Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
I am confused as to how this would be considered a bad thing. Where was he supposed to park at his house? On the street allowing bad guys to just leave? If so...why?
As for grabbing the hatchet, would that not be a reasonable thing to do after discovering your home had been ransacked and now knowing its likely he/they are still in there because of the car idiling in the driveway?
Im not sure I understand what the position you are taking here is...was he to do nothing at all other than call police? What happens if the guy comes out with a weapon of his own, should he not be prepared for such a circumstance, cause i guarentee you I would do the same and i think any sane person would.
|
If the husband admits to parking the car behind the perps car in order to prevent escape, then the Crown may view this as shifting from mere defense of self/property to more of a planned assault? Stop the guy from leaving so you can confront him is not self-defense.
If the perp was attempting to escape/flee and the husband pursued him to confront him, that's a big problem. As valo said, if the husband's story about defending his wife is bogus then he can't justify his actions. In the Crowns' mind (not my own) they probably view the events as:
Couple comes home, suspects something fishy is going on, park behind the car to prevent someone from getting away easily.
Suspect attempts to flee. Wife is no where near being in danger. Husband strikes the perp
as the perp is attempting to flee, with a weapon, twice. The only thing at that point the husband is protecting is his car/property. Insufficient to justify use of force.
When you go through law school, you read dozens of these types of fact patterns in case law. The initial thought is that the husband cannot be charged with anything because it's his house/his property/his wife. Then, you start reading decisions/holdings, start doing more analysis and you learn that if you answer like that on a test, you won't last long in law school because that's not the law. It makes us robots.
Doesn't mean he'll be convicted or that the charges won't be dismissed, but the charges, on first blush, seem to fit the facts.