Canadian Has Murder Convictions Overturned in Self-Defense Case

[ciba]

I agree wholeheartedly with castle doctrine. But I do think that it rightly ends at the castle. The possibility of a reprisal in the future doesn't give him the right to be an executione of a fleeing or wounded former attacker. I don't think invading a home should merit a death sentence unless you're still in the home, or at the very least still on the person's property.

I'm torn on the matter. I've never served, but I think using a military distinction would be appropriate. Is a fleeing combatant still a legal target in battle?

In "Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Volume 26" (see Eritrea/Ethiopea D.1.39) it is suggested that fleeing militia are still enemy combatants and legitimate targets. I would be hard pressed to hold an untrained civilian to a higher standard than professional soldiers against someone who means him harm individually. I would suggest that under this standard he has the right to engage until combat ends.

 

[momeNt]

So if one is faced with death one should choose to die instead of using court unapproved means?

How many deaths are averted if Canada instead stood strong on illegal modifications? Countless vs 1.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How many deaths are averted if Canada instead stood strong on illegal modifications? Countless vs 1.

That was not the question. He defended himself at least initially against those who would kill him. He is still liable for whatever else happened, but should he have supposed himself to be killed to satisfy a regulation? Would you?

If he illegally modified something then he can be called out on that. If it's determined that he fired when life was not in danger he can be held legally liable. Other than that, no.

 

[thraashman]

Wouldn't that belief also void self-defense arguments?

No it wouldn't, not even hinder it in fact. When you defend yourself you do it with the intent to stop the threat, not kill. If in the course of defending yourself the other person is killed, you didn't decide to kill them you decided to defend yourself (or others). In the event you are forced to defend yourself you don't make the decision to end the other person's life you make the decision to save lives. If you later have the presence of mind to end a life once the threat is over, then you've murdered someone, executed them. That is not ok.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Is there anyone who agrees with me on this case?

I do not see what this man did as wrong. I would want limited pursuit made legal, given the circumstances.

I agree.

Conservatards want to poison my land and air. I agree that there's nothing wrong with hunting them down and shooting them in the back for their crimes.

 

[Doppel]

I'm torn on the matter. I've never served, but I think using a military distinction would be appropriate. Is a fleeing combatant still a legal target in battle?

In "Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Volume 26" (see Eritrea/Ethiopea D.1.39) it is suggested that fleeing militia are still enemy combatants and legitimate targets. I would be hard pressed to hold an untrained civilian to a higher standard than professional soldiers against someone who means him harm individually. I would suggest that under this standard he has the right to engage until combat ends.

wut.

So now civilians get to use military rules of engagement in deciding who to kill and when? Really?!

 

[Agent11]

His best bet of defense would be temporary loss of self control based on the trauma of the home invasion.

May be able to knock it down to manslaughter if not get off completely.

 

[Whiskey16]

wut.

So now civilians get to use military rules of engagement in deciding who to kill and when? Really?!

It goes further -- that argument was not only of rules of engagement but to classify general society as a war zone with active warring parties who may be freely engaged.

Yes...ludicrous...and extremist to the max.

...Oh, and on this case the defendant has plenty more indictments coming his way for his actions beyond that one day.

 

[redbleed]

I note a distinction here.

They threatened him prior to this date. They brought a weapon (sword) to his home. They broke through the last line of defense, his bedroom door. By hiding there he did everything possible to avoid shooting them.

I do not see it wrong that the home invaders died in his stead, and I really don't care how he would have done it. His method was quick and merciful, essentially. He did not torture them by any account. I have absolutely no problem with, once the bedroom door falling, him chasing them.

It seems you would be perfectly happy with them escaping for another opportunity to get the drop on him later. I am not. I stand by this man's right to live, his right to self defense, and I strongly object to anyone who doesn't. Home invaders forfeit their lives.

My current idea for defining it would be to allow chase in the heat of it. Some limits to prevent harm to bystanders, and perhaps limiting it to your property and/or immediate vicinity. If they make it down the street and he's still in pursuit using his weapon, then I'd certainly not allow that due to the risk to others. However, it wouldn't be murder. I'd make it a lesser crime to overact so long as only the home invaders are slain / injured.

I agree with you. Everyone seems to be treating the attackers INVADING HIS HOME, where we have to assume the worst case scenario: they're going to kill him and family, as isolated incidents from when they realized they're outgunned and try to retreat.

If he had let them go and called the cops, what can the law do? It does not cover all areas, particularly grays. In this case the law wouldn't be able to do shit. It was dark. The victim would not have been able to conclusively identify the attackers. These attackers have already proven what they were willing to do. In these escalation type conflicts, what are the odds these guys won't retaliate with guns of their own or adopt a better plan where they don't get caught for murder? These escalated conflicts only end in two ways: the parties make peace and shake on it OR one group gets taken out.

When those guys broke into his home and bedroom, base on the history of escalation, the homeowner had recourse to finish it.

Sometimes the law ties your hand when the law operates from theory.

 

[Thump553]

He should get manslaughter, it wasn't premeditated, an act of impulse to shoot fleeing people who tired to harm him and serve concurent sentances. He had the smarts to call the cops and wait it out so I doubt he'd anticipate a counter attack and knew assistance was forth coming.
He should also be charged with various firearms offences.
In Canada there is no defence of property rights and he was justified in defending himself in a remote situation and had made the call for help.
He just went too far 'adrenaline' and once the immediate threat has passed he is no longer in a self-defense situation.
That said, it wasn't him they were picking up out of the snow, now he'll just have to deal with the consequences

That's not fair-bringing up the real life facts in yet another second amendment fantasy thread. when the appellate court ruling was essentially an evidentiary matter.

I'm still waiting for someone to excuse him executing the wounded victim-outside the home, when the person was trying to escape. The threat was gone, he was either acting in retribution or adrenaline-a question for the jury to decide when they decide which level of murder/manslaughter to convict him on.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stori...peal_court_orders_new_trial_for_chris_bishop/

A little different look at the case and the ruling.

 

[sourn]

Your opinion seems to be that you're ok with him being a judge and executioner. That's not what the law says, nor how it should work. It says you can defend yourself. He did, and it's fair game in his house. When they are running from his house for their lives and he's still shooting them down from his porch he's turned from self-defense into judge dredd.

Whether these guys who have threatened him may or may not come back later is beside the point and it's not up to him to determine whether they can remain alive or not.

Call it manslaughter or whatever, and recognize that acting with pure reason is hard if you've just been home-invaded, but I cannot imagine any court in any country would give a guy free reign to shoot a person in the back who's clearly running away from you and absolutely, clearly no longer a threat.

And that's were we disagree it is most certainly up to him, once they forcefully broke in with clear intent to do him harm. This is something just happened out in the streets, they obviously know where he lives.

Any sane person should assume they're gonna come back and probably well more equipped. The only question is do the cops get them first before they make it back.

To say they're not a threat anymore is naive as hell.

 

[Doppel]

And that's were we disagree it is most certainly up to him, once they forcefully broke in with clear intent to do him harm. This is something just happened out in the streets, they obviously know where he lives.

Any sane person should assume they're gonna come back and probably well more equipped. The only question is do the cops get them first before they make it back.

To say they're not a threat anymore is naive as hell.

They weren't a threat at that moment. The law is unequivocal here and in every nation on earth over self-defense that when the threat is gone, they're not even in your house, you cannot go on a revenge killing spree and it's like that for good reason. It doesn't matter if they were or weren't likely to come back at a later time.