Taber man charged with assault for protecting his wife/home

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Rathji

That would be very close, if not exactly what you would pay given the numbers as I understand them. Someone else might be able to give a more accurate account of the actual numbers because I don't have time to look for a copy of our recent justice system budgetary numbers. I honestly think my numbers here are extremely conservative.

Think of it this way. Every person who is put in jail is eligible for parole after serving 1/2 of their sentence, by default. If you make everyone serve a full sentence, you are going to increase the cost for housing existing prisoners by 100%. Thats double, just with who is currently in jail.

Then consider the number of people who get probation or some other type of community sentence for violent crimes like minor assault etc would be added to that prison population the number would increase even far more drastically because people who commit minor crimes make up the largest offender group in Canada by a large margin. Not only are you doubling the cost per prisoner, you are probably going to at least quadruple the number of prisoners (again, I think this is very conservative).

Then consider that you still need to convict these people, with more trials needed, because if you are going to jail you are way more likely to fight it. Right now there is such an extremely small amount of cases that actually go to trial in the justice system. So likely you would have an increase of trials in the 800-1600% range, possibly higher but again we will go with the conservative number and just assume 800%

Also, you would still need to deal with prisoners after their release, so despite getting rid of parole you would still need services for the prisoner afterwards.

Simple math says that is 8x the people being housed in prisons at any given time, so thats 8x the cost for the police, trial, incarceration, and release.

Still think it is a good idea to lock them all up and throw away the key?

I know the justice system isn't perfect, but the reality of the situation is no one is willing to do this, even if it was somehow a good idea from a crime prevention or reduction perspective, which it isn't.




Of course. Where do you draw the line? Those designated dangerous offenders? Isnt that pretty much how it works out now with our current system?

Or you could reduce costs in the prison system. If you take out cable and internet. But matresses and bed sheets used, Make the prisoners work and generate revenue for the prison systems. Reduce recreational facilities.

I have my serious doubts around doubling and tripling. Maybe we should take into account the rate of repeat offenders if you stiffen up the sentencing, we might see a reduction there.

Plus there are possible public benefits in terms of policing costs and public securities costs.

I just have trouble with a doubling of the system costs.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PIMking

I'm not going to call the police every time someone is parked in front of my house and wait for them to show up. If I go into the house and see that it has been ransacked I would tell the fiance to call 911 and at that point I'm glad I'm armed at all times.

I never ever want to take any persons life, they are a father,brother,uncle,sister,son,daughter ect. But if it comes to my life or theirs? I'm choosing mine.

Katie's father house was broken into not too long ago while he was on a business trip. I did the same exact thing, I told Katie to call 911 and at that moment I took my weapon out of the holster and explained that I was armed and that if he doesn't want to be shot to come out with his hands up. Then we basically went outside and waited for the police to show up.

It's a crappy deal, but I don't think the homeowner did anything wrong at all.

See I think what you did was fine, seems like your interest was securing yourself from a threat, not playing sherriff. I don't even know that what this guy did was wrong, the facts seem pretty incomplete. My only real point in all of this is don't pursue a potentially dangerous situation, rather do what you can to avoid it. Like I said, no need to risk your life or endanger that of family over material things.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Of course. Where do you draw the line? Those designated dangerous offenders? Isnt that pretty much how it works out now with our current system?

Its fairly rare that there is a dangerous offender label used in sentencing, we've only seen it recently because the government is pushing for it to be used for.

We still see a lot of violent offenders that are not tagged dangerous even though its questionable.

Personally like I said, you recommit a violent offense, then you should automatically get an indefinate sentence until you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your no longer a threat.

I am willing to pay more for public safety.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by PIMking

So you're all for basically being a b*tch?

No, far from it, but I do have three kids and a wife who need me around, healthy and making a living so I'm not going looking for a fight, especially with an unknown criminal.

I can tell you talk tough, and I don't doubt you'd just love to pop a cap in someone's ass, but that don't make it legal in this situation. I love how people in the US can equate the value of their stereo to that of someone's life. Pathetic.

Originally Posted by Rathji

I don't think blaming him for getting into the situation is really fair though. He didn't invite jerkwad into his house to steal his stuff. You are forgetting that the guy made a choice to B&E a house and made another choice that rather than flee he would get into close range of the guy holding the hatchet.

Do we know that, or did the guy chase him to his car with the hatchet. I think we are pretty much on the same page, I just think buddy with the hatchet CHOSE to enter the situation. No one was in any danger until they chose to go investigate. Easy to say from here I guess. I live on an acreage too, and don't know what I would do if I came home to my house mid-b&e, but I wouldn't go looking for a fight.

