Victim charged for assulting theif

[Joel_D]

A Taber farmer who smashed a suspected burglar in the face with a hatchet is facing assault charges. On May 29, a couple arrived at their home northwest of Taber to discover an unfamiliar vehicle parked in the driveway.

The 46-year-old homeowner parked behind the vehicle, trapping it, while he fetched a hatchet, RCMP said. The man searched the house and found no one inside but soon encountered a man in his 20s trying to escape in the blocked car.

Police said the homeowner struck the man twice with the blunt end of a hatchet, smashing his teeth and face. The injured suspect ran off but police tracked him down to his home. Police arrested two other men on a road near the house. All three were charged with breaking and entering.

Now, five months later, police have charged the homeowner with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm. "Under the Criminal Code, people can use degrees of force when protecting property or a person, but there are limitations, especially if the courts determine it to be excessive force," said Sgt. Patrick Webb.

Joseph Bradley Singleton, 46, is charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Fa...735/story.html

As much as I love Canada, sometimes I think our laws are a little backwards. I always thought getting caught and possibly beaten by your victim is an occupational hazard for thieves.

[D'z Nutz]

If I was that farmer, my defense would be: How the hell could he possibly ID me? He had a fucking axe in his face!

[FraserB]

Pretty retarded. I guess your only option is to allow yourself to be victimized.

Good link Kloubek, its just missing the part where the person under arrest falls down the stairs or bumps himself on something when you catch him.

[Kloubek]

This is actually a good segway thread for a link I just finished reading:

http://www.nfa.ca/node/179

It's much too long to cut and paste here. But it outlines what a civilian is and is not allowed to do under such circumstances.

One thing I found interesting is shouting the simple words "You're under arrest" which seems to legally change the scenario quite substantially.

The reason this owner was charged is because he:
a) was stopping a FLEEING person... not a person in the act of a crime, and
b) didn't place the suspect under arrest

Now, for those who think "b" sounds funny - look into a citizen's arrest. Everyone - not just officers - have the legal right to arrest someone doing something criminal.

So in short, if faced with a situation like this, place the person under arrest. And if they resist, then you are authorized to use whatever force is required to subdue them. (At least, that is my understanding)

[89coupe]

He hasn't been charged yet, or should I say, he hasn't been found guilty yet.. I have a feeling he won't be either.

[civic_stylez]

Id take the charge.. if i caught the fuckers that broke into my garage and i had a bat, their dentist would have alot of work ahead of them. To me, once you enter someones property/home, you have waived your right to be respected and treated in a human manor. You dont break into someones home by "accident".

[Aleks]

How do you judge reasonable amout of force in a situation like this? If the hatchet was traveling a little slower while it smashed into the thief's head would he have been charged?

[max_boost]

Originally posted by civic_stylez
Id take the charge.. if i caught the fuckers that broke into my garage and i had a bat, their dentist would have alot of work ahead of them. To me, once you enter someones property/home, you have waived your right to be respected and treated in a human manor. You dont break into someones home by "accident".

[GTI CANADIAN]

Originally posted by civic_stylez
Id take the charge.. if i caught the fuckers that broke into my garage and i had a bat, their dentist would have alot of work ahead of them. To me, once you enter someones property/home, you have waived your right to be respected and treated in a human manor. You dont break into someones home by "accident".

This.

[revelations]

Originally posted by civic_stylez
Id take the charge.. if i caught the fuckers that broke into my garage and i had a bat, their dentist would have alot of work ahead of them. To me, once you enter someones property/home, you have waived your right to be respected and treated in a human manor. You dont break into someones home by "accident".

You are also liable for civil claims arising from any personal injury. This would basically make you pay for his dental and facial reconstruction work.

While I agree the laws are far too left in Canada, favouring the criminal, taking an axe to a person who is already fleeing the scene (attempting to) is beyond what is considered minimal force to defend ones property.

Now had the guy had a KNIFE in his hand....

[Anomaly]

Farmer shouldn't have used the blunt end. Bury the body deep and report that a car was abandoned on your farm. Done and Done.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by civic_stylez
Id take the charge.. if i caught the fuckers that broke into my garage and i had a bat, their dentist would have alot of work ahead of them. To me, once you enter someones property/home, you have waived your right to be respected and treated in a human manor. You dont break into someones home by "accident".

