Canadian Has Murder Convictions Overturned in Self-Defense Case

[Atreus21]

What if the invaders screamed "we will be back" or something along those lines....

Response: "By all means try it bitch."

 

[desy]

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

 

[PokerGuy]

The criminals got what they deserved, but I don't think it makes sense to make it legal to go kill someone long after they are no longer a threat -- that's not self defense. Executing someone because they might some day be a threat again seems excessive.

I'd say the guys actions were not legal, but the situation makes for very mitigating circumstances and the guy should get a very light sentence.

 

[thraashman]

The criminals got what they deserved, but I don't think it makes sense to make it legal to go kill someone long after they are no longer a threat -- that's not self defense. Executing someone because they might some day be a threat again seems excessive.

I'd say the guys actions were not legal, but the situation makes for very mitigating circumstances and the guy should get a very light sentence.

I could jump on that wagon. I am definitely against executing someone who no longer poses a threat. I am also against the death penalty as I feel that no one should have the right to decide who lives and who dies. But I can accept that he had some form of mitigating circumstances. But he is still culpable in some form.

 

[Whiskey16]

IAlso remember where he lives. This is not a big city. He's in the middle of nowhere. Notice he has to call the RCMP, not a local police dept.

I do not believe you are aware of where he lives. This is not Ontario nor Quebec where there are provincial police forces. The majority of cities and towns in this country have contracts for service by the RCMP. Just as you have, there likely is a local police force and it is the RCMP.

They will not arrive in time to do anything to help him. He was on his own.

Regardless, the concern of police response is a non issue for the end result.

If the men were killed while fleeing then that is a crime and certainly no longer a matter of self defence.

 

[monovillage]

I do not believe you are aware of where he lives. This is not Ontario nor Quebec where there are provincial police forces. The majority of cities and towns in this country have contracts for service by the RCMP. Just as you have, there likely is a local police force and it is the RCMP.



Regardless, the concern of police response is a non issue for the end result.

If the men were killed while fleeing then that is a crime and certainly no longer a matter of self defence.

The concern of police is always a non-issue, they have absolutely no responsibility to keep anyone safe.

 

[momeNt]

I'm seriously concerned about why Canada is allowing illegal self-defense. An illegal weapon modification should void his self-defense claim on the grounds of public policy, it completely defeats the purpose of having those modifications illegal in the first place if they continue to allow their use at all, self-defense included.

The man should have had his conviction upheld. Now Canada will have their streets flooded with illegal weapon modifications.

 

[nehalem256]

I could jump on that wagon. I am definitely against executing someone who no longer poses a threat. I am also against the death penalty as I feel that no one should have the right to decide who lives and who dies. But I can accept that he had some form of mitigating circumstances. But he is still culpable in some form.

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

 

[themusgrat]

Not really sure what I think of it. Like someone said, maybe these guys ran away screaming that they'd be back with guns. I don't know all the facts. On one hand, he did shoot people running away from him. On the other, this was merely the next escalation of a fight that had already been started. He waited for them to break down his front door, then he let them break down his bedroom door. I have to assume he told them he had a gun, but the fact is that these assailants in all likelihood intended to kill him. It was several minutes of him knowing his life may just end that day, several minutes of them probably shouting they were going to kill him. Because this was an escalation of a previous fight, I have to assume that he knew that they'd be back for more.

The fact is that when a group, or 5 people, come to your house with deadly weapons, spend entire minutes breaking down doors to get to you without regard to police or repercussions, you're justified in shooting them. I'm not sure I would have shot them while they were running away, but you could make the case that this guy was traumatized and likely was trying to prevent this from happening again. I have a cousin who has been shot at twice. Once in a parking lot, and once jogging in a park. After the second, he said "never again." There is a limit we can all take. We all want peace of mind, and that's a reasonable want. Not saying it justifies, just that it is a reason to shoot these people in the back in this particular case. At the end of the day, 5 people tried to take 1 person's life. They were in the wrong, and they paid dearly for it. I think he was mostly in the right, if not completely.

 

[highland145]

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

Yes. So just kill me, rape my wife and take my TV. It's all good.

 

[momeNt]

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

Quite simply. No.

Courts are not thrown into a life or death situation where they must choose whether or not the man on the stand dies or they die. The man on the stand may have been put into that situation, and he has a right to protect himself.

 

[sigurros81]

Yes. So just kill me, rape my wife and take my TV. It's all good.

Why do you guys always have to make everything black and white. My personal take, I'll kill a mother fucker if it comes down to it to defend myself and my family. However, I'm not going to execute the bastard if he's already down for the count or no longer is a threat.

 

[highland145]

Quite simply. No.

Courts are not thrown into a life or death situation where they must choose whether or not the man on the stand dies or they die. The man on the stand may have been put into that situation, and he has a right to protect himself.

Looks at post 32.....:hmm:

 

[momeNt]

:hmm: Looks at post 32.....:hmm:

You have a right to defend yourself through the rules set by the courts, obviously.

