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

[Slava]

Thunderball, your first post up here looks a lot like "vigilante" and not so much like self-defence!

I think that the provisions are based on what a prudent individual would do. If you felt that you were in a position where your life was threatened then lethal force would be reasonable would it not? Otherwise you get people who pull out the shotgun when someone trick-or-treats to the wrong house under the guise of property protection.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Slava

Thunderball, your first post up here looks a lot like "vigilante" and not so much like self-defence!

I think that the provisions are based on what a prudent individual would do. If you felt that you were in a position where your life was threatened then lethal force would be reasonable would it not? Otherwise you get people who pull out the shotgun when someone trick-or-treats to the wrong house under the guise of property protection.

I think vigilante is a rather large stretch...

But yeah, its a tricky argument. A large male attacker can be deadly with pretty much any implement... including their bare hands. Prudence also takes a backseat to instinct and panic in a life or death situation that very few people are trained to handle calmly.

Of course in a situation where someone's life is threatened, lethal force is reasonable, right? Wrong. If my attacker has a knife, and I have a rifle, both are lethal weapons, but... did I shoot in the air/floor to attempt to stop him? did I attempt to talk them down? Did I shoot for extremities first or right for the centre of body mass? Could I have shot to disarm or not? That's where "necessary" comes in and the trouble starts.

Gunning down trick-or-treaters as a counter example is setting up a straw man... we're talking about serious situations, like large men breaking into a house at 3:30 in the morning, not some little pumpkin adorned child ringing your doorbell at 6:30pm.

[Slava]

^ I agree with you. I would hope that if someone breaks into my house I would react first and deal with the consequences later. Fact is though if you kill someone who enters your home uninvited you're always going to question yourself and be under scrutiny by others.

I think it would be uncomfortable to say the very least!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

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

I don't know. I think it's the "necessary" part that means "do what's necessary, don't do what is unnecessary" when protecting yourself. Seems reasonable to me.

Originally Posted by Thunderball

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).

See, now this is what I don't get. How do you know this? This kind of thing very rarely (I can't think of another off the top of my head) happens but you make it sound like it'll be a case of the same old same old -- yet another law-abiding citizen sent up the creek for protecting himself.

Like the scenario you describe of a guy shooting someone who attacked him with a knife being on the hook for manslaughter -- has this actually happened? Sure sounds like it, but I've never heard of that. Is it just a theory, or does this kind of thing happen?

[urban1]

Didnt read the whole thread. But...

DO NOT TAKE YOUR LEGAL ADVICE FROM CP

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know. I think it's the "necessary" part that means "do what's necessary, don't do what is unnecessary" when protecting yourself. Seems reasonable to me.

See, now this is what I don't get. How do you know this? This kind of thing very rarely (I can't think of another off the top of my head) happens but you make it sound like it'll be a case of the same old same old -- yet another law-abiding citizen sent up the creek for protecting himself.

Like the scenario you describe of a guy shooting someone who attacked him with a knife being on the hook for manslaughter -- has this actually happened? Sure sounds like it, but I've never heard of that. Is it just a theory, or does this kind of thing happen?

There was a case in Nova Scotia not too long ago where a homeowner used lethal force to defend his house and was brought up on manslaughter charges. I think we even debated it on CP.

The necessary part SHOULD mean exactly what you said, I agree. In practice, there's a lot of room for interpretation, and with the wrong judge, one gets burned. I don't think that should be the case. A person shouldn't have to suffer for the rest of their life if they have to take a person's life to save theirs and their family (or there is the distinct impression of that).

The example I gave about knife v. gun has not happened as far as I know, but what I do know for sure is that the what ifs are based on legitimate questions that a police officer would have to ask in the situation to eliminate the potential for charges. It could easily be argued that shooting the guy in the chest is "unneccessary" and therefore "excessive" if I had the ability to do otherwise... despite the obvious duress.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Lets not forget about the German camper just outside of Calgary back in 2002 who killed the guy who attacked him in his camper.

