomaly
possession of a weapon and ammunition while prohibited means he probably didn't possess a PAL, will be interesting to hear all the details....
Not it means he has either a criminal record related to firearms/weapons, or has been prohibited by a court not to possess any firearms due to public safety.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by gwill
Even if your a dealer shooting someone without a pal you don't deserve to get charged for defending your home. The context of the scenario doesn't matter IMO when you keep it simple.

Canadian self defense law is based on proportional and reasonable force. There is no castle law or anything similar in Canada.

He should be charged for possessing firearms when prohibited and if the actions he took were not reasonable, then should be charged for his actions.

[e31]

What do you think the RCMP response time is for a rural property break-in 115km north of Grande Prairie? 20-30mins is not unheard of within the city of Calgary (if you're lucky)...

Generally, people that live on a farm or in a rural area understand self-reliance; you are on your own in a situation like this. One cannot expect 100% compliance with the law when life is at risk.

[FraserB]

I find it hard to believe that the CPS response time to an armed home invasion in progress is 20-30 minutes.

This wasn't Joe Farmer protecting the farmhouse, it was someone with a serious enough conviction on his record to warrant a firearms prohibition. He knew exactly what laws he was breaking and should be held accountable for his actions. There is no gray area on his possession charges.

[SKR]

Originally posted by e31
What do you think the RCMP response time is for a rural property break-in 115km north of Grande Prairie? 20-30mins is not unheard of within the city of Calgary (if you're lucky)...

Generally, people that live on a farm or in a rural area understand self-reliance; you are on your own in a situation like this. One cannot expect 100% compliance with the law when life is at risk.

I'd expect it to be pretty quick, since there's an RCMP detatchment in Fairview. The article says it's 115km north of GP, but it was in a town 115km north, not off in the bush.

[gwill]

He knew exactly what laws he was breaking? If I owned a shotgun in that scenario I would have shot him and no I wouldn't have known the law doesn't allow this. I also wouldn't know I would need to lie and have a story ready to protect myself from getting sent to jail.

Quite the assumption that everyone knows the self defence laws.

[FraserB]

He knew full well that he had a firearms prohibition, he knew he was in constant violation of the law every second he had that gun and ammunition in his house.

[D'z Nutz]

Originally posted by gwill
He knew exactly what laws he was breaking? If I owned a shotgun in that scenario I would have shot him and no I wouldn't have known the law doesn't allow this. I also wouldn't know I would need to lie and have a story ready to protect myself from getting sent to jail.

Quite the assumption that everyone knows the self defence laws.

If you legally owned a firearm, you would know since you would be taught that when acquiring your PAL.

If you didn't have a PAL, well then you're illegally in possession of a firearm to which you would be breaking the law anyways.

[OTown]

No you guys are getting it all wrong.

Its not that he did or didnt have a PAL, its that hes done something so bad that the courts have set up a prohibition order prohibiting him from every having possession of a firearm due to his behavior/risk to public safety. PAL is irrelevant here.


Originally posted by FraserB
This wasn't Joe Farmer protecting the farmhouse, it was someone with a serious enough conviction on his record to warrant a firearms prohibition. He knew exactly what laws he was breaking and should be held accountable for his actions. There is no gray area on his possession charges.

Correct.

[D'z Nutz]

Originally posted by OTown
PAL is irrelevant here.

Not in gwill's scenario where he owns a shotgun.

And you're right, in the situation of the person in the news article we can only deduce that he did something bad enough that he's not allowed to be in possession of a firearm but with gwill's scenario, I'm going with the assumption he doesn't have a similar record. I'm simply stating he wouldn't be in a situation where he could shoot someone and expect that he could plead ignorance.

[gwill]

Makes sense on the pal. Clearly I don't own my own gun yet hence my confusion on things. It still seems odd that you need to match force with force when defending your house. Oddly enough I just went and looked at buying a hunting rifle the other day.

Wouldn't your defence when you shoot someone in a home invasion on your home be that you were scared for your life and the one charge gets dropped?

[revelations]

Originally posted by gwill
Makes sense on the pal. Clearly I don't own my own gun yet hence my confusion on things. It still seems odd that you need to match force with force when defending your house. Oddly enough I just went and looked at buying a hunting rifle the other day.

Wouldn't your defence when you shoot someone in a home invasion on your home be that you were scared for your life and the one charge gets dropped?


Rifles are poor weapons for deadly home defense - same with hand guns. A shorty shot gun (like the DLASK, legal in Canada - illegal in the US) would be ideal. Throw in large spread ammo and you keep the risk of damage outside the home minimal. Unrestricted as well (without pistol grip attached).

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0275/0765/products/DAC_870_Shorty_grande.jpg

http://dlaskarms.com/products/remington-870-shorty


The laws are flexible enough so that a woman home alone with kids, who shoots a violent home invader (eg. someone who breaks in a door) will likely get off of any serious charges - but if a young male shoots a deranged crackhead in the house, its a bit different story.

[gwill]

The gun wouldn't have been for home defence, just hunting. But they didn't cover that info on the pal when we were chatting about the process and all that you need to do.

It's pretty messed up the rules on defending change if your male or female... guess I'll be learning all about this soon enough.

[FraserB]

The law doesn't specify male/female, but I guess it could be easier to justify use of force if you played the gender card

[revelations]

It really is gray up here in Canada and it comes down to CASE LAW (which this will no doubt set) and also how the situation is ARTICULATED to the authorities.

The police/judge are more likely to drop the case when a woman says she had to shoot because she felt her life was in imminent danger when the subject broke down the door, also she had defenseless children in the house.

At the same time, I cant beat a lost crackhead in my house to a pulp with a baseball bat - WITHOUT properly articulating my case "your honour the assailant grabbed a knife from the kitchen and I used minimum force required to stop the threat".

Thus, a knife would be found near the assailant ;)

[Anomaly]

Originally posted by revelations



Rifles are poor weapons for deadly home defense - same with hand guns. A shorty shot gun (like the DLASK, legal in Canada - illegal in the US) would be ideal. Throw in large spread ammo and you keep the risk of damage outside the home minimal. Unrestricted as well (without pistol grip attached).

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0275/0765/products/DAC_870_Shorty_grande.jpg

http://dlaskarms.com/products/remington-870-shorty


I like shotgun's for home defense but 00 Buck over penetrates quite a bit:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-3-the-shotgun-meets-the-box-o-truth/

[revelations]

Originally posted by Anomaly


I like shotgun's for home defense but 00 Buck over penetrates quite a bit:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-3-the-shotgun-meets-the-box-o-truth/

Unfortunately, it has to penetrate enough to be effective in stopping a dangerous intruder. Bird shot wont do this.