DON'T DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY!

[FireFly]

Granted, the intruder died, but how do we feel about this? Man charged after stab wound kills intruder.

Now, if there were many wounds, and the guy went psycho, that's one thing. But it says there were a group of intruders, so what does a guy do?

How do we all feel about this? Will the man be convicted of murder? Manslaughter? How do we deal with this?

[JiriHrdina]

There is nowhere near enough information in that article to be able to form an opinion on it. We have no clue what happened.

[CaptainCrunch]

We don't know enough, Jiri is right, also he was arrested, but he hasen't been charged yet, thats pretty standard for a homicide investigation

[Patek23]

If someone is in my house and stealing shinguard, they're going to get the shinguard kicked our of them or stabbed regarless of wether or not I would get charged. But thats me.

[FireFly]

Should this even be an issue? If a bunch of young punks breaks into your house, and you feel threatened, do you, or do you not protect yourself? Should you have the right to stab the guy doing it? Should you be charged with murder if he dies?

It was meant as more of a discussion starter, than a specific scenario...

[Incinerator]

Kinda ties in with my rantings earlier 4x4's road rage thread...

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by FireFly@Aug 8 2005, 04:53 AM
Should this even be an issue? If a bunch of young punks breaks into your house, and you feel threatened, do you, or do you not protect yourself? Should you have the right to stab the guy doing it? Should you be charged with murder if he dies?

It was meant as more of a discussion starter, than a specific scenario...

Agree 100% with this. However we don't know what completely happened.

[Eastern Girl]

Well speaking in generalities, yes, you have the right to defend yourself and your house. Period. If one or more people break into your house, i am sure their intent is not to befriend you so you do what you have to or what you can to stay alive and well...within reason of course.

[icarus]

Tort law in Canada on this issue is a little weird. Occupier's liability in Canada says that guests on your property, invited or UNINVITED, must not be exposed to danger. As I learned it, theoretically if someone broke into your home and tripped over a box left in the middle of the floor and injured themselves, you could be held liable even though they're an intruder! (Of course, they could face criminal and civil actions themselves.)

[icarus]

Originally posted by Eastern Girl@Aug 8 2005, 05:14 AM
Well speaking in generalities, yes, you have the right to defend yourself and your house. Period. If one or more people break into your house, i am sure their intent is not to befriend you so you do what you have to or what you can to stay alive and well...within reason of course.

That is the case in the US, but not really in Canada.

EDIT: Well, maybe if it is within reason you can get away with it. Let me look into it.

EDIT: This is from Ontario's Occupiers' Liability Act (which I learned; I will look up Alberta's):

"4(1) Risks willingly assumed
The duty of care provided for in subsection 3(1) does not apply in respect of risks willingly assumed by the person who enters on the premises, but in that case the occupier owes a duty to the person to not create a danger with the deliberate intent of doing harm or damage to the person or his or her property and to not act with reckless disregard of the presence of the person or his or her property.

4(2) Criminal activity
A person who is on premises with the intention of committing, or in the commission of, a criminal act shall be deemed to have willingly assumed all risks and is subject to the duty of care set out in subsection (1)."

So although criminals assume the risks, there is still a duty of care on the part of the homeowner not to create danger or have reckless disregard for the trespasser.

EDIT: Here is what Alberta's Occupiers' Liability Act says:

12(2)
An occupier is liable to a trespasser for damages for death of or injury to the trespasser that results from the occupier's wilful or reckless conduct.

So, in sum, you can't beat on people who come into your home.

[Thunderball]

This is one of the things that disgusts me about Canada. Someone invades your house, shatters your privacy with hopes of making off with your property, is attacked and subsequently dies. To me that sounds like harsh justice. They deserve anything that happens to them. Whatever happened to being the king of your castle?

If anything this guy deserves a medal, not a court date.

[tjinaz]

That is the difference between Canada and the US.

In the US the intruder, and likely at least one of his buddies, would have been shot.

Seriously though... the law in the US, at least Arizona is that the intruder has to be threatening you or another person. If he has his back to you and is leaving with your TV you cannot legally shoot them. Recovering your property is not enough reason to use deadly force. Only reason to use deadly force ironically is to protect life. Have to see what the facts are in the case.

[CaramonLS]

In Canada, the key provision in the criminal code is that no one may use "more force than is necessary" and then only when "he believes on reasonable grounds that he can not otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm." In section 35, the code goes on to require that one must show that, "he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it (the assault) as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself ... arose."