Like I said in my previous post, if some guy is running away I wouldn't touch him. If he is coming at me, or my family all bets are off. You keep pointing out that he was parked behind the guy and should have been. You think that his wife in the car would not have been in danger had the fool been allowed to ram his way out of the driveway?

I never said anything about where they were parked. And from what I have seen his wife was in the garage, not the car.

[SeeBass]

Most of these points of view seem to be that the topic at hand is the situation of the man in Taber. But some are throwing a hypothetical scenerio instead of the initial situation.

You guys cant compare or judge a "what would I do" situation when everybody is talking about a different situation.

I think we can all agree that we would do anything if the ones we care about are in danger. But we dont agree when it comes to items.

If you want to create a what if scenerio you have to add into your explanation in your first post rather than throw it in later to justify you opinion. It just creates confusion and nobody winds up discussing the same thing.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Katie's father house was broken into not too long ago while he was on a business trip. I did the same exact thing, I told Katie to call 911 and at that moment I took my weapon out of the holster and explained that I was armed and that if he doesn't want to be shot to come out with his hands up. Then we basically went outside and waited for the police to show up.

Curious...how did the cops react when they arrived to you holding the guy at gunpoint? Like, what did they say/instruct and what went down etc etc.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Curious...how did the cops react when they arrived to you holding the guy at gunpoint? Like, what did they say/instruct and what went down etc etc.

Well we instructed the operator what I was wearing and I was armed standing out side. When the police officer showed up they took my weapon away and secured it. After that they swept the house and made sure everything was clear.

Once I showed my Conceal Carry Permit I was good as gold.

I just made sure that the Fiance told them that before the police came and I got shot.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by valo403

See I think what you did was fine, seems like your interest was securing yourself from a threat, not playing sherriff. I don't even know that what this guy did was wrong, the facts seem pretty incomplete. My only real point in all of this is don't pursue a potentially dangerous situation, rather do what you can to avoid it. Like I said, no need to risk your life or endanger that of family over material things.

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was going in after the guy if it were me. I would directly put myself in harms way unless I was protecting the family.

[Titan]

The reactions here are reasonable and understandable. I even agree with them on some level. However, I think people need to remember that the "rights" at play are yours, not just the criminals. The very fact pattern we are talking about shows how quickly a person can find themselves on the wrong side of the line. As a quick hypothetical, lets say that the farmer swung his hatchet, as he did, and hit the guy, as he did. However, what if the guy died from that one swing. It has happened from punches so it is at least foreseeable as possible from a hatchet.

From most of the comments here it seems we all agree that killing the thief would be excessive in just about anyone's eyes. Now the farmer is charged with, at least, manslaughter. He likely gets convicted. In Pylon's world he is stripped of his rights. That means he does not even get to make his self-defence argument. He is sent straight to jail with true violent offenders, of which he is now one. As much sympathy as he might get in CP, he is not likely getting a lot of sympathy in a max prison. His life is destroyed.

However, in the system we have he at least gets to hire a lawyer and make his case. This sucks and I would contribute to his defence fund but in the end, he killed a guy for no sufficiently good reason. Maybe he is exonerated, maybe not.

If he wants to avoid this fate then he does what he should have done. Call the police and wait for them. Does that suck? Yes. Does it ensure he does not put himself and his wife in imminent danger? Yes. Does it mean waiting far too long for the police to arrive? Probably. Does it mean possibly losing some of his stuff? Assuredly. That is the price you pay to live in a civilized society that has uncivilized people in it.

We are also glossing over the concept of reasonable force. What would a reasonable person do in the same circumstances? You walk in your bedroom and a rapist has your wife with a knife to her throat, you can kill him. You walk into your living room and a thief has your stereo can you kill him? Of course not, at least in Canada. That thief drops the stereo and has a knife, can you shoot him? No. He lunges at you with the knife, now you can shoot him. A guy walks on your lawn, can you hit him with a hatchet? No. He walks on your lawn and hits your wife with a hammer, hatchet away. Shoot him? Probably, if he continues his attack. In the back if he runs away? Maybe, but hope you get a good jury.

At the end of the day, as fata'ed as the system may seem, it protects all of us. It allows us to defend ourselves in court and be assured of a fair trial and an appeal process. It allows us the comfort of knowing the power of the state can't be turned against us without demonstrable evidence and justifiable reason. It means we are innocent until PROVEN guilty. That right is afforded to all of us. The scumbags and the internet tough guys and the guys just trying to do the right thing. It protects us all. This is why vigilantism is wrong. This is what the law is there to protect against. That farmer ASSUMED the guy in the car broke into the house. At that point all the guy did was try to get away from what appeared to be a really pissed off farmer, a reasonable reaction. To add another variable, what if the driver of the car was a friend of the actual thief. What if the thief told him it was his Grandpa's house and he was just dropping something off. Farmer pulls into the driveway and sees the kid sitting there. Kid panics and tries to drive away, hits the farmers car and the farmer hatchets him.

