Alberta home invader killed

reply to post by Rasobasi420


I certainly hope the police didn't just take the homeowners word for it that they broke in. I think that if they are calling it an "invasion" they have evidence of an unlawful entry. Otherwise they wouldn't be calling it an "invasion."

I try not to make any assumptions based on news articles or initial reports. I guess I'm just cautious that way.

You can defend yourself/family/home but if you happen to kill the person then you get charged with murder? Is this for real? Even here in ultra liberal NY we can defend our homes with deadly force provided that 1) the suspect(s) are actually inside the home and 2) we have already called 911.

Then again this comes from the same government that wont even let their park rangers carry firearms because "it would hurt their relations with the public" yet somehow magically expect them to enforce all laws and stop poachers. So its not only the Canadian people who cant defend themselves ...

My 2 pennies...

Obviously it was an un-authorized entrance into the home, hence the use of the term invasion. IMO there is no reason for anyone to enter another's home, uninvited, and expect to be received hospitably. Further it is my opinion that it would and should be reasonable to expect that ANYONE would defend their property, family and self violently against an intruder and that said intruder should assume as much.

An example... Police are permitted to shoot a suspect when they believe their lives are in danger. Criminals know, in advance, that it is both reasonable and probable that they will be shot by police if they reach in their pockets, brandish a weapon or make a sudden and unexpected move when confronted by police. That is why most criminal will drop their weapons and obey police commands - it is the foreknowledge that they will be shot if they do not. Why should the sanctity of our homes and welfare of our family be any different???

In fact, would it not help to reduce home burglaries and invasions by supporting a law that states that homeowners can vigorously defend their homes through the use of deadly force? Would it not send a further message to would-be burglars and home invaders that the likelihood of being shot and killed is a near certainty when perpetrating the act? Seems to me that you would a.) provide an appropriate mechanism for homeowners to defend their properties and families and b.) reduce the number of home invasions significantly due to the creation and support of such a deterrent.

Again, just my 2 cents... What the heck do I know - except that I would have shot both of the m'fers on site if they were in my house!

I think people are oversimplifying the situation, which seems to be an all too common occurance on ATS. We don't know why these people were in the house. Probably not robbery because they were in the bedroom, not the living room or computer room or whatever. They knew the 'victims'. They had no previous criminal history or relation to gangs.

Something else was going on, and it seems to make sense (if only to me) that this actually be investigated and judgments held until the evidence comes in.

reply to post by Rasobasi420


I'm curious now. In what situation would it be perfectly acceptable and warrant no defensive actions when you wake up and find 2 people in your bedroom that by all rights are not supposed to be there?

Even if the "intruders" do have some right to be there (like a friend who lives in the house thinking it would be funny to freak you out by staring into your face when you wake up) they're still going to get a punch in the face. The fact that he did not stop his defensive actions kind of tells me they were not supposed to be there.

You must have some idea of how this is not what it seems to keep claiming it may not be what it seems. I'd like to hear it.

reply to post by kozmo






Exactly.

I think the same way as well, Create a law and advertise to the public.
Let the Criminals know that they can and will be shot for entering anothers home .

reply to post by Rasobasi420



I wouldn't say its 'over simplifying' the situation, more like taking it at face value.

The apparent circumstances 'suggest' foul play.

1) Unwanted intruders in your home.

2) Adequate force used to incapacitate the assailants.

3) The article claims the victim was hurt in the struggle as well.

The fact that they were known to each other means nothing. I know a few people that I would not think twice about snuffing out if they showed up in my bedroom at 3 in the morning.

I agree with the police doing their job, I just don't think the 'murder' card should even be considered.

Part of my focus on the article was the citing of our laws regarding home invasion. To cause 'grievous harm' would be my ONLY concern during an event like this.

I would want the attacker to go down and stay down, and I think most people would agree with that.

If the government is so concerned about the well-being of attackers, then perhaps they should educate the population about proper self defense.

When someone breaks into your home, you're generally unprepared and your first reaction is to reach for the closest knife, bat, or blunt object in order to protect yourself and loved ones.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
No one wants to ask why these two otherwise non criminals invaded the home? No one wants to know why these people were targeted, and why the house wasn't robbed?

Not necessarily. My main concern was the right of one to defend himself against an assailant. But since these individuals knew of each other, it raises some interesting questions.

Did this knowledge of one another constitute a friendship? To know of someone and to be their friend are two different concepts.

