It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canada: Resident Kills Burglar, May Be Charged

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Residents of house may be charged after alleged burglar found dead


Early Sunday on a residential street in Arnprior, Ont., a father and son awoke to the sounds of a man attempting to force himself into their home. When police arrived, the father and son were fine, but 41-year-old Corey Blaskie lay stabbed to death on the ground.



Police would not say whether Mr. Blaskie was armed, how many people had been involved in the final scuffle or whether the other residents had been injured. Investigators have not ruled out the possibility that charges could be laid against the home’s residents.



“You have to have proportional force to the force that you’re facing, and that is the difficult concept,” said Gordon Dykstra, a criminal defence attorney in Abbotsford, B.C. “If this was Louisiana, you could take your .45 and just blast away.”


Here in the U.S. many states have adopted castle doctrine laws, whereby if a homeowner feels threatened by an intruder they are not required to retreat, and they are allowed to use up to deadly force on the interloper. The force doesn't always to be proportional, though one could still be charged with a crime. Juries will almost always rule the homeowner not guilty.

But there should be a "gotcha" clause, here in the States, in Canada, and really anywhere. From the article:


Neighbours say the home is occupied by a former military officer, his wife and their two teenaged children.


If there are children residing in the home, a homeowner should be able, required even, to use unequal and disproportionate force on anyone that enters the home without permission and not worry about being charged with anything but being a hero. Protecting one's family, in one's own home, from the threat of harm should be waived from any and all prosecution, or threat of prosecution.

/TOA




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
IF a person is breaking into your home, violating your privacy and safety... then they get what comes to them.

If the law can't handle self-defense, then we should throw it out. The person would still be alive if they did the right thing and didn't break into a person's home. That's how I see it.

They could still be alive, I consider this a suicide not a homicide. He committed suicide by entering into someone else home to rob them. Let that be an example for all future burglars. Enter our homes and face death.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Typical media spin.

It's extremely doubtful the resident will be charged if it was, in fact, self defence against an intruder. There is some common sense here in Canada. Common sense just doesn't sell newspapers.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
IF a person is breaking into your home, violating your privacy and safety... then they get what comes to them.

If the law can't handle self-defense, then we should throw it out. The person would still be alive if they did the right thing and didn't break into a person's home. That's how I see it.

They could still be alive, I consider this a suicide not a homicide. He committed suicide by entering into someone else home to rob them. Let that be an example for all future burglars. Enter our homes and face death.






How about this scenario;.... Man gets drunk and wobbles home to wrong house, turns the knob and STAB STAB STAB.... alot those houses in Abottsford look the same..... You never know.....

I say this because I did this once. I wasnt drunk but had just moved in that week. Guy came to the door looking mad, I said sorry wrong door.


edit on 17-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by area6
Typical media spin.

It's extremely doubtful the resident will be charged if it was, in fact, self defence against an intruder. There is some common sense here in Canada. Common sense just doesn't sell newspapers.



In cases of self-defence, particularly ones that happen inside the home, suspects may be initially charged, but they usually have a good chance of avoiding prosecution — particularly if they face a jury trial.

Lawrence Manzer of Burton, N.B., was charged in 2010 with firearms offences after confronting intruders on his neighbour’s property with an unloaded shotgun, although the charges were later thrown out on a technicality.

In May, Joseph Singleton, 46, a farmer in Taber, Alta., had his charges — assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, after he wounded a man who had just burgled his house with the blunt end of a hatchet — referred to an alternative measures program.

In 2008, Albertan Dan Olineck fended off his Calgary-area farmhouse from two home invaders with a knife, killing one in the process. Crown prosecutors decided not to press charges against Mr. Olineck after determining he had acted in self-defence.


I think it's ridiculous to charge anyone with anything for defending their family, home, and property from some lowlife, but it isn't particularly "spun" in any direction as the above shows that others in the same situation have been charged before.

/TOA



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
I endorse castle doctrine as far as the law itself is concerned.

However, in terms of individual homeowners, I'm inclined to believe that if it is at all possible, non-lethal pacification of an intruder is the morally desirable response. I do not condone what I tend to view as the American culture of revenge.

Having the right to defend yourself as necessary, without restraint is one thing. Murdering someone on the basis of viciousness and self-righteousness, on the other hand, is another. As always, motive is important.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
IF a person is breaking into your home, violating your privacy and safety... then they get what comes to them.

If the law can't handle self-defense, then we should throw it out. The person would still be alive if they did the right thing and didn't break into a person's home. That's how I see it.