Who is right there? It is this situation that makes the law we have the proper one. It is trying to draw a balance in a very difficult scenario. And for those that are going to call me a pu55y, maybe you should go and get Balfour Der's card now and put it in your wallet because you will need it.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by PIMking

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was going in after the guy if it were me. I would directly put myself in harms way unless I was protecting the family.

I assume you meant you would NOT put yourself in harms way?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Or you could reduce costs in the prison system. If you take out cable and internet. But matresses and bed sheets used, Make the prisoners work and generate revenue for the prison systems. Reduce recreational facilities.

I have my serious doubts around doubling and tripling. Maybe we should take into account the rate of repeat offenders if you stiffen up the sentencing, we might see a reduction there.

Plus there are possible public benefits in terms of policing costs and public securities costs.

I just have trouble with a doubling of the system costs.

As for doubling the costs. Right now everyone who is sentenced is automatically eligible for parole after serving half their sentence. Good behaviour lowers that to 1/3 (I think). Sentences can include provisions that change this of course but I suspect they are the exception rather than the rule. This means, by simple logic, if you make everyone serve their full sentence, you are automatically doubling the number of people in the system at any one time. That is a bit of an over simplification, but I think it is reasonable because people who get our even earlier due to good behaviour and those who would have reoffended anyway might cancel each other out in terms of the average.

Then, since we are being tougher on crime and not handing out lenient sentences. That 8 years for rape and assault turns into how many years? 10? 12? 16? I am not even going to guess what how much this would go up because there really is a ton of variation.

Keep in mind, this only counts prisons. Add in the fact that when people face real jail time they are much more likely to go to trial and fight the charges. Right now 90% of all charges are plea negotiated and never see the inside of a courtroom. I think doubling the costs of the criminal court system is probably a very low estimation.

My numbers are not an exact count, they are not based on any studies that have been done or beancounter reports that were commissioned, they are just based on simple logic and might very well be wrong.

I pulled this chart from my notes in my crim class. I will see if I can find numbers for how many offenders are in each portion of the correctional system to put the numbers in perspective.



An important note: Remand centers are maximum security and everyone who is in custody before trial or sentencing is held there, regardless of the crime. I don't remember exactly but I am pretty sure that is the largest (or close) over all cost in the prison system. Remand centers, from what I know, are not places where you could cut costs by taking out 'niceties' because they really don't exist. Prisoners spend 23 hours a day in their cells and since the people there have not been convicted or had sentencing imposed, there is virtually no treatment facilities on site.

At ~90k to 185k a year per inmate, you would need some seriously good paying work to justify having them all work, especially since the security needed for those inmates working would easily eat 20-40% of that money minimum off the top.

Some other charts. the scales didn't copy properly into my notes but you can see the trends.





As these 2 show, more and more people are bring held in remand and they are staying longer and longer. I suspect that part of the reason less people are being held on sentences (due to early release or lenient sentence) might be because the prison system is running out of money due to overburdening.



Violent offences make up a very small amount of our offenses committed. Also note that offenses are generally going down over time. I am pretty sure the one hiccup in the 'other criminal code offenses' was in 1996 when the sentencing guidelines were changed. the same trend shown here.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Titan

The reactions here are reasonable and understandable. I even agree with them on some level. However, I think people need to remember that the "rights" at play are yours, not just the criminals. The very fact pattern we are talking about shows how quickly a person can find themselves on the wrong side of the line. As a quick hypothetical, lets say that the farmer swung his hatchet, as he did, and hit the guy, as he did. However, what if the guy died from that one swing. It has happened from punches so it is at least foreseeable as possible from a hatchet.

From most of the comments here it seems we all agree that killing the thief would be excessive in just about anyone's eyes. Now the farmer is charged with, at least, manslaughter. He likely gets convicted. In Pylon's world he is stripped of his rights. That means he does not even get to make his self-defence argument. He is sent straight to jail with true violent offenders, of which he is now one. As much sympathy as he might get in CP, he is not likely getting a lot of sympathy in a max prison. His life is destroyed.

However, in the system we have he at least gets to hire a lawyer and make his case. This sucks and I would contribute to his defence fund but in the end, he killed a guy for no sufficiently good reason. Maybe he is exonerated, maybe not.

If he wants to avoid this fate then he does what he should have done. Call the police and wait for them. Does that suck? Yes. Does it ensure he does not put himself and his wife in imminent danger? Yes. Does it mean waiting far too long for the police to arrive? Probably. Does it mean possibly losing some of his stuff? Assuredly. That is the price you pay to live in a civilized society that has uncivilized people in it.