While you will probably find much agreement on this forum with that kind of viewpoint (and probably agreement with the majority of the Canadian public), the courts would disagree with you.

While the police are stuck picking up the intruder's bloody chicklets, and he's getting dental work, then YOU'RE sitting in a cell for assault. If you're cool with that, then swing away.

Originally posted by revelations
Now had the guy had a KNIFE in his hand....

...as in, after being beaten to a bloody pulp, one conveniently places a knife in the hand of the intruder? Yeah - that would probably get someone off being charged I figure...

[Joel_D]

Originally posted by Kloubek
So in short, if faced with a situation like this, place the person under arrest. And if they resist, then you are authorized to use whatever force is required to subdue them. (At least, that is my understanding)

Would it not then come down to your word against the thief in court, as the thief could claim he did not hear you, cause he was too busy fleeing the scene?

[ercchry]

Originally posted by FraserB
Pretty retarded. I guess your only option is to allow yourself to be victimized.

no body, no crime

[revelations]

Originally posted by Kloubek
This is actually a good segway thread for a link I just finished reading:

http://www.nfa.ca/node/179

So in short, if faced with a situation like this, place the person under arrest. And if they resist, then you are authorized to use whatever force is required to subdue them. (At least, that is my understanding)

I'm not too up on the rights of citizens catching criminals in the act, but the police have to follow a "use of force" process .....otherwise you would see the CPS taking a baton to the head to every idiot who refuses to comply while in custody.

So you cant use "whatever" force you feel like using to subdue someone, it has to be appropriate to the situation.

[revelations]

Originally posted by Kloubek
...as in, after being beaten to a bloody pulp, one conveniently places a knife in the hand of the intruder? Yeah - that would probably get someone off being charged I figure...

You didnt hear that from me

[freshprince1]

What utter bullshit. This infuriates me. Where are all these Canadians that think this is a good idea? I don't think there are as many out there as we think...so why do our courts still find ways to victimize the victim.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by Joel_D


Would it not then come down to your word against the thief in court, as the thief could claim he did not hear you, cause he was too busy fleeing the scene?

Sure he could claim that. But it isn't that far off from someone trying to outrun the cops, and claiming he didn't see the lights or hear the siren behind him.

I would suspect a large majority of the judges don't WANT to put someone in jail for defending their home. However, they are there to interpret and pass judgement on the laws. So if someone who's house is broken into and doesn't have a criminal record CLAIMS he told the suspect he was under arrest, I would guess his word will probably be accepted as the truth - generally spreaking.

Originally posted by revelations


I'm not too up on the rights of citizens catching criminals in the act, but the police have to follow a "use of force" process .....otherwise you would see the CPS taking a baton to the head to every idiot who refuses to comply while in custody.

So you cant use "whatever" force you feel like using to subdue someone, it has to be appropriate to the situation.

I agree and disagree with this.

Yes, the action has to be appropriate to the situation. You can't say someone was resisting and then chop off both of their arms. But on the other hand, I'm sure you've seen lots of video where a suspect is resisting police, and they DO hit them repeatedly... either with their limbs or a baton.

I would expect the same allowance would be in effect in the event of an arrest by a homeowner as well. You can beat the crap out of them - as long as it appears you required to do so to subdue them.

[whiskas]

Originally posted by revelations


I'm not too up on the rights of citizens catching criminals in the act, but the police have to follow a "use of force" process .....otherwise you would see the CPS taking a baton to the head to every idiot who refuses to comply while in custody.

So you cant use "whatever" force you feel like using to subdue someone, it has to be appropriate to the situation.

To add to that, police carry several tools that help subdue people who don't cooperate and even without those tools are trained in hand to hand.

A normal citizen doesn't have pepper spray, baton or taser available to them at all times, you take what you can get.

You can't blame the farmer for not tazing the criminal because even though that may have been the "appropriate" thing to do, it wasn't an option at the time.

The fact that the farmer used the flat end of the hatchet inside of burying it in the idiots head will definitely help his case though.

[adidas]

This isnt the first time i hear of such a bizarr situation. This has happened in the states as well.