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: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Magnum007
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.


The difference seems to be that criminals have more rights in Canada than homeowners.

/TOA




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

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


We're obviously talking Canadian law. It's your OP. Canada isn't Texas. Our laws are different. They aren't perfect but they work for the most part. This man and his son will probably be brought up on charges. They will also probably be cleared of charges. That's how it works up here.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Magnum007
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.


The difference seems to be that criminals have more rights in Canada than homeowners.

/TOA


Actually up here, we don't assume a person is guilty right away.. we DO believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt so that we don't shoot people who think they're attempting to get into their own homes. We like to judge the "intentions" of people.

Which means that since the homeowner with a knife on hand indicating that he intended to stab anyone coming through that door. That is considered murder with intent.

However, if the homeowner had cracked the intruders skull with a frying pan and accidentally killed him, he may have only received a "manslaughter" charge. Or even "aggravated assault".

Edit to add: I've checked into this because as a martial artist I was hoping to keep a large knife by the side of my bed in case of break ins.. but I have to hit the guy with the large-based lamp instead..
edit on 2011/9/17 by juniperberry because: more info



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


No, it means that people have equal rights... Just like how so many people crap on the police for shooting "unarmed" people, or for using "excessive force"... It's the same standard for the general population...

In Canada, you are only authorized to use the necessary force to accomplish something... This is a very simple concept... I won't shoot an unarmed person in my house who is not a threat to me but just won't leave. I'll remove him using the force necessary to remove him. How is that so difficult?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I agree on this point. I also live in Canada, and I remember talking to a friend of mine who is an RCMP officer about a year ago about exactly this sort of situation. He knew of several cases in his career where a burglar was killed by the homeowner. In every single one of those cases, the homeowner was charged, but in every single case, the homeowner did not go to jail. I can't remember what proportion went to trial or were just dropped.

The article also mentions this:

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.


The only thing that is not at all clear from the article (at least to me) is whether the dead man was in fact burglarizing the home. If he was, he got what he deserved, and the matter should rest. If he wasn't, the homeowner should be prosecuted for murder.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
in NY u can use reasonable physical force if threatened..or deadly force if life in danger...i had a trespaser try to get in 2nd story window on porch roof to get at his ex who had orders of protection on him twice.
i went out w/shotty and he told me to f'off i dont have the stones to shoot him..oh really? click click..boom goes the slug over his head and he now is a cryin whinin baby about me not hurtin him sorry sorry yadayada ..he gets contempt charge....i get reckless 1st degree discharge firearm in village attemted asault menacing 3td deg....no provision for warning shot..must wait till perp is inside w/weapon then shoot to kill..i saved his ass and didnt go to the extreme and let it go that way and im a felon now....

protect my property and i am guilty my life/others and i go to jail...nice NY next time i kill the mofo and wont even bother to report th3e act...i had enuff this state i got 3 charges w/3 acquittals when not guilty in first place and no way to get record to eliminate the charge,,



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

“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.”
thank God I live in Louisiana.

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.
Amen.

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.....

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.
Did you think afterwards, "Man, I shouldn't wander around drunk when I don't really know the neighborhood?" If you didn't have that response, then there's no reason to walk through this one with you.

Originally posted by petrus4
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.
I absolutely agree. I have the right to kill someone in my home, I can give up that right. But I want to be able to give up my right, not have that right taken away from me.

I don't like the "fair fight" syndrome we see in this mess. Some little woman isn't going to win with her hands or even a knife in a "fair fight" against even a half grown boy...heck, most burly women won't win against a 14+ year old boy. Then we never count the element of surprise. Someone who breaks into a sleeping home is surprising the victims, and they know they run the risk of getting a gun in their face, laws or not. Beside, why are we worried about FAIRNESS when the perpatrator is INSTIGATING UNFAIRNESS. Now it's a damned shame that anyone has to die in these situations, but let's face it, a lot of times someone is going to die. I'd rather the one who dies be the one who brought it on themselves.

Originally posted by Magnum007
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.
And if it was enforced in the manner it was intended, I'd have no problem with it. Laws are interpreted in this country, and judges set prescedence. (The one I like most is if some theif is fleeing the cops and jusmps into your yard and drowns in your pool, or breaks his neck in your emptied pool and you didn't have a handrail around that dang thing, you're at fault.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join