They could still be alive, I consider this a suicide not a homicide. He committed suicide by entering into someone else home to rob them. Let that be an example for all future burglars. Enter our homes and face death.






How about this scenario;.... Man gets drunk and wobbles home to wrong house, turns the knob and STAB STAB STAB.... alot those houses in Abottsford look the same..... You never know.....

I say this because I did this once. I wasnt drunk but had just moved in that week. Guy came to the door looking mad, I said sorry wrong door.


edit on 17-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


Just turning the knob? Killing them would be an egregious overreaction then. Crossing the threshold? Split-second decision time. As a parent and husband, I'd err on the side of protecting my family at any cost.

/TOA



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
They could still be alive, I consider this a suicide not a homicide. He committed suicide by entering into someone else home to rob them. Let that be an example for all future burglars. Enter our homes and face death.
How about this scenario;.... Man gets drunk and wobbles home to wrong house, turns the knob and STAB STAB STAB.... alot those houses in Abottsford look the same..... You never know.....

I say this because I did this once. I wasnt drunk but had just moved in that week. Guy came to the door looking mad, I said sorry wrong door.


This happened to me when I was living in Sunbury once. A guy came to the door who apparently was flying on heroin, although I didn't know at the time, and only realised after being informed by other people I had in the house at the time. I'm not an authority on the defining characteristics of heroin junkies.

He came in, though...and we said hello. He spoke to a couple of other people, and then left without incident.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Unfortuntately, breaking in isnt a threat to you unless HE was armed. Thats the law...and yes it sucks. But unless you are threatened...the thought is the burglar could have run away if discovered by you...then you killing him ...would have been murder.

Just because he was inside your home or garage...nope. Not enough to KILL him for it. With a gun or knife or club or something in his hands...kill him and its all on you.

You cant kill someone for just being in your house or on your lawn or in your garage or rifling thru your car outside. I dont think enough of us realize that. Fear is not enough of a threat to kill someone, but thats the law in most places (and apparently, countries too.)
edit on 06-10-2010 by mysterioustranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 


How are you supposed to know, if you here a window break are you going to take a weapon with you or not?

If you dont then a guy could come at you with a knife, if you do then you might stab him if he comes at you unarmed.

Same thing happened here and the guy got off. The only way he should be charged is if he stabbed the guy over 10 times. Then he wasnt defending himself.

Two guys were trying to break into my place, I called the police and got a weapon, the minute one of them stepping through the window, I was going to twat him over the head with a snooker cue, i wasnt going to wait to see if he was armed or not. It didnt come to that as the police got here and scared them off.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
Unfortuntately, breaking in isnt a threat to you unless HE was armed. Thats the law...and yes it sucks. But unless you are threatened...the thought is the burglar could have run away if discovered by you...then you killing him ...would have been murder.

Just because he was inside your home or garage...nope. Not enough to KILL him for it. With a gun or knife or club or something in his hands...kill him and its all on you.

You cant kill someone for just being in your house or on your lawn or in your garage or rifling thru your car outside. I dont think enough of us realize that. Fear is not enough of a threat to kill someone, but thats the law in most places (and apparently, countries too.)
edit on 06-10-2010 by mysterioustranger because: (no reason given)


I'm not sure who's law you're talking about (Canadian? California?), but in Texas you would be fully justified:

Texas Penal Code Chapter 9


Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury


This doesn't mean that you are protected from being investigated, or even charged, but the law would be on your side if you were taken to court.

/TOA



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Am I interpreting their use of the words proportional force right? Are they telling me I would be legally required to give a criminal a fair fight?

Or is this one of those, "run away until he starts hitting you, then you can hit back, but only once, then you have to run away" laws?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra
Am I interpreting their use of the words proportional force right? Are they telling me I would be legally required to give a criminal a fair fight?

Or is this one of those, "run away until he starts hitting you, then you can hit back, but only once, then you have to run away" laws?


It probably means you cant, stab them 10 times, shoot them when they are running away or kill them once they are not a threat. ie collapsed or unconscious in the floor.

All of which i have no problem with.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I went to get the defence of property sections of the criminal code of Canada... I direct you to article 41 of the criminal code of Canada which states that you can remove someone from your house NOT using more force than necessary... What it does mean is that you CAN use force, but only enough force to either remove or arrest the subject (under section 494 which is a citizen's arrest) and bring forth to a peace officer as soon as practicable... You cannot beat the living crap out of someone, you cannot stab them 50 times, you cannot shoot them (your guns are supposed to be locked anyways) unless it's the ONLY way to stop the person from HURTING you...