We are also glossing over the concept of reasonable force. What would a reasonable person do in the same circumstances? You walk in your bedroom and a rapist has your wife with a knife to her throat, you can kill him. You walk into your living room and a thief has your stereo can you kill him? Of course not, at least in Canada. That thief drops the stereo and has a knife, can you shoot him? No. He lunges at you with the knife, now you can shoot him. A guy walks on your lawn, can you hit him with a hatchet? No. He walks on your lawn and hits your wife with a hammer, hatchet away. Shoot him? Probably, if he continues his attack. In the back if he runs away? Maybe, but hope you get a good jury.

At the end of the day, as fata'ed as the system may seem, it protects all of us. It allows us to defend ourselves in court and be assured of a fair trial and an appeal process. It allows us the comfort of knowing the power of the state can't be turned against us without demonstrable evidence and justifiable reason. It means we are innocent until PROVEN guilty. That right is afforded to all of us. The scumbags and the internet tough guys and the guys just trying to do the right thing. It protects us all. This is why vigilantism is wrong. This is what the law is there to protect against. That farmer ASSUMED the guy in the car broke into the house. At that point all the guy did was try to get away from what appeared to be a really pissed off farmer, a reasonable reaction. To add another variable, what if the driver of the car was a friend of the actual thief. What if the thief told him it was his Grandpa's house and he was just dropping something off. Farmer pulls into the driveway and sees the kid sitting there. Kid panics and tries to drive away, hits the farmers car and the farmer hatchets him.

Who is right there? It is this situation that makes the law we have the proper one. It is trying to draw a balance in a very difficult scenario. And for those that are going to call me a pu55y, maybe you should go and get Balfour Der's card now and put it in your wallet because you will need it.

You're on the wrong track right from the start. The analysis isn't whether or not the result was excessive, it's the action. If hitting him with the axe handle and knocking teeth out is reasonable so is hitting him with the same blow and killing him. The question is not what damage you do, it's the action you take in relation to the threat posed.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Titan

I assume you meant you would NOT put yourself in harms way?

yeah, the dyslexia kicks my arse sometimes. The medications help a lot but don't fix everything.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by valo403

See I think what you did was fine, seems like your interest was securing yourself from a threat, not playing sherriff. I don't even know that what this guy did was wrong, the facts seem pretty incomplete. My only real point in all of this is don't pursue a potentially dangerous situation, rather do what you can to avoid it. Like I said, no need to risk your life or endanger that of family over material things.

I see...so do you then believe he should not have even entered his house at all?

You know, could of been a bad guy in there and you certainly dont want to get in his way or anything like that.

If you answer that as yes, he should have entered his house because you know, its his house, then he also did everything properly leading up to it including parking his car so the scumbag couldnt up and leave at his conveniance, and alsoto aid the police in capturing the guy with a really big clue as to who did the crime.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I see...so do you then believe he should not have even entered his house at all?

You know, could of been a bad guy in there and you certainly dont want to get in his way or anything like that.

If you answer that as yes, he should have entered his house because you know, its his house, then he also did everything properly leading up to it including parking his car so the scumbag couldnt up and leave at his conveniance, and alsoto aid the police in capturing the guy with a really big clue as to who did the crime.

I actually think he should've driven down the road and parked in his neighbors driveway, and then gone inside to hide as his current home was obviously compromised. Then when his neighbors came home they'd see a strange car in the driveway and this whole cycle would repeat.

Oh, and here:

I know you like those

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by valo403

I actually think he should've driven down the road and parked in his neighbors driveway, and then gone inside to hide as his current home was obviously compromised. Then when his neighbors came home they'd see a strange car in the driveway and this whole cycle would repeat.

Oh, and here:

I know you like those

So what is your answer? Should he have gone into his house or not?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So what is your answer? Should he have gone into his house or not?

Only if he wore a bag on his head, like this

You're not worth attempting to have a real conversation with.

Originally Posted by valo403

Only if he wore a bag on his head, like this

You're not worth attempting to have a real conversation with.

It is almost like he has us all on ignore and hasn't read any of the mosts contrary to his opinion. Mind boggling really.

Sorry to bump this travesty of a thread.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by valo403

Only if he wore a bag on his head, like this

You're not worth attempting to have a real conversation with.

You lose. True colors showing.

Simple question...did the guy do something wrong in entering his house as well...yes or no?

Why can you not, or refuse, to answer the question?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

It is almost like he has us all on ignore and hasn't read any of the mosts contrary to his opinion. Mind boggling really.

Sorry to bump this travesty of a thread.

Travesty's are those that refuse to deal with realities, and instead live among the la-la land of maybes and what ifs.

I am sure you feel comfortable in either.