Man cleared in killing of home-invader

[a social dsease]

Saw this on the front page of the herald today.
Couldn't find a good link to the online version but heres the synopsis http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/RTGAMA...calgary.ctv.ca

check out the herald for more though.


Personally I think this is awesome. It sucks that the guy did end up dying, but I feel alot better knowing that if someone breaks into my home I can defend myself without worrying about going to jail. The guy may not have deserved to die, but when you're going around breaking into homes, what do you expect? Props to the court that cleared the guy!

[3g4u]

Totally opposite of what i thought would happen.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by a social dsease
The guy may not have deserved to die, but when you're going around breaking into homes, what do you expect? Props to the court that cleared the guy!

It was Self-defence. Meaning that if he hadn't stabbed the fuckers, they would have likely killed him. I don't know how much more "deserved to die" you get than that.

Why is the fucker that got killed referred to as the "victim" in the article from the Herald? He wasn't the victim, he was the one that broke into the victims house and, apparently, tried to kill/beat him. Just because things don't go according to plan doesn't mean you're no longer the instigator.

While we're on the subject: Someone please tell the mother to shut her fucking mouth. If her piece of shit son hadn't broken into someone's house in the middle of the night with bad intentions, he'd still be alive. He died as a result of his own actions, she should be fucking ashamed for raising someone like that, and extremely appologetic that her spawn brought this much grief and burden upon the lives of others.

[94boosted]

Yah that is good that we can atleast defend ourselves.

[rc2002]

Originally posted by TKRIS



It was Self-defence. Meaning that if he hadn't stabbed the fuckers, they would have likely killed him. I don't know how much more "deserved to die" you get than that.

Why is the fucker that got killed referred to as the "victim" in the article from the Herald? He wasn't the victim, he was the one that broke into the victims house and, apparently, tried to kill/beat him. Just because things don't go according to plan doesn't mean you're no longer the instigator.

While we're on the subject: Someone please tell the mother to shut her fucking mouth. If her piece of shit son hadn't broken into someone's house in the middle of the night with bad intentions, he'd still be alive. He died as a result of his own actions, she should be fucking ashamed for raising someone like that, and extremely appologetic that her spawn brought this much grief and burden upon the lives of others.

This shouldn't even be an issue. If someone breaks into your house you should be able to do anything you want to him without consequences.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by richardchan2002


This shouldn't even be an issue. If someone breaks into your house you should be able to do anything you want to him without consequences.

Just remember, it doesn't count if you invite them in

[rc2002]

^ Haha. That was a good episode

Originally quoted from Chief Wiggum
And once a man is in your home, anything you do to him is nice and legal.

[BokCh0y]

Originally posted by TKRIS



It was Self-defence. Meaning that if he hadn't stabbed the fuckers, they would have likely killed him. I don't know how much more "deserved to die" you get than that.

Why is the fucker that got killed referred to as the "victim" in the article from the Herald? He wasn't the victim, he was the one that broke into the victims house and, apparently, tried to kill/beat him. Just because things don't go according to plan doesn't mean you're no longer the instigator.

While we're on the subject: Someone please tell the mother to shut her fucking mouth. If her piece of shit son hadn't broken into someone's house in the middle of the night with bad intentions, he'd still be alive. He died as a result of his own actions, she should be fucking ashamed for raising someone like that, and extremely appologetic that her spawn brought this much grief and burden upon the lives of others.

Well said

[Kloubek]

If someone breaks into my home and attacks me, you better believe I'm gonna kill the mofo. But then, without any kind of criminal record, I have a pretty good chance of getting let off with a minor charge at worst....

The fact that this guy was let off shows that our justice system is at least somewhat understanding of such situations.

Personally, I agree with Richard. If someone breaks into someone else's home, it should be open season as to what happens to him/her. That is at least *something* they got right in the US.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by Kloubek
Personally, I agree with Richard. If someone breaks into someone else's home, it should be open season as to what happens to him/her. That is at least *something* they got right in the US.

I disagree. You should be able to use a reasonable amount of force to get rid of the attackers. Stabbing someone 20-30 times is not reasonable. Stabbing someone in the back multiple times is not reasonable and neither is shooting someone in the back as they were trying to run out of your home. That's why we don't have asinine laws like the United States. Just because someone breaks into your home you can't just decide to slaughter them even if they are not posing a threat to your life.

[~Leah~]

I'm just going by memory here, but was this not a stupid love triangle type case? Either way, the intruders were trying to kill the guy, and he faught back. You don't always know or are able to control what's going to happen once adrenaline kicks in... he was protecting his own life. I agree with the decision.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


I disagree. You should be able to use a reasonable amount of force to get rid of the attackers.

Agree.

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
Stabbing someone 20-30 times is not reasonable. Stabbing someone in the back multiple times is not reasonable

Disagree.
A knife is used in close quarters. You can be stabbing someone and they can still be holding on trying to wrestle the knife away, strangle you, etc.
Additionally, if you're in that type of situation, you stab/slice whatever your hand is close to. That might be their back, might be their front. There's no way to make a hard and fast ruling based on the location of stab wounds.

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
and neither is shooting someone in the back as they were trying to run out of your home.

Absolutely agree.
Not much concern here though. Our laws allow you to use a gun to protect yourself, but our regulations put up roadblocks that make that nearly impossible for the average homeowner.

While Canada recognizes the need for self defence in theory, we've, essentially, legislated ourselves out of the ability to use it.

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
That's why we don't have asinine laws like the United States. Just because someone breaks into your home you can't just decide to slaughter them even if they are not posing a threat to your life.

