Central Alberta man faces charges for shooting a theif - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Orange · 04-09-2009, 10:16 PM

I'm surprised I haven't seen a thread about this and fear it might be a fata, but I searched for Brian Knight and found nothing.

For those who haven't heard, Brian Knight is facing 7 charges for chasing a theif in his truck (the robber being on the ATV he just stole) and then shooting him as he tried to flee.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/...03816-sun.html
http://www.am770chqr.com/News/Local/...spx?ID=1080785

I don't know, if the robber doesn't want to abide by the law why should it protect him?

Jayems · 04-09-2009, 10:19 PM

I think this'll come down to if the thief victim's life was threatened enough to justify trying to kill the thief... while he's fleeing.

Jedi Ninja · 04-09-2009, 10:20 PM

I've bought a shotgun and am looking for the guy who has jolinar's extension cord.

Finner · 04-09-2009, 10:49 PM

I'm sure he felt threatened by the fleeing thief. Shooting someone over an ATV? What if it was just some dumb kid? Bunch of rednecks.

I guess walmart should start shooting kids who steal packs of gum as well, because "if the robber doesn't want to abide by the law why should it protect him?"

If someone stole my kid i could understand chasing him down and shooting him, but shooting and assaulting someone over an ATV is just ######ed.

Thor · 04-09-2009, 10:54 PM

Its why some people shouldn't have guns, I'm not anti gun, just anti stupid people with guns.

Displaced Flames fan · 04-09-2009, 11:04 PM

It's one thing if someone is in your house, it's quite another when he's hauling ass in the opposite direction.

Throw the book at this guy.

Daradon · 04-09-2009, 11:35 PM

Being stolen from is not a reason to take a life.

You should only be able to respond with lethal force if your or a loved one is in immediate mortal danger. And then, only if you have to.

Ford Prefect · 04-09-2009, 11:37 PM

Please do not take this as a defence of the guy ... he had no right shooting at someone over this. However, to add some context, I know that a lot of people in rural Alberta are getting hit really hard by thieves making off with everything from gas to tools to vehicles and machinery, and the cops aren't doing much to help them because they're stretched too thin as it is. So tensions are pretty high and citizens feel they're getting hung out to dry by the cops. It's the type of enviroment that breeds vigilanteism. Again, I'm not justifying this guy, just trying to give some context.

Orange · 04-10-2009, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finner

I'm sure he felt threatened by the fleeing thief. Shooting someone over an ATV? What if it was just some dumb kid? Bunch of rednecks.

I guess walmart should start shooting kids who steal packs of gum as well, because "if the robber doesn't want to abide by the law why should it protect him?"

I'm not saying I disagree or agree with what he did, I was asking the question as I see both sides. But let's face it, there's a difference between a child and 3 fully grown men (30 years old I believe) going onto your property and stealing a vehicle you need for work at 2 in the morning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daradon

Being stolen from is not a reason to take a life.

You should only be able to respond with lethal force if your or a loved one is in immediate mortal danger. And then, only if you have to.

Is it fair to say it was lethal force? I don't think so, if he wanted him dead the guy would be dead. The theif was caught, he was in the passenger seat of a truck while they waited on the cops or whatever, (and the idiot theif stole that truck only to crash it and get captured again).

The gun he used at the range it was used isn't necessarily lethal force, and I know it sounds weird and I'm no gun expert but look at the facts, the theif was shot, twice, and still able to flee and was only in the hospital a couple of hours. Like I said, I'm no gun expert and I might be way off base but had Brian Knight shot the theif with a BB gun would you still consider it lethal force? Well what about if he shot him with 40 BB guns with a little more power?

SteveToms · 04-10-2009, 12:03 AM

What is a theif?

Orange · 04-10-2009, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveToms

What is a theif?

Touche, I wont go back and correct all my spelling

Dan02 · 04-10-2009, 12:06 AM

I know you just can't go around shooting people even if they stole your stuff, but at the same time i feel absolutely zero sympathy for the guy who got shot.

Orange · 04-10-2009, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan02

I know you just can't go around shooting people even if they stole your stuff, but at the same time i feel absolutely zero sympathy for the guy who got shot.

I think that's one thing we'll generally agree on, especially, like I said supposedly he spent only several hours in the hospital before being released with the promise he'll show up to court for stealing the ATV and truck...

Daradon · 04-10-2009, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orange

The gun he used at the range it was used isn't necessarily lethal force, and I know it sounds weird and I'm no gun expert but look at the facts, the theif was shot, twice, and still able to flee and was only in the hospital a couple of hours. Like I said, I'm no gun expert and I might be way off base but had Brian Knight shot the theif with a BB gun would you still consider it lethal force? Well what about if he shot him with 40 BB guns with a little more power?

What a silly question? Why not just ask me what I think if he was shot with a water pistol? Or maybe just yelled at him with a megaphone.

The fact is he did neither of those things. He shot at him, hitting him twice. It's quite possible he COULD have killed him. Who knows. Maybe he's just a lousy shot.

I can understand the guys frustration, and maybe they can go a little easier on him. but if he had the time and courage to chase him down, he obviously had a lot of other options than shooting him.

He wasn't in danger, he had time to think, he didn't need to shoot the guy. Frig, shoot the tires, then the guy can't escape in the ATV anymore. (I know that's harder than it looks, but so is hitting a person, I can't imagine one is any easier than the other in the situation as it's given.)

P.S. It's thief... not theif

Orange · 04-10-2009, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daradon

What a silly question? Why not just ask me what I think if he was shot with a water pistol? Or maybe just yelled at him with a megaphone.