A hatchet-wielding man who lured a German tourist from his camper and then chopped his victim twice in the back of the head paid for the brazen attack with his life. The tourist, described by police sources as a 15-year-judo expert, turned the tables on his attacker Saturday morning and killed the thug with his bare hands, despite suffering two axe wounds to the head.

No charges laid, flew home after questioning.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by urban1

Didnt read the whole thread. But...

DO NOT TAKE YOUR LEGAL ADVICE FROM CP

That is great advice, but I don't think the guy who was attacked in his home has posted in this thread. As far as I know he's not even a member of the forum. If he shows up though I'll be sure to tell him, giving you full credit of course.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

There was a case in Nova Scotia not too long ago where a homeowner used lethal force to defend his house and was brought up on manslaughter charges. I think we even debated it on CP.

The necessary part SHOULD mean exactly what you said, I agree. In practice, there's a lot of room for interpretation, and with the wrong judge, one gets burned. I don't think that should be the case. A person shouldn't have to suffer for the rest of their life if they have to take a person's life to save theirs and their family (or there is the distinct impression of that).

The example I gave about knife v. gun has not happened as far as I know, but what I do know for sure is that the what ifs are based on legitimate questions that a police officer would have to ask in the situation to eliminate the potential for charges. It could easily be argued that shooting the guy in the chest is "unneccessary" and therefore "excessive" if I had the ability to do otherwise... despite the obvious duress.

Fair enough. I'm sure we are all on the same page here -- the page that says "a guy who wakes up with a couple of armed guys in his room in the middle of the night can do pretty much anything to get rid of them".

I'm just commenting on the suggestion that he'll summarily nailed to the wall by the legal system if he didn't make it a fair fight.

[Bobblehead]

I'm wondering if the law is worded like that so if you find someone in your house you don't have carte blanche to open fire on him.

If there was an attack and the attacker dies, I personally don't think there should be charges. If the attacker dies of a shotgun blast to his back on the way out the door then I would think that would be considered excessive (depending upon circumstances, of course). I would hope the wording is in place to give the officers and prosecutors a way to use their judgment.

By the way, it appears all 3 men knew each other. I wonder how the fact that this isn't a random robbery will alter circumstances?

[4X4]

Just heard on the news that it was love triangle related. Surprise.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Just heard on the news that it was love triangle related. Surprise.

Love triangles are the only way to go.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Locke

Love triangles are the only way to go.

I think you mean threesomes.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I think you mean threesomes.

You are correct. Once you get into triangulation the relationship has gone too far.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Locke

You are correct. Once you get into triangulation the relationship has gone too far.

Everytime I hear the word triangulate I think of Wayne's World

[pope04]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Just heard on the news that it was love triangle related. Surprise.

A man who fought off invaders in his Langdon home this week may have been targetted because a failed romance ended in him abandoning his pregnant girlfriend, the man's roommate told the Herald on Saturday.

........ Olineck, recently broke up with a woman who is several months pregnant, she said.According to friends, it was the pregnant woman's brother who came to the house with another man the fateful night to exact revenge over the breakup.


http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...f9988a&k=63485

[Azure]

I think the law should be worded in a way to clarify that if someone breaks into your house, you're not allowed to open fire without calling a warning.

I'm sure any normal person, desperate or not, would not run at you with a knife when you're holding a shotgun, or any firearm in your hands.

Rouge, thats probably why you never hear about it. Because most intruders aren't stupid enough to risk their own life by running at someone with a knife. So you detain them, call the cops and he goes to jail. And no harm is done because you didn't use excessive force.

But if the guy runs at you, use excessive force. If that force is a 15 year judo expert killing someone with his bare hands who tried to 'obviously' kill him with an axe, so be it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by fotze

Nah, the law should be written that if you have broken into someone's house it can be assumed they will try to kill you. Simple.

It would probably help to deter people from breaking and entering.

But that is WAY not politically correct enough.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by fotze

Nah, the law should be written that if you have broken into someone's house it can be assumed they will try to kill you. Simple.

Pfft... I broke into my friend's house last weekend to sleep on her couch. I'd have been pretty choked if she killed me (no pun intended).

[4X4]

Originally Posted by fotze

Did you stab her cat though?

Nah. Just tossed it in the microwave.