Attacker dies in home invasion east of Calgary
Tricks @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:03 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
Brenda Brenda:
I don't say they shouldn't have defended themselves... But the outcome is kinda harsh, isn't it?
Sorry Brenda but they were perfectly justified. 2 people break into a man and womans bedroom and attack them. Do you honestly expect the victims to try and only stab in a non-fatal manner?
How can you judge the situation without being there?
They were probably paniced and very likely fighting for their lives. In that situation you strike and you strike to kill without any hesitation or else it may be you lying on the floor.
If somebody breaks into my house threatening me and my girlfriend you can bet I won't worry about "just wounding them" assuming I even have the presence of mind to think abou the situation rationally.
No. Society cannot expect people being attacked to make every effort to not defend themselves tothe fullest. In a barfight maybe but not when somebody or somebodies with unknown intentions willfully breaks into your house.
You strike to kill because any hesitation on your part will likely end in your death and your girlfriends/wifes/children.
RockyMtn_Girl @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:03 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
If somebody breaks into my house threatening me and my girlfriend you can bet I won't worry about "just wounding them" assuming I even have the presence of mind to think abou the situation rationally.
True. But if somebody you know breaks in and terrorizes you at 3 a.m., you need to be more careful of who you associate with.
Brenda @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:04 pm
Okay, okay 
I don't judge anybody though, I have no idea what I would have done. Probably the same... If I didn't freakin panic and have myself killed 
But now what happens? Was he justified to kill him? Are they going to take the guy to court and lock him up for murder?
Tricks @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:08 pm
Brenda Brenda:
But now what happens? Was he justified to kill him? Are they going to take the guy to court and lock him up for murder?
If they want a lot of pissed off people they will.
DerbyX @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:27 pm
RockyMtn_Girl RockyMtn_Girl:
True. But if somebody you know breaks in and terrorizes you at 3 a.m., you need to be more careful of who you associate with.
I agree. The problem is we don't have all the facts. Its entirely possible that they didn't know what kind of person they were dealing with.
In addition, I'm not sure that makes a difference. The key event is the breaking in at 3am. FUnless they are dragging you out of a raging fire I doubt they had good intentions.
DerbyX @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:29 pm
Brenda Brenda:
Okay, okay
I don't judge anybody though, I have no idea what I would have done. Probably the same... If I didn't freakin panic and have myself killed
But now what happens? Was he justified to kill him? Are they going to take the guy to court and lock him up for murder?
I don't judge anybody though, I have no idea what I would have done. Probably the same... If I didn't freakin panic and have myself killed
But now what happens? Was he justified to kill him? Are they going to take the guy to court and lock him up for murder?
Sorry if it seems like we are ganging up on you.
Brenda @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:38 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
Brenda Brenda:
Okay, okay
I don't judge anybody though, I have no idea what I would have done. Probably the same... If I didn't freakin panic and have myself killed
But now what happens? Was he justified to kill him? Are they going to take the guy to court and lock him up for murder?
I don't judge anybody though, I have no idea what I would have done. Probably the same... If I didn't freakin panic and have myself killed
But now what happens? Was he justified to kill him? Are they going to take the guy to court and lock him up for murder?
Sorry if it seems like we are ganging up on you.
Nahh, no worries...
Daovonnaex @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:52 pm
Brenda Brenda:
Okay, okay
I don't judge anybody though, I have no idea what I would have done. Probably the same... If I didn't freakin panic and have myself killed
But now what happens? Was he justified to kill him? Are they going to take the guy to court and lock him up for murder?
I don't judge anybody though, I have no idea what I would have done. Probably the same... If I didn't freakin panic and have myself killed
But now what happens? Was he justified to kill him? Are they going to take the guy to court and lock him up for murder?
Death is not a just punishment for breaking and entering, but we're not talking about a punishment that was meted out after a crime was committed.
This was a home owner defending his family and his property from an invader, in which case the use of force, including lethal force, in defense of life and property is not only justified, but the right and proper thing to do.
This man deserves an award for defending his family, not a trial. I certainly hope there are no attempts to lock him up. Knowing Alberta, I'm guessing he'll be just fine.
camerontech @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:46 pm
depends if he 'knows him cause it's a small town' or he 'knows him cause they are cousins'
he was right to defend himself any way possible since it was his home but the details will come out soon.
ziggy @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:15 am
They all knew each other????
How much do you want to bet drugs were involved?
I'll put money on it.
ShepherdsDog @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:36 am
ziggy ziggy:
They all knew each other????
How much do you want to bet drugs were involved?
I'll put money on it.
How much do you want to bet drugs were involved?
I'll put money on it.
or the woman was the reason for the altercation
martin14 @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:23 am
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
ziggy ziggy:
They all knew each other????
How much do you want to bet drugs were involved?
I'll put money on it.
How much do you want to bet drugs were involved?
I'll put money on it.
or the woman was the reason for the altercation
i dont think it matters much either way, but you are probably right
still, the guy was right to protect his family and his house, no matter the reason
Igloo @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:37 am
i hope he filleted them like the barracudas they were
Mukluk @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:56 pm
Now that I have two small children and so much invested in that aspect of my life, I can't even imagine what I would do to a someone that broke into my home knowing my family was inside. It would be an ugly scene.
And the second guy wouldn't just be wounded...
m
Gunnair @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:05 pm
Daovonnaex Daovonnaex:
Okay, okay
This was a home owner defending his family and his property from an invader, in which case the use of force, including lethal force, in defense of life and property is not only justified, but the right and proper thing to do.
This man deserves an award for defending his family, not a trial. I certainly hope there are no attempts to lock him up. Knowing Alberta, I'm guessing he'll be just fine.
This was a home owner defending his family and his property from an invader, in which case the use of force, including lethal force, in defense of life and property is not only justified, but the right and proper thing to do.
This man deserves an award for defending his family, not a trial. I certainly hope there are no attempts to lock him up. Knowing Alberta, I'm guessing he'll be just fine.
As previously posted.
$1:
Criminal Code, Sections 34-37
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.
(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.
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.
36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.
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.
(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.
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.
(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.
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.
36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.
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.
(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.
No such thing as 'right and proper thing to do' under the criminal code, but he may be justified if he meets the criteria. Proportional force is the most important aspect of the case. Two guys barging into your room likely justifies a beating, but not necessarily a killing.
Depends on the facts, not the bravado and emotions it stirs.