If the men were all friends, those who entered the home must have been familiar with the layout and knowledgeable of all things valuable. Instead of the men quietly gathering what items they could, they chose to enter loudly the bedroom to encounter the home-owner who could have easily identified them: I would like to know if they were masked. I could only see in this instance that they meant to cause the residents harm.

when the two men burst into the bedroom after forcibly entering the residence through a side door. -- CNEWS Source

Neither do I forcibly enter someone's home when I visit them, nor do I say to those who visit me, "Yeah, just come over, preferably around 3 a.m., and if the door is locked just kick it down. Hell, I'll probably be sleeping, so just come and kick down my bedroom door while you're at it. That'll teach me to be asleep!"

These men entered the home unlawfully, invited or uninvited, and they paid the price. If evidence is discovered that the home-owner or renter or his girlfriend is responsible in some way besides self-defense, then he or she or both will pay the price as well. You'll have no argument there.

This sounds like a case for Munch and Tutuola. Someone send them a U2U

If this fellow is charged, A jury would turn him loose with a snap of the finger if he is innocent of any corroborating circumstance with the now deceased perps. Prosecutors seem to be on a political vendetta for re-election and move up the ladder of corruption by any means at there disposal.

I'm not saying the individuals were justified in breaking in. I'm just saying that leaving it at "they broke in, so I killed them" to be extremely simplistic is all. There are 'black and white' scenarios, but they are often few and far between.

If, for example, this was a drug related incident where the attackers went looking for massive amounts of heroin, or coc aine, I'm not sure how it would be handled. Of course the renter would be in the right for defending himself, his GF and his property, but the legality of killing to protect illegal property may not be legal.

I just mean it's a tricky thing with so little info given.

Edit to add:

"We're investigating into the circumstances of the whole situation and that will determine whether or not there is a possibility of charges," he said

So there is no indication that charges will even be brought against the 'victim'. That's what investigations are for.

[edit on 4-1-2008 by Rasobasi420]

reply to post by Rasobasi420


The case of it being a botched drug theft is pretty simple. His house was broken into. He defended himself. Cops find drug stash. He gets charged with possession and intent depending on how much he had on the premises.

Whether they came in to steal a TV, heroine, a newspaper or just to stick his hand in some warm water to get him to pee his bed makes no difference.

Originally posted by ChrisF231

Then again this comes from the same government that wont even let their park rangers carry firearms because "it would hurt their relations with the public" yet somehow magically expect them to enforce all laws and stop poachers. So its not only the Canadian people who cant defend themselves ...

Yet gun related deaths in Canada are around .5 per 100,000 people, and in the US it's around 3.8/100,000. They must be doing something right, right?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


It certainly does make a difference. If a crackhouse were to be raided by criminals and the dealer shoots them dead, then the dealer will be charged with murder. Plain and simple.

Edit:
peoriapundit.com...
Maybe not so plain and simple. An example is a case in Peoria. Two men enter a crackhouse and proceed to pull a gun. A resident of the home stabbed the gunman to death, and was apprehended by the police, then released.

A jury later convicted the stabber of homicide.
peoriapundit.com...

Please bear with me as I search for more sources on this.

[edit on 4-1-2008 by Rasobasi420]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Yet gun related deaths in Canada are around .5 per 100,000 people, and in the US it's around 3.8/100,000. They must be doing something right, right?

Hello!? Non-sequitur! Apples to Oranges. When you can provide the statistics comparing the US and Canada on gun-related deaths perpetrated during during a break-in/home invasion and contrast those deaths with the number of homeowners killed versus the number of invaders killed during the invasion for each country - THEN - and only then will we have statistics worth discussing and debating.

Beyond that the percentage of population in urban center versus rural centers coupled with population density of each country obfuscates any relationship between the stats that you have presented.

reply to post by Rasobasi420


Why would the dealer be charged with murder? If some crackhead assaulted me for my wallet should I be charged with murder? If my pockets were full of crack I wouldn't be "allowed" to defend myself against a crackhead?

Oh, I get it. If my pockets are full of crack then I'm a "bad" person so self-defense becomes murder.

For someone only a few posts before claiming black and white situations are far in between and telling us to be open and not so quick to judge you certainly have your black and white ("plain and simple") views.

[edit on 4-1-2008 by thisguyrighthere]

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Oh sure you would, but since the death was a result of a felony being committed, you may be held accountable.

At least that's what they think in Peoria.

All I have to say is, You SHOULD be able to protect yourself and your property without worrying about being inside the law on use of force.

What do you say?

"Oh sorry Mr. nice criminal did I hit you too hard? Ill go get you some milk and cookies"

Even worse, it could be a bunch of young offenders who break into your home, kill you and basically get away with the murder.

Yeah, but if you brought the attack on yourself, then there should be further investigation.

If it turns out to be a standard home invasion with thugs and an innocent homeowner, then fine, let him go. If he was posing a danger to the rest of the community in some way, then he needs to be held accountable. Not only for the initial danger, but for any deaths that came along with it.

I go back to the crackhouse scenario.