Taber man charged with assault for protecting his wife/home - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

transplant99 · 10-28-2010, 09:08 AM

OK...so a guy comes home with his wife and sees a strange car in his driveway and lights on in his house. He goes through the garage, opens the door and sees his house has been burglarized/ransacked. he calls to his wife to call 911, and grabs a hatchet and heads back outside where he sees this strange car ramming his garage to get away...and his wife is on the other side of the door, so he clobbers the scumbag with the handle of the axe to stop him. Scumbag takes off, guy doesnt chase any further and lets the cops find and arrest him (i think I have the facts straight as heard on radio and reading following story)

Guy goes into the police station recently to claim some of his property back he thinks...instead he is charged with with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

Are you freaking serious???? What a pathetic joke.

http://www.lethbridgeherald.com/2010...te-102810.html

mykalberta · 10-28-2010, 09:11 AM

Hope soem details are missing or its just another sad tale in a long line of them that are associated with the Canadian justice system.

HeartsOfFire · 10-28-2010, 09:12 AM

Jury trial. No jury would convict him, if that story is true.

transplant99 · 10-28-2010, 09:18 AM

My problem is that he was charged with anything at all...i mean holy crap what was the guy supposed to do? Stand there and let scumbag kid run his wife down?

What the hell are the Crown thinking even allowing this to go as far as it has...unless it hasnt gotten to them yet and the police were just following some truly inept laws. Why are people not allowed to protect themselves and their property? I mean he could have used the blade end of this hatchet and we likely have a dead scumbag instead.

i just am lost as to the "thinking" behind charging someone with this nonsense. Does this not embloden future scumbags to worry less about physical harm because the guy trying to protect him family/stuff knows he can be charged with assault?

just bizarre.

metallicat · 10-28-2010, 09:21 AM

Are the police obligated to lay charges if the 'victim' wants them? The article doesn't say it that I saw, but I'm sure the 'victim' was charged with things as well.

fredr123 · 10-28-2010, 09:23 AM

From the Calgary Herald article here: http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...735/story.html

Quote:

"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.

The home owner struck the burglar in the face. Twice. The Criminal Code in Canada doesn't go so far as many think it does in allowing you to use force to protect your home or other people. It's not like in the United States where you can pretty much just shoot a guy who is found in your house uninvited.

fredr123 · 10-28-2010, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Are the police obligated to lay charges if the 'victim' wants them? The article doesn't say it that I saw, but I'm sure the 'victim' was charged with things as well.

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.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...#ixzz13fRnOyhq

transplant99 · 10-28-2010, 09:25 AM

Canadian self defense laws...and i fail to see where this thing could be considered anything but.

http://www.self-defender.net/law5.htm

maybe a barrister could chime in?

valo403 · 10-28-2010, 09:26 AM

You can't use deadly force to defend property, period. It's arguable whether he used deadly force, and even more arguable whether or not he was defending just property. It seems to me he was not only protecting his possessions, but also his family. I don't see how the Crown could possibly think they could get a conviction here, even a bench trial (depending on the charge he's not necesarilly entitled to a jury) seems like it would be tough based on what we know. Either there's more to the story or someone is making some curious decisions.

burn_this_city · 10-28-2010, 09:27 AM

I'd hope no jury in Alberta would convict this man.

burning_acid1 · 10-28-2010, 09:27 AM

Seems like a lot of details are missing...

troutman · 10-28-2010, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

maybe a barrister could chime in?

posts # 6 and #7

There could be a conviction, but possibly probation/no record in the circumstances?

valo403 · 10-28-2010, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredr123

From the Calgary Herald article here: http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...735/story.html

The home owner struck the burglar in the face. Twice. The Criminal Code in Canada doesn't go so far as many think it does in allowing you to use force to protect your home or other people. It's not like in the United States where you can pretty much just shoot a guy who is found in your house uninvited.
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

That's the case in very few States. The vast majority of the US follows the same, essentially common law, standard of allowing the use of limited force just as Canada does.

transplant99 · 10-28-2010, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredr123

From the Calgary Herald article here: http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...735/story.html

The home owner struck the burglar in the face. Twice. The Criminal Code in Canada doesn't go so far as many think it does in allowing you to use force to protect your home or other people. It's not like in the United States where you can pretty much just shoot a guy who is found in your house uninvited.
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

i understand that...but the guy was about to mow down his wife if i am understanding the story correctly.