It's written black on white.




DEFENCE OF PROPERTY
Defence of personal property

38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified
(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it,
or
(b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,

if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.

Assault by trespasser

(2) Where a person who is in peaceable possession of personal property lays hands on it, a trespasser who persists in attempting to keep it or take it from him or from any one lawfully assisting him shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 38.


Defence with claim of right

39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

Defence without claim of right

(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as of right or does not act under the authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justified or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 39.

Defence of dwelling

40. Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 40.

Defence of house or real property

41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

Assault by trespasser

(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 41.


edit on 11/9/17 by Magnum007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Well, if the economy gets any worse here in the U.S. I should head to Canada and start stealing from homes. As a criminal I would feel quite safe compared to here in the U.S. Just kidding about actually doing it. Not kidding about feeling safer breaking into someones home than I would in the U.S.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
any one who supports not killing a intruder deserves to have one come on over yuou can help the guy move your stuff.
castle laws??? man as far as im conserened if someone even says(( im going to kill you )) you should have the right to deadly force to protect your self no MATTER were you are at.
Dont go around trying to rob people and such and they wont have to worry about dieing then. Why is I have to listin to some JERK talk about how he can kill me or beet the snot out of me??
YOU RIGHTS END WERE MY RIGHTS BEGIN . Sick sick sick world we live in.
I grante crime would be almost NONE excistence if we ran things this way.
As for even acting like they want to bring charges STUPID cops come see that you had to defend your slef NO question about it .((sorry sir we will clean up this mess for you have a nice day.
end of story end of crimil comiting another crime .
needing BARS on your home makes it YOUR PRISION



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Here in Canada its equal force, and yet unequal can be considered equal, because its also the situation and whats at hand.

The real translation and how most cases are treated is, it depends on the real risk of being murdered, versus just a break in. Many break ins do not involve the intent to murder. However, I've read some terrible attacks on the elderly, so its not going to be easy to be the judge.

But I don't believe in shooting anyone on your property as the laws in the US allow. I believe very much in having to use common sense. Murder is murder, self defense isn't outrage or vengenance. Thats murder. Self defense is exactly that, your life is in immediate danger, and there is no mistaking that.

Shooting blindly any tresspasser or intruder is Murder, its either outrage, The Nerve Of That Cattle Rustler, stepping on my property, or vengeance. Self Defense means, your life, or someone else's life is in real danger and you are acting in an emergency to defend life and limb. If it can be avoided in any way, AVOID. Life is more valuable than property.
edit on 17-9-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

How about this scenario;.... Man gets drunk and wobbles home to wrong house, turns the knob and STAB STAB STAB.... alot those houses in Abottsford look the same..... You never know.....


That exact situation happened in a neighborhood I used to live in.

A woman head a crashing sound and checked to see a man had smashed through her basement door and was yelling and and screaming. She told him to get and she called the cops. The man started up the stairs toward her screaming nonsense and she shot him dead.

Turned out it was a neighbor who was stumbling home piss drunk and thought he was in his house and was apparently screaming at her because he thought she was in his house and had locked him out of it.

The use of deadly force was ruled justified.

Lesson to all the lushes out there. Being blind stinking drunk is not a healthy way to live nor is it an excuse for breaking and entering.

If the conjecture about him thinking she was in his house is true then he obviously was in a position to use force against her in her own home believing it justified. He's dead and it's his own fault.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


If he was still outside then the homeowner will be found guilty, if he was inside homeowner is not liable in any way shape or form in my eyes...however if he was inside and unarmed homeowner could have incapacitated him (a good heavy frying pan would do the trick) and keep him subdued till police came. But me being a woman I would have probably done the same thing as the homeowner if he entered my home which I have two teenagers and a 11 yr old so I can relate. He definately shouldn't be charged. He had kids in the home and the burgler you have to assume posed a threat to them. Home invasions in the US do not usually end well, and contrary to popular beleif 99% of the time it doesn't end well for the residents of the home.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
The difference is that Canada is not the far west where people can take other people's lives in their own hands... Canada's laws are written in an effort to lower the amount of violence needed to enforce them.

Unlike in the US, in Canada, EVERYONE'S life is important, not just law abiding people's and if problems can be resolved using other means, then those other means are used... If not, you are a criminal.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join