The right to use physical force to defend non family members is more limited than it is in many states, as are a Canadians' rights to repulse trespassers on one's own property, or to use force to stop the commission of serious or violent crimes.

And there you have it.

[Claeren]

My understanding of those provisions in Canada is that you are not allowed to set boobie-traps for robbers.

If they hurt themselves by accident or you repel them using force that is within reason you are not going to be charged.



Claeren.

[Eastern Girl]

Yes, you have to use equal or lesser force to protect yourself. Otherwise, it's deemed excessive. I still think it's ridiculous though. If someone is breaking in to your house, you have to wait for them to do something to you in order to protect yourself within the law.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

I personally feel as though the issue at hand in this matter is not the right to defend ones property, but rather too what degree a citizen of Canada is able to defend their property. For instance it would seem foolish to say that lethal force would be justified in a case of someone stealing a book, a chocolate bar or something of minimal value. The fact that ownership of the property exists is not a reason in itself to resort to criminal acts of assault or in this case murder to protect said property. This can be evidences in Section 38, subsection one of the Criminal Code of Canada which states:

38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified
(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or
(b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,
if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.

This law is further clarified in Section 39 of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that:

39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

According to the law, the homeowner was likely in the wrong. From a philisphical and common law standpoint it is an interesting situation, but from a legal standpoint unless he was under some form of physical duress I have a hard time believing that he used no more force than was necessary in his actions.

Just because someone commits an illegal act does not grant an individual the right to reciprocate in kind.

[Frank the Tank]

The hood called London

Wow. This EXACT scenario is playing out here in London right now. Bizarre. 3 people break into your home to rob you and you kill one of them defending yourself/your property. I don't see how we can charge people for that. You don't know the intruders intentions so you have to defend yourself with maximum force in my opinion.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

The use of lethal force should be used for extreme situations that is the issue in the matter. Often times what happens and this is when people get charged is when they confront the intruders and at that point they use physical force and often use a great deal of physical force. In the situations mentioned while the intruders were breaking in and they were stealing the possessions of the charged parties, the amount of force that was used led to someones death, and it is understandable that this could be deemed to be excessive force. It is likely that a plea bargain will take place and the party will plead guilty to a lesser charge, likely of assault or something to that effect.

If it is in order to protect ones health and wellbeing it is a different matter, but I don't have that strong of a connection to material objects to kill someone.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@Aug 8 2005, 08:36 AM
The use of lethal force should be used for extreme situations that is the issue in the matter. Often times what happens and this is when people get charged is when they confront the intruders and at that point they use physical force and often use a great deal of physical force. In the situations mentioned while the intruders were breaking in and they were stealing the possessions of the charged parties, the amount of force that was used led to someones death, and it is understandable that this could be deemed to be excessive force. It is likely that a plea bargain will take place and the party will plead guilty to a lesser charge, likely of assault or something to that effect.

If it is in order to protect ones health and wellbeing it is a different matter, but I don't have that strong of a connection to material objects to kill someone.

But if someone is breaking into your house, you don't know what their intentions are. You can't assess a situation like this and say, "Oh he doesn't want to kill me, he just wants my stereo". I don't buy it. If someone breaks into my house with my wife and one year old son there, I would cave their skull in with a bat before I try and determine their intentions. The possibility that something could happen to my family is acceptable enough to use maximum force in my opinion.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@Aug 8 2005, 01:36 PM
The use of lethal force should be used for extreme situations that is the issue in the matter. Often times what happens and this is when people get charged is when they confront the intruders and at that point they use physical force and often use a great deal of physical force. In the situations mentioned while the intruders were breaking in and they were stealing the possessions of the charged parties, the amount of force that was used led to someones death, and it is understandable that this could be deemed to be excessive force. It is likely that a plea bargain will take place and the party will plead guilty to a lesser charge, likely of assault or something to that effect.

If it is in order to protect ones health and wellbeing it is a different matter, but I don't have that strong of a connection to material objects to kill someone.

I do realise they offer plea bargins to these people, but I think seriously that the state should at least meet a burden of proof requirement or something to that effect.

Because I can't stand this. I know in the states you can be sitting in your house waiting for a robber (if you chose) with a shotgun and the second he enters the window you can blast him. That definately is the other extreme...

Now I hope if this cases goes to court the lawyer for the victim is smart and plays this out in the court of public opinion. Of course this is on the premise that he didn't launch into an attack as soon as he saw the robbers.