I also am under NO illusion that the Canadian self defense laws are almost useless in comparison to the USA.

All that being said....i am asking what the law expects someone to do in such a situation. Are they just supposed to watch loved ones stay i harms way and hope nothing happens and that police get there to take care of everything in time?

Just a REALLY bad law to have on the books.

The kid lost some teeth? Oh well, perhaps he shouldnt of been stealing stuff to begin with and then attempt to smash his car through a door that this guys wife was on the other side of.

Mind boggling.

burn_this_city · 10-28-2010, 09:31 AM

Its a sad state of affairs when you cant beat a crackhead you find burglarizing your home.

HeartsOfFire · 10-28-2010, 09:33 AM

What about a 'guilty, but justified' plea?

Flabbibulin · 10-28-2010, 09:35 AM

The Joe Horn controversy in the States, where a man shot and killed two men robbing his neighbor's home, is an interesting contrast- in that case, it could be argued there was much more evidence of improper conduct on behalf of the shooter. After all, no one was in any immediate danger and the 911 dispatcher told Horn several times not to take any action as police were almost on the scene.

Regardless, the incident occurred Texas and the man was cleared of all charges.

underGRADFlame · 10-28-2010, 09:36 AM

Twice with the blunt end of a hatchet, the guy got off easy from what I would have done.

transplant99 · 10-28-2010, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

What about a 'guilty, but justified' plea?

Not sure why the guy should have anything like that on his record. Stuff like that could prevent him from leaving the country, getting certain employment, etc etc. To this point, as i heard on the radio, his worst offense in regards to the law was a speeding ticket.

Maybe there are other circumstances that we dont know about, but as the story sits, its really a miscarriage of justice.

fredr123 · 10-28-2010, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

i understand that...but the guy was about to mow down his wife if i am understanding the story correctly.

I also am under NO illusion that the Canadian self defense laws are almost useless in comparison to the USA.

All that being said....i am asking what the law expects someone to do in such a situation. Are they just supposed to watch loved ones stay i harms way and hope nothing happens and that police get there to take care of everything in time?

Just a REALLY bad law to have on the books.

The kid lost some teeth? Oh well, perhaps he shouldnt of been stealing stuff to begin with and then attempt to smash his car through a door that this guys wife was on the other side of.

Mind boggling.

The facts, from what we can piece together in the various articles, aren't entirely clear. It sounds like the home owners came home to find a car in their driveway and lights on in the house. The parked behind the mysterious car to prevent its escape (perhaps part of the problem right there). Then it sounds like they went into the house and found the place to be ransacked. The wife was in the garage calling 911 while the husband went outside to confront the perp. The perp was ramming the car behind him attempting to escape, presumably. Husband's lawyer said husband feared the perp was going to drive forward through the garage where his wife was and thus smacked the perp with the hatchet. Twice.

A bunch of sections of the Criminal Code might be applicable:

Quote:

Use of force to prevent commission of offence

27. Every one is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary
(a) to prevent the commission of an offence
(i) for which, if it were committed, the person who committed it might be arrested without warrant, and
(ii) that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of anyone; or
(b) to prevent anything being done that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done, be an offence mentioned in paragraph (a).

Preventing assault

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.

Extent of justification

(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.

Defence of house or real property

41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

The common theme is that these defences are only available where the defendant, in this case the husband, uses no more force than is reasonably necessary. I'm guessing the burglar's face was pretty gruesome by the time the homeowner was done pounding on him and the extent of his injuries lead the police officers to the conclusion that excessive force was utilized.