Taber man charged with assault for protecting his wife/home

[valo403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

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.

So what's his role here? Previously you were arguing that he's out to protect his family, now he's out to detain criminals? It doesn't work both ways, by taking the step to detain them he put his family in greater danger.

I'm not saying I wouldn't do something similar, but let's be straight on what the argument is here.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

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.

That is an incredibly valid point. I concede.

My point of view was made from the perspective of someone who has never had their own home or family home robbed. We've had our barbeque stolen off our back porch, but we've never been broken into.

[Clever_Iggy]

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.

[burn_this_city]

Shouldnt the priority be the apprehension of the suspect? I fail to understand why you cant use reasonable force to detain a suspect trying to flee from a crime scene. I guess the key would be to try and stop him, if he fights back then club the crap out of him.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by valo403

So what's his role here? Previously you were arguing that he's out to protect his family, now he's out to detain criminals? It doesn't work both ways, by taking the step to detain them he put his family in greater danger.

I'm not saying I wouldn't do something similar, but let's be straight on what the argument is here.

Why can he not do both?

No one will ever convince me that anyone who parks their car on their property has done anything wrong...ever.

Regardless of his motives, its his place...no one elses. If he believed the chances of the guys getting caught ( and he did park there before he knew they were still in the house) were better by having a car they drove to his house in, you know full of fingerprints, has a license plate on it registered to someone etc. then he has done nothing but help law enforcement in their investigation.

If I drive up to my house, see someone is inside that shouldnt be, I too am blocking in the strange car in MY driveway, why would I not?

[puckluck]

Maybe he wanted to do a citizens arrest?

[3thirty]

When I heard hatchet I though tthat was going to get waaaaay worse.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Why can he not do both?

No one will ever convince me that anyone who parks their car on their property has done anything wrong...ever.

Regardless of his motives, its his place...no one elses. If he believed the chances of the guys getting caught ( and he did park there before he knew they were still in the house) were better by having a car they drove to his house in, you know full of fingerprints, has a license plate on it registered to someone etc. then he has done nothing but help law enforcement in their investigation.

If I drive up to my house, see someone is inside that shouldnt be, I too am blocking in the strange car in MY driveway, why would I not?

Read the next sentence of my post. By blocking the car in he virtually guarantees a confrontation, which dramatically increases the chances of harm coming to his family. By not blocking the car in he decreases the chances of detainment, and also decreases the chances of confrontation. I don't see any way that you can argue with that.

So, in summary:

Blocking car = increased chance of detainment + increased chance of confrontation/harm

Not blocking the car = decreased chance of detainment + decreased chance of confrontation/harm

[Jagger]

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.

That's been my experience.

I walked in on someone ransacking my home. The dude saw me and dived through a window to escape into our back yard (which is closed in)! I dialed 911 and was told in no uncertain terms to let the guy go as the Police were on the way. I was warned not to do anything at all to stop him escaping.

Anyway I'm waiting at the side of my house and said asswipe runs across the road into the wooded area by my house. I yelled at him a few times and he just smirked. Police arrive and I give a really good description of the jerk and which way he went. (Steep wooded hill). They then asked me whether I tried to impede the guy when I walked in on him. WTF! I told them that I hadn't and that he went that way (pointing) and didn't they want to try and catch him. They went off.

10 minutes later the cops show up at my house again with a guy in the back of their cruiser. "Is this him?" I looked in the back and it sure looked like him, right down to the purple ball cap he was wearing. "Yep, that him" I said and the guy goes nuts screaming and cursing that he hadn't done anything, he was innocent blah blah blah (What's a criminal going to say anyway?) So the two officers have a quick discussion and tell me that they ended up with "white fluffy stuff" on them from going through the trees and this guy didn't have any on him so they don't think he's the right person! "Have a nice day!" That was it! Nothing else happened. I phoned the detachment and they never charged the guy and closed the file.

It was complete BS. I lost a lot of respect for the RCMP that day.

[Knalus]

using the handle = reasonable
using the axhead = unreasonable


Under the circumstances I've heard. Even without knowing where the wife was. Property (car, garage) is included in what a man can use force to defend. Under other circumstances this would change.

This is also Taber. Driveways may be quite a bit longer than in Calgary, it may have been unfeasible to park on the street.