You have an incomplete understanding of both Canadian and US laws on this matter.

[3g4u]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


neither is shooting someone in the back as they were trying to run out of your home. That's why we don't have asinine laws like the United States. Just because someone breaks into your home you can't just decide to slaughter them even if they are not posing a threat to your life.

Well at least in the states robbers think twice before even setting foot on anybodys driveway in fear of getting blown away by a shotgun. I think it should be O.K. to do whatever you want if they decided to break into your house. Here in Canada you get a criminal breaking into someones house, trip on a sheet of ice in their backyard, sue the owners and WIN.

[rc2002]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


I disagree. You should be able to use a reasonable amount of force to get rid of the attackers. Stabbing someone 20-30 times is not reasonable. Stabbing someone in the back multiple times is not reasonable and neither is shooting someone in the back as they were trying to run out of your home. That's why we don't have asinine laws like the United States. Just because someone breaks into your home you can't just decide to slaughter them even if they are not posing a threat to your life.

So you use a "reasonable" amount of force to "get rid" of the intruder(s). Said intruder(s) then break into someone else's house, potentially causing another dangerous situation for someone else now (possibly someone who isn't capable of defending themselves).

In this case, harsher penalties will result in less break-ins. I (and I expect most people) would be less likely to break into someone's house knowing that I'm at their mercy once instead of at the mercy of an over-lenient public justice system.

It's easy for you to say right now, but if you have a family and an armed robber is in your house, I bet you'd change your mind about this issue pretty quickly.

With this case as a precedent, I'm sure a lot of people won't hesitate to do whatever it takes to neutralize an intruder.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by 3g4u
Well at least in the states robbers think twice before even setting foot on anybodys driveway in fear of getting blown away by a shotgun. I think it should be O.K. to do whatever you want if they decided to break into your house. Here in Canada you get a criminal breaking into someones house, trip on a sheet of ice in their backyard, sue the owners and WIN.

Ok so where do we draw the line? Say a 16 year old kid breaks into your home seeking shelter from the elements it is -30C outside lets say and he is lost. Should you be justified in shooting him just because he is in your home? Technically that is what the laws in the United States allow... Does that seem to be fair to you?

Originally posted by TKRIS
You have an incomplete understanding of both Canadian and US laws on this matter.

Not really seeing as a lot of states are moving towards the no retreat type of home invasion laws like Texas where you can shoot first and ask questions later. You don't have to give the intruder the possibility of fleeing you just get to legally kill them in cold blood.

[ottamania]

the motherfucker deserved to die anyway. wtf was he doin in somebodies house. rest in pcs.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


Ok so where do we draw the line? Say a 16 year old kid breaks into your home seeking shelter from the elements it is -30C outside lets say and he is lost. Should you be justified in shooting him just because he is in your home? Technically that is what the laws in the United States allow... Does that seem to be fair to you?

What if the kid is in fact an alien monster is disguise, and the minute you turn around he spits acid at you!!!!

edit: Sarcasm aside, I wouldn't think shooting to kill is appropriate for any other kind of property, but my home is...my home. It just completely crosses the line to be in my house, and if the circumstances warrant a rational conversation, well, I'd probably listen, but most likely I'll go berserk and ask questions later, and damn well reserve the right to do so in order to protect my family, even if it isn't legal. If I have a gun, well, that's the most effective tool, so it'd get used

If someone can make it out the front door, then good, they're free to go (at least from me, the cops are another matter), I'm not going to chase someone down and kill them if they aren't a threat, but until the person is out of my house (and not simply running towards their friend who has a gun), their ass is mine.

[3g4u]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


Ok so where do we draw the line? Say a 16 year old kid breaks into your home seeking shelter from the elements it is -30C outside lets say and he is lost. Should you be justified in shooting him just because he is in your home? Technically that is what the laws in the United States allow... Does that seem to be fair to you?

Yes you should be justified to shoot anybody who breaks into your home. If he is looking for shelter he can allways ring the doorbell instead of breaking in.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


Not really seeing as a lot of states are moving towards the no retreat type of home invasion laws like Texas where you can shoot first and ask questions later. You don't have to give the intruder the possibility of fleeing you just get to legally kill them in cold blood.

No you can't.
You're not allowed to shoot a fleeing intruder. Not even in Texas.

Again, you do not fully understand the "Stand Your Guard" Castle Doctrine. It does not give carte blanche to kill anyone who steps foot into your house uninvited.


P.S. Well, there are actually instances where that would be allowed, but they exist in Canada as well, so they don't help your argument.

EDIT: The idea that I shouldn't go on the offensive against someone who breaks into my house because they might just be some poor unfortunate soul looking for a cup of coffee and a chance is fucking retarded.
You break into my house, you are my enemy. You'd better GTFO quick, you it will not end well for you. I don't give a shit how rough your life has been, or that you just had a fight with your wife, or that evil Russian doctors have implanted a chip in your brain and are controlling you via satellite in an attempt to pilfer my last pizza pop. You are in my house, and since it is completely reasonable for me to assume you mean to do me and my family harm, I will take whatever steps required to make sure that doesn't happen.

[Kloubek]

Don't get me wrong guys - I think that every case should be reviewed, and if the force used is utterly excessive (ie: Stabbing someone 30 times), then perhaps a charge is in order.

But if someone breaks into my place, and doesn't leave on their own will when I appear, damn straight I'm stabbing him. Two or three times just to be sure, in fact. Is that excessive? I don't think so. I'm not gonna hit him once, stand back, then see if it had effect. If he's brash enough to break into my place, there is no telling what else he is capable of, and I'm not about to find out.