He couldn't have locked his bedroom door, grabbed his hazmat suit, and then once they broke in unleashed mustard gas on them, right? He'd get a murder conviction most likely for illegal self-defense!

 

[highland145]

Why do you guys always have to make everything black and white. My personal take, I'll kill a mother fucker if it comes down to it to defend myself and my family. However, I'm not going to execute the bastard if he's already down for the count or no longer is a threat.

Who said I'm white?



We're on the same page assuming "heat of the moment" doesn't take over but they got exactly what they deserved.

Edit:I was saying that's what could very will happen with a defenseless homeowner.

 

[highland145]

You have a right to defend yourself through the rules set by the courts, obviously.

He couldn't have locked his bedroom door, grabbed his hazmat suit, and then once they broke in unleashed mustard gas on them, right? He'd get a murder conviction most likely for illegal self-defense!

So the small tactical nuke is out of the question?

Back to #32, no. Just give him with the weapons charge. He had a legal right to the weapon and self defense just not the mag.

Mustard gas not found but I like the idea.

 

[Harabec]

I know really well about breaking and entering and robbery...by other Israeli burglars and bedouin thieves.

When you live in the middle of a wasteland and 5 people come knocking down your door armed and with intent to wound/kill, their ONLY possible future is to be buried in the snow.
Lawyers and Judges won't save your lives.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A samurai sword... really?

This sounds like a bad movie.

I can kill effectively with mine, rivaling the body count of any armed shooter. Chances are good that if the attacked had been without a firearm he'd be killed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You have a right to defend yourself through the rules set by the courts, obviously.

He couldn't have locked his bedroom door, grabbed his hazmat suit, and then once they broke in unleashed mustard gas on them, right? He'd get a murder conviction most likely for illegal self-defense!

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

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Once the shooting started, the invaders ran screaming from the house. Mr. Bishop followed, shooting again in the hallway and in the entranceway.

At which point, his use of self-defense as a reasonable rationale ended.

Outside, court heard, he stood on his porch.

An eyewitness said Mr. Bishop spotted a wounded invader falling in the snow and struggling to get up. Mr. Bishop raised his gun and fired at him, killing him. He fired at others scattering away, emptying his clip.

And this is not "self defense" by any reasonable definition of the term.

I hope he is convicted of the appropriate charge when retried.

 

[Doppel]

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

This is reasonable. Nobody here is weeping over the deaths of these people invading his home, but he is not judge dredd. We cannot possibly set legal precedent that after a home invasion a person is allowed to chase out of their house a certain distance and have a gun fight in their neighborhood. This isn't even legal in Texas

I'm seriously concerned about why Canada is allowing illegal self-defense. An illegal weapon modification should void his self-defense claim on the grounds of public policy, it completely defeats the purpose of having those modifications illegal in the first place if they continue to allow their use at all, self-defense included.

The man should have had his conviction upheld. Now Canada will have their streets flooded with illegal weapon modifications.

You trolling again guy? Although he did break a law on magazine size, he also indicated how that law demonstrably impacts the right to self-defense. I bet he shot more than 5 bullets, though i don't know how many were shot after it turned into a "gun 'em down" situation.

I think a reasonable finding in this case is that those he shot in his house--possibly including anybody running while still in his house--are self-defense. Those running from his house and gunned down like dogs, murder charge.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

At which point, his use of self-defense as a reasonable rationale ended.



And this is not "self defense" by any reasonable definition of the term.

I hope he is convicted of the appropriate charge when retried.

I agree. Once they flee the need for deadly force has ended. Unfortunately because of actions like these we may lose the opportunity to defend ourselves. In NY there is no effective way available to defend oneself, even by non lethal means. Please don't let others suffer that fate.

 

[highland145]

At which point, his use of self-defense as a reasonable rationale ended.



And this is not "self defense" by any reasonable definition of the term.

Agree.

What would you have done? Assuming you had a firearm..... defending yourself from these thugs.

They got what they deserved.

edit: assuming you didn't:

Yes. So just kill me, rape my wife and take my TV. It's all good.

 

[monovillage]

Until Mr. Bishop followed his attackers out of his house he'd have no idea if they'd stopped their attempt to kill him. They could have withdrawn to get more weapons, to get gasoline to fire his house or a number of other possibilities.

Are some of the "witnesses" against him that are mentioned in the story part of the gang of people that came to murder him? He deserves a new trial where the evidence can be presented.

 

[rommelrommel]

There's a LOT more to this story.

The shooter is a lowlife criminal druggie too. He had threatened to kill one or more of his assailants previously. He had claimed to have killed a person and not been caught. He had either a drug debt or had stolen drugs from the other lowlifes. They had an ongoing feud involving assaults and vandalism back and forth as well.

Basically... I think he deserves a new trial (and that's all that he got) so he can at least try to claim self defense (that was disallowed in the original trial) but no one should be shedding any tears about this guy rotting in jail.