But that's the point, at the range of which the thIEf was shot was, from my understanding, outside of what's generally considered the kill range of a 12 gauge. To say it was lethal force than would not be fair.

Of course it could kill you, but so could a punch to the back of the head. Does that mean EVERY punch be considered lethal force? Heck, even a BB gun can kill, as several deaths have occured.

ken0042 · 04-10-2009, 12:35 AM

Somewhat fitting that this thread come up the same day that a muderer was given the minimum (10 years) for killing his mother- the reason for the minimum was that he didn't desicrate her body afterwards.

It's this lack of justice that makes people want to take the law into their own hands. Especially in a small town, people will be saying "don't go prowling around old man Kinght's house. That crazy SOB will hunt you down."

The guy should get a $100 fine for unsafe discharging of a firearm IMHO.

Daradon · 04-10-2009, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orange

But that's the point, at the range of which the thIEf was shot was, from my understanding, outside of what's generally considered the kill range of a 12 gauge. To say it was lethal force than would not be fair.

Of course it could kill you, but so could a punch to the back of the head. Does that mean EVERY punch be considered lethal force? Heck, even a BB gun can kill, as several deaths have occured.

That's probably why any form of violence would probably be prosecuted. The more dangerous the weapon, the harder the sentence. But I'm sure if he stopped the guy and gave him a royal beatdown he'd be in trouble too.

You're not really making a point. Are you saying we should have laws for distance and weapons too? IE shooting a guy at 50 feet with a 12 gauge is a no no but shooting a guy at 200 is ok? Or at least carries a smaller sentence?

Can you imagine the trials?

I'm sorry officer, but as you can see, he was well outside my weapons 'kill range'. It wasn't my fault the bullet hit him in the eye and caused him massive brain damage.

You just don't shoot people unless you are in mortal danger. Or it's Hitler...

Orange · 04-10-2009, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daradon

That's probably why any form of violence would probably be prosecuted. The more dangerous the weapon, the harder the sentence. But I'm sure if he stopped the guy and gave him a royal beatdown he'd be in trouble too.

You're not really making a point. Are you saying we should have laws for distance and weapons too? IE shooting a guy at 50 feet with a 12 gauge is a no no but shooting a guy at 200 is ok? Or at least carries a smaller sentence?

Can you imagine the trials?

I'm sorry officer, but as you can see, he was well outside my weapons 'kill range'. It wasn't my fault the bullet hit him in the eye and caused him massive brain damage.

You just don't shoot people unless you are in mortal danger. Or it's Hitler...

There should be, and is laws, that consider what is deadly force and what isn't.

Are you saying a shot to the leg and a shot to the head should both be considered lethal force? Because the chances of someone of dieing when shot in the leg, like someone being shot from far away with a shotgun, are significantly lower than being shot in the head or shot with a shotgun in close range.

IF the thief was shot and killed, regardless the man would be facing murder charges. But he would also be if he tackled him to the ground and had him hit his head and die. When it comes right down to it, the thief (even though he was shot) DIDN'T die. This wasn't murder, it wasn't a kill shot(s).

EDIT: Also my point was just trying to figure out if it was fair to say he was trying to kill the thief or use lethal force, nothing to do with the law. I just think if the man wanted him dead, he would of been dead, but instead he spent a couple hours in the hospital...

Daradon · 04-10-2009, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orange

There should be, and is laws, that consider what is deadly force and what isn't.

Are you saying a shot to the leg and a shot to the head should both be considered lethal force? Because the chances of someone of dieing when shot in the leg, like someone being shot from far away with a shotgun, are significantly lower than being shot in the head or shot with a shotgun in close range.

Yes. For simplicity and for moral reasons, yes. If you're using a lethal weapon, you are using lethal force. Most people can't aim worth crap and don't know about kill ranges. You could be aiming for the leg and hit the guy in the heart, especially the further away you are, which according to your argument would be the more acceptable way, because at least your trying to shoot outside you're kill range.

'Sorry officer, I was aiming for the leg, I was just trying to subdue him'
'OHHHHHHH, ok then, you're free to go...'

???

And it shouldn't really matter anyway morally. Because morally, you should understand, there is a far greater risk I will take this persons life than if I just tackle him, hit him, or heck, let him go and get his description for the police.

If you are using a lethal weapon, you are using lethal force. Period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orange

IF the thief was shot and killed, regardless the man would be facing murder charges. But he would also be if he tackled him to the ground and had him hit his head and die. When it comes right down to it, the thief (even though he was shot) DIDN'T die. This wasn't murder, it wasn't a kill shot(s).

EDIT: Also my point was just trying to figure out if it was fair to say he was trying to kill the thief or use lethal force, nothing to do with the law. I just think if the man wanted him dead, he would of been dead, but instead he spent a couple hours in the hospital...

Well then there you go. By your argument he was just trying to teach him a lesson and not kill him. That shows he had the time and wherewithal to make complex decisions and choices. He obviously had many other choices. He chose this one.

As for the tackle argument, I'm not so sure he'd be charged with murder there, or even charged as badly as he is being now. Because he could be tackling the guy to get his stuff back, to subdue him, for many reasons. But you really only use a gun for one reason. Unless you're a cop, and even then your actions will be questioned in some situations.

Daradon · 04-10-2009, 02:55 AM

From the article...

'The farmer pulls out a shotgun and fires at the individual who is skedaddling away, but it isn't a case of the buckshot stops here.
The guy is hit but keeps running. The farmer calls friends and relations to help find the man on the run, according to the police.'

The guy already had his quad back. There was no reason to shoot him. I'm pretty sure the statement had already been made. I don't think that guy would go near his house again. In fact, he may reconsider a life of crime. Heck, a phone call to police and he may have been caught on his escape.