Taber man charged with assault for protecting his wife/home

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by troutman

posts # 6 and #7

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

Didn't know there was such a thing as a conviction but no record. That would be a somewhat fair resolution if there is no absolute dismissal of charges.

Still though...the guy has to pay money to an attorney to defend himself...for defending himself.

ugh.

[Pinner]

He has legal fees to defend himself, I would like to hear the Crowns reasoning.

A police officer would have opened fire on the SOB as soon as his vehicle was used as a battering ram/weapon.

[SeeBass]

I wonder on average when a person is charged for this offence do they get convicted.

We always hear of these kinds of things happening and it always fires people up. But are the police charging the person because they have to and then the courts in turn are leaneant.

These kinds of stories sell papers but do we really know how most of them end. I bet he gets a 6 month probation or some slap on the wrist. He should not be charged at all, I agree, but I think the law is in place to prosecute more serious offences.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by fredr123

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:



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.

I think it comes down to how reasonable/believable his story of fearing that his wife was in harms way is. If that story is believed his use of force is well within the realm of reasonable, he inflicted fairly substantial harm but he's preventing a potentially lethal act.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by fredr123

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:



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.

Im sure it was...but i still dont see it as "excessive"...I mean the guy ran away, so he couldnt have been in that bad of shape other than some missing teeth and probably cut and bleeding like a stuck pig.

I understand you are just explaining things as they may be, and thats something that this story may need, a little more info. But the part of parking behind the car in his own driveway as being part of the problem makes no sense...its his driveway/property and he should be allowed to park where ever he feels like...no?

[burn_this_city]

Shoot, shovel, and shut up sounds pretty good right now. I wonder if he owns a pig farm?

[nfotiu]

I'll start by saying, from what is read, that his actions were fairly reasonable, and I hope he gets off without having to pay too much in legal fees.

This part of the defence sounds pretty weak though:

"The person involved here had rammed (Singleton's) vehicle a mere second before trying to back up, and then he threw it into drive and the only avenue of escape for this fellow was through my client's garage door."

Seems like a pretty big leap to suggest that his wife is standing on the other side of the garage door, and how is the guy going to escape by ramming through the garage door. There was no ramming of the house as far as I can tell.

[LGA]

Hopefully there are more details that are revealed that show it was justified that he get charged.

Otherwise it's just another case that makes me think of leaving Canada. It sucks that we live in such a great country, but if you're ever a victim of a crime you are basically alotted less rights than the criminal. We really need to revamp our judicial system and make it much less criminal friendly.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Im sure it was...but i still dont see it as "excessive"...I mean the guy ran away, so he couldnt have been in that bad of shape other than some missing teeth and probably cut and bleeding like a stuck pig.

I understand you are just explaining things as they may be, and thats something that this story may need, a little more info. But the part of parking behind the car in his own driveway as being part of the problem makes no sense...its his driveway/property and he should be allowed to park where ever he feels like...no?

Parking right behind the other car serves no other purpose than to prevent the bad guys from escaping. Then the guy grabbed a hatchet to confront the bad guy. Dude struck the bad guy in the face. Twice. Perhaps a blow to the shoulder would have sufficed. Maybe no blow at all was necessary.

We'll never know for sure until more facts come out, but it almost sounds like the homeowner's actions start to approach the vigilantism/retribution end of the spectrum.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by LGA

Hopefully there are more details that are revealed that show it was justified that he get charged.

Otherwise it's just another case that makes me think of leaving Canada. It sucks that we live in such a great country, but if you're ever a victim of a crime you are basically alotted less rights than the criminal. We really need to revamp our judicial system and make it much less criminal friendly.

I'm sure you'd find Russia's justice system to be entirely fair and well functioning

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Parking right behind the other car serves no other purpose than to prevent the bad guys from escaping. Then the guy grabbed a hatchet to confront the bad guy. Dude struck the bad guy in the face. Twice. Perhaps a blow to the shoulder would have sufficed. Maybe no blow at all was necessary.

We'll never know for sure until more facts come out, but it almost sounds like the homeowner's actions start to approach the vigilantism/retribution end of the spectrum.

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.

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by fredr123

We'll never know for sure until more facts come out, but it almost sounds like the homeowner's actions start to approach the vigilantism/retribution end of the spectrum.

Maybe for you, like fotze said, one persons reasonable may differ from another's.

I'll bet those two blows were real fast, had he continued bashing him several more times or used the sharp side,that may have been unreasonable. IMO

Like I said earlier, a cop in that situation would have used deadly force and got away with it.

[burn_this_city]

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.

You're supposed to let them escape. Then the cops can tell you they have no leads or suspects and your property will never be recovered. Thats the Canadian justice way, cowardly and accomodating to criminals. How dare a law abiding citizen protect his home and family. What of the feelings for the criminal? I doesnt matter you've been victimized, the perp probably had a rough up bringing, he's the real victim.

[valo403]

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.

Yes, and you answered the why in your question. The better question is why he would want to make sure that they'd stick around longer. Blocking them in obviously increases the chances of a confrontation, it practically guarantees that it will happen.

[Pinner]

Could've help load up the car while the wife made a pot of tea

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

You're supposed to let them escape. Then the cops can tell you they have no leads or suspects and your property will never be recovered. Thats the Canadian justice way, cowardly and accomodating to criminals. How dare a law abiding citizen protect his home and family. What of the feelings for the criminal? I doesnt matter you've been victimized, the perp probably had a rough up bringing, he's the real victim.

In a sense, he is. Property damage can be fixed. Destroyed property can be replaced. A bashed-in skull lasts a lifetime, and lost teeth are gone for good.

That being said, in moments like that, where ones security is comprimised and confrontation is inevitable, arming oneself to the best of their ability offers the best probabilities of coming out of said confrontation alive.

No jury would convict this man Only a jury of actors, hippies, and musicians would convict this man.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by valo403

Yes, and you answered the why in your question. The better question is why he would want to make sure that they'd stick around longer. Blocking them in obviously increases the chances of a confrontation, it practically guarantees that it will happen.

It also increases the odds HIGHLY that they will get caught.

Its his house he should park where ever the hell he likes. He isnt responsible for avoiding a confrontation on his own property, thats the scumbags issue.

[puckluck]

What a complete joke the Canadian system is.

The guy should have just killed the suspect and then knifed himself to make it seem like he was in a struggle.

I guess that's what the Canadian justice system wants.

I don't buy the "the guy was scared he was going to drive through the garage to ram his wife story" though, but anyone who enters someones home should be fair game to anything they get.

[transplant99]

In a sense, he is. Property damage can be fixed. Destroyed property can be replaced. A bashed-in skull lasts a lifetime, and lost teeth are gone for good

No...he isnt. Not at all. He is the criminal. He is the one that caused his head to be bashed in if it happens. He is the one who now has to live with the scars and hopefully a long stretch in prison. He is a lot of things, but in no sense what-so-ever is he a victim of anything but being a bad guy.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

In a sense, he is. Property damage can be fixed. Destroyed property can be replaced. A bashed-in skull lasts a lifetime, and lost teeth are gone for good.

That being said, in moments like that, where ones security is comprimised and confrontation is inevitable, arming oneself to the best of their ability offers the best probabilities of coming out of said confrontation alive.

No jury would convict this man Only a jury of actors, hippies, and musicians would convict this man.

Having been broken into before, I'd say it transcends just property loss. Its an invasion of your personal space, I didnt feel safe as a kid in our home after it was robbed. Your house should be the place you feel the safest.