[Very Old Bumped Thread] One dead in Langdon home invasion

[brownie]

It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out in the courts.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Article

All of the parties involved knew each other, RCMP said

Gang Related?

"Happy" isn't the right word for when there's a death involved, even if it was the attacker.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Gang Related?

"Happy" isn't the right word for when there's a death involved, even if it was the attacker.

In addition to the fact that the person who killed said attacker is probably going to jail.

[foofighter15]

Originally Posted by Locke

In addition to the fact that the person who killed said attacker is probably going to jail.

I don't know if they are going to jail. Would need more details, but even if they don't they're going to have to live with it for the rest of their life

[REDVAN]

If you break into someone's house and are threatening bodily harm, and they defend themselves with deadly force, then the courts will allow the guy who defends himself to go free... or so I hope, but I am not sure about the law. What a messy situation.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

If you break into someone's house and are threatening bodily harm, and they defend themselves with deadly force, then the courts will allow the guy who defends himself to go free... or so I hope, but I am not sure about the law. What a messy situation.

I'm not so sure of the law either, but I think the term is "Excessive Force."

As in, if you could have stopped him and protected yourself without killing him then you're guilty of manslaughter or some such thing.

[Ozy_Flame]

Well, on surface level, I applaud the homeowner. It takes balls to take on two guys in the middle of a home invasion.

Me thinks the two thought he wasn't home...

[worth]

There is no right to self defense in Canada. There is a right to self defense only to a degree. You can only use "reasonable/equal" force. If someone enters your house with a baseball bat and you shoot them with a gun, 99% of the time the courts will find you guilty and you will end up in jail.

If someone starts punching you and you pull out a knife and stab them, you will be charged.

You cannot use, what the courts deem, superior/excessive force in Canada no matter the situation.

The law is set up so you pretty much have to call the police, or you're going to be in some trouble with the courts.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by worth

There is no right to self defense in Canada. There is a right to self defense only to a degree. You can only use "reasonable/equal" force. If someone enters your house with a baseball bat and you shoot them with a gun, 99% of the time the courts will find you guilty and you will end up in jail.

Is this your opinion, or is this "fact"?

It seems like a pretty rare situation. I can't imagine this happens often enough for anyone to really say "he'll go to jail like all the others".

[worth]

Criminal Code, Sections 34-37

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if
(a) he uses the force
(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
( b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.
36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.
37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.

In order to defend yourself, you have to first be assaulted, and then respond with the appropriate amount of force. You can only kill someone if you believe you would be killed if you hadn't.


I'm not familiar with the shooting the criminal in the back story. Under the criminal code, if the guy is running away, I don't think that would stand up. But I guess the guy had enough evidence to prove that his life was in danger or something.

Basically, you need to fulfill the above requirements while in a self defense. If you don't, you go to jail is basically all I'm saying.

If the guy in the article shot or stabbed one of the criminals and they were unarmed, he'll most likley be going to jail.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Well, on surface level, I applaud the homeowner. It takes balls to take on two guys in the middle of a home invasion.

Me thinks the two thought he wasn't home...

I differentiate a B&E from a home invasion by whether the people are home and known to be home. No?

[Thunderball]

I sincerely hope the crown refuses to prosecute this guy.

I find it very concerning that Canada has no self-defense/justifiable homocide provision in its criminal code. This guy did the right thing by defending his home and family and he better not be heading to jail for it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I sincerely hope the crown refuses to prosecute this guy.

I find it very concerning that Canada has no self-defense/justifiable homocide provision in its criminal code. This guy did the right thing by defending his home and family and he better not be heading to jail for it.

Exactly.

[Mango]

Just caught a story about this on tv. According to Global News, the occupants knew the robbers. RCMP said that it doesn't appear to be drug or gang related. The news report alluded to the relationship aspect and that it perhaps is played a major role.

[Jayems]

nm

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I sincerely hope the crown refuses to prosecute this guy.

I find it very concerning that Canada has no self-defense/justifiable homocide provision in its criminal code. This guy did the right thing by defending his home and family and he better not be heading to jail for it.

seems there is

The police investigation will now try to determine what precipitated the attack. There is no indication whether the death of the home invader could be described as a murder, said Neely.
“I think if people enter your home at 3:30 in the morning it's not for a cup of tea and there was probably some nefarious component to the entry,” she said.
“The Criminal Code authorizes people to use as much force as necessary to protect themselves and their property.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Mango

Just caught a story about this on tv. According to Global News, the occupants knew the robbers. RCMP said that it doesn't appear to be drug or gang related. The news report alluded to the relationship aspect and that it perhaps is played a major role.

Yeah, I saw that as well on CTV. I would want to know the whole story behind this before I would say that someone should not be prosecuted. Its still murder!

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

seems there is

The police investigation will now try to determine what precipitated the attack. There is no indication whether the death of the home invader could be described as a murder, said Neely.
“I think if people enter your home at 3:30 in the morning it's not for a cup of tea and there was probably some nefarious component to the entry,” she said.
“The Criminal Code authorizes people to use as much force as necessary to protect themselves and their property.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home

Yep, 'a man's home is his castle' is as old as English Common Law and should apply whether our law says so or not.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

seems there is

The police investigation will now try to determine what precipitated the attack. There is no indication whether the death of the home invader could be described as a murder, said Neely.
“I think if people enter your home at 3:30 in the morning it's not for a cup of tea and there was probably some nefarious component to the entry,” she said.
“The Criminal Code authorizes people to use as much force as necessary to protect themselves and their property.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home

Its the "necessary" part which disqualifies Canada from having a true self-defense/justifiable homocide clause.

If someone is attacking me bare fisted, but happen to be significantly bigger than me... but I give him a couple good cracks with a baseball bat... that would not be considered "necessary", but "excessive" and I could easily be charged with manslaughter... especially if he dies from the head trauma. Or if a guy has a knife, and I defend myself with a rifle. Then I'd be on the hook for manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon, despite the fact that if I didn't shoot the guy, I would either be cut up like a Christmas turkey, or attempt to disarm the guy with my bare hands. (both scenarios likely leading to my death, rather than his).

A true self-defense clause would allow for a person to use any and all force required to cease an attack on their person or property.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Yep, 'a man's home is his castle' is as old as English Common Law and should apply whether our law says so or not.

It really should... but the law will likely say that the man used "unneccesary and excessive force." In which case its up to the crown to decide if its worth pressing charges on.