Alta. man who killed home invader may face charges
Newsbot @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:16 pm
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=28757" target="_blank">Alta. man who killed home invader may face charges</a> (click to view)
<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/18-law--order" target="_blank">Law & Order</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=uwish" target="_blank">uwish</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2008-01-04 18:08:47
<strong>Canadian</strong>
uwish @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:16 pm
While I do not believe in vigilanty justice, you must admit in Canada, you have no real right to your own defence. Not really, even if this guy did go a little over board (and I am not condoning what he did) he isn't the criminal, he didn't break into a house, he didn't assault anyone initially...
We have a wonderful charter that is basically useless, if someone attacks me with a weapon I can respond in kind, IF that results in the perps death...so be it. Police do this why can't I?? Is my life less valid than theirs?
total BS
BartSimpson @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:22 pm
uwish uwish:
if someone attacks me with a weapon I can respond in kind, IF that results in the perps death...so be it. Police do this why can't I?? Is my life less valid than theirs?
Now you get the point of gun control. Your life IS less valid than theirs. The politicians who want you to go about unarmed and who want you to prostrate yourself before violent criminals (lest YOU harm them) all go about with armed guards. The police who go about making up gun laws on the fly and enforcing laws upon you that they utterly refuse to enforce on selected classes of criminals would not hesitate one bloody second to open fire on a home invader in THEIR house but God only help you if you assert the same rights these arrogant b'tards reserve unto themselves.
In English Common Law free men had the right to go about armed and many people carried small decorative daggers not so much for self defence, but to distinguish themselves from the serfs (slaves, really) who by law had to be unarmed and at the mercy of both the criminals and their masters.
In Canada the serfs are unarmed while your masters are not.
Simple as that.
Brenda @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:56 pm
that is what I thought... MAY be charged or WILL be charged 
Tricks @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:58 pm
If he's charged I'm gonna snap and rant on an editorial page.
RockyMtn_Girl @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:29 pm
The police still have to determine if the level of force used to defend was excessive or not. The Criminal Code states that one may defend themselves using the samle level of force that is being perpetrated against you. Like if some crackhead tries punching you and you shoot him, you're going to jail. The police need to determine what weapons the home invaders were armed with when they attacked the home owners.
It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. There's WAY more to this story than the media is being told, that's for sure.
RockyMtn_Girl @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:26 pm
Okay, here's what needs to be considered. Thanks to Stephen R. Bliss, Barrister & Solicitor - click here
$1:
Criminal Code of Canada
Assault Sections
Defence of Person
Self-defence against unprovoked assault
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
Extent of justification
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).
Self-defence in case of aggression
35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if
(a) he uses the force
(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 35.
Provocation
36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 36.
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.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 37.
Assault Sections
Defence of Person
Self-defence against unprovoked assault
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
Extent of justification
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).
Self-defence in case of aggression
35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if
(a) he uses the force
(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 35.
Provocation
36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 36.
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.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 37.
Charging or not charging the home owner will be dependent on how the evidence fits with sections 35(a),(b) and (c). Ultimately it's up to the Crown whether to proceed with charges or not. I suspect he won't be charged. Any half decent defense lawyer would have a field day with this one.
MarEng @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:11 am
Seriously? Give the man a medal. If I wake up in the middle of the night, and there's a stranger in MY house. It will look like an accident. I promise. I'll plant weapons on you, I don't care what it takes. But, I promise, you will never ever break into another's property again. And I will not call the police until I'm done doing what I'm doing. It's only what you deserve.
Guest @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:16 am
martin14 @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:43 am
this man deserves a medal, a ticker tape parade.. and protests in the streets if he is charged with anything at all
ziggy @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:04 am
martin14 martin14:
this man deserves a medal, a ticker tape parade.. and protests in the streets if he is charged with anything at all
I think I'll wait for the rest of the story before pinning any medals on anyone.One of the reasons we do have laws is so that folks dont go off on a tangent dishing out their own form of vigilante justice on just hearsay like a lot of posters here would.(or so they say)
tritium @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:33 am
The news article seems to be missing, but if the intruder is in my home, he is dead.
I would rather explain it to a jury of 12, than be carried by 6.
uwish @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:37 am
it is time Canada started to recognize this and make your personal defence a priority. We need to have laws changed that won't allow the victim to be prosecuted.
martin14 @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:27 am
well ziggy, i guess you dont get many home invasions up where you are 
However, i have seen too often the victim being punished by the police for simply standing up for himself.
Attitudes need to change.. he didnt ask to be invaded at 3am,
and people should be able to defend themselves, even to the point of death of the attacker..
the other issues arent really relevant here, as to why they came into the house.. they did..
Tricks @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:33 am
Appropriate use of force? Fuck that. If someone has broken into my house I don't think I'll be sitting there thinking "Ok what's the appropriate use of force." I'm going to be thinking, "YOU'RE GONNA DIE CLOWN!"