I sure hope the crown pays the legal costs if/when he gets acquitted.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

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

I'm pretty sure that these so-called lefties would provide a beatdown the same as anyone else would if they came home to that, and also wouldn't have any sympathy for the perp if they were sitting on a jury.

[fredr123]

At the end of the day, the court will need to decide:

1. Whether this was a case where the husband was acting to prevent harm to his wife, to defend his property, to prevent the perp from escaping or some combination of the foregoing. In making this determination, the court will consider whether the husband's belief concerning his wife's well-being was reasonable.

2. Depending on the answer to #1, whether the force used in the circumstances was reasonable. There are plenty of factors at play here but, all things being equal, you are arguably permitted to use less force to protect your property than you are to prevent harm to someone else.

If the court finds that it wasn't reasonable for the husband to believe his wife's life was in jeopardy, then perhaps no force was warranted given that the burglar was actively trying to leave the property. The determination will be highly dependent on facts and the testimony of the parties.

The Crown, before it proceeds with a charge, will need to satisfy itself that there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction. That's the test it does internally to decide whether to go ahead with charges laid by the police. They will conduct a further review of the circumstances and decide whether to go ahead with the case against the husband.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Knalus

using the handle = reasonable
using the axhead = unreasonable


Under the circumstances I've heard. Even without knowing where the wife was. Property (car, garage) is included in what a man can use force to defend. Under other circumstances this would change.

This is also Taber. Driveways may be quite a bit longer than in Calgary, it may have been unfeasible to park on the street.

I sure hope the crown pays the legal costs if/when he gets acquitted.

One of the newspaper articles described the guy as a farmer. They also said that the burglar fled the scene and got tangled in barbed-wire on the fence to his property. Sounds like this was rural property and not in the town proper. Not sure how that affects the case though.

Edit: The Calgary Herald says it was an acreage: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/RC...733/story.html

Edit 2: Ugh. And his lawyer described it as "meting out a little prairie justice". That kind of thing is exactly what the police and the Crown don't want citizens to do.

Edit 3: Either I read the article wrong or it's changed since my post but I guess the lawyer said this was NOT a case of meting out a little prairie justice. My bad. Maybe.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by fotze

I think its unreasonable to assume coming home to this situation would result in a well thought out role assignment. Completely reasonable have your roles switch in this situation from defence to justice as it is revealed what is happening. This may be the law but I can't understand how a "reasonable" argument can be used. Its very reasonable to be irrational.

But that's why the test is "what would a reasonable person do in the same circumstances". If a reasonable person would be irrational, then that gets factored in.

[transplant99]

Well then, if it was a farm/acreage, then the guy had little choice but to park in the driveway as it usually means a long ways from the street.

Too bad this dude didnt have a salt gun handy.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by fredr123

One of the newspaper articles described the guy as a farmer. They also said that the burglar fled the scene and got tangled in barbed-wire on the fence to his property. Sounds like this was rural property and not in the town proper. Not sure how that affects the case though.

Edit: The Calgary Herald says it was an acreage: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/RC...733/story.html

Edit 2: Ugh. And his lawyer described it as "meting out a little prairie justice". That kind of thing is exactly what the police and the Crown don't want citizens to do.

His lawyer must be an idiot.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by 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.

Why is it a joke? Because he was charged? He hasn't been convicted of anything yet. I would think if the Police summarily decided this person was not guilty without a trial, there would be much more reason to be concerned about the Canadian Justice System.

There is evidence a serious crime has been committed (aka smashed face). There is also evidence that could lead to that assault being justified. Who is qualified to determine if the person is guilty? Not the police officer.

But that's just me.

[Jimmy Stang]

Although my experience with break and enters is exactly 0, even I know that rural homes are a lot more likely to have things like guns, axes, etc. That, plus the fact that the police aren't exactly going to show up in 2 minutes, would make me think twice about robbing a rural home more than an urban one.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

His lawyer must be an idiot.

Alternatively, he's done a good job garnering sympathy for his client from the public... if CP is any sort of proxy for the general public.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Alternatively, he's done a good job garnering sympathy for his client from the public... if CP is any sort of proxy for the general public.

Only if the client has already undermined his own case by blabbing to the police that he "wanted to teach the bugger a lesson" or some such stupid thing... Otherwise, he has effectively declared that his client is guilty, no?