You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
Murder convictions overturned on man who shot fleeing home intruders in the back
Quote:
A Nunavut man who fired a semi-automatic rifle at five people breaking into his home, killing three and wounding two, has had his murder convictions overturned.
In a strong defence of self-defence, a panel of appeal court judges declared a self-defence claim can be made even when three of the dead were shot in the back — one while wounded on the ground — and two who survived were shot while running away.
...
A feud between young men culminated in a confrontation at the small house of Chris Bishop, 27. At 3 a.m. Mr. Bishop called the RCMP saying men were trying to break in.
Long before help arrived, his front door started to give way to the kicking, and he retreated to his bedroom. He readied a gun.
He held what is called an SKS-D, which he legally owned. The semi-automatic rifle is supposed to hold only five bullets but Mr. Bishop fitted it with a 25-bullet “banana clip,” an illegal add-on that gives it a similar appearance to an AK-47.
...
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.
...
At his 2010 trial, a jury heard from a female witness that, at a party a week before the shootings, Mr. Bishop boasted he had shot people before. She also said he had been in a fistfight with a man, who would later be one of the men shot, and said the man was “going to pay.”
...
Because the shootings continued against retreating attackers and all of the victims had some shots to their backs suggests Mr. Bishop went too far, he wrote.
“In my view, it was open to the jury, on that evidence alone, to find that the appellant could not have reasonably believed the force he used was his only means of protecting himself.”
The majority decision, however, overturned the convictions and granted Mr. Bishop a new trial. He remains in Kingston Penitentiary, where he was serving his sentence.
She taught me right from wrong and always told me to stay positive and help others no matter how small the deed - that helping others gives us meaning to carry on. The sun is out today and it's a new day. Life is good. I just needed a slap in the face.
I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,646
Thanked 10,380 Times in 3,906 Posts
i highly doubt he'll be found not guilty in his new trial
but the reason he was granted a new trial was because evidence that the intruders had a history of crime was kept from the Jury
however one of the judges didn't agree and felt that knowledge wasn't necessary in determining the murderers actions
Well Jason, your mentality is in accordance with the law. The LAW values human life above all. If someone is walking away with your possessions, the law does not allow you to defend those possessions with deadly force. You may use reasonable force to get your belongings back but not deadly force. After all, it's material objects vs. human life regardless of how you feel about scumbag thieves. It's how the law works...
Unless deadly force was being used against him, or he reasonably believed deadly force was going to be used against him, the law most probably, not see his killings as justifiable.
DISCLAIMER: I have not read this case/story, I am making a general comment with regards to how the law would interpret/should interpret a situation.
My bookmarks are Reddit and REVscene, in that order
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,442
Thanked 13,465 Times in 1,814 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason00S2000
I could shoot someone in self-defense, but I don't think I could shoot someone in the back, while they're running away.
Quote:
At 3 a.m. Mr. Bishop called the RCMP saying men were trying to break in. Long before help arrived, his front door started to give way to the kicking, and he retreated to his bedroom. He readied a gun.
His property was crossed.
His door was locked. They broke through Def #1
He called the cops. They were faster than Def #2
He went to get his gun. I'd say that's Def #3
Quote:
The first man through the bedroom door carried a samurai sword. Another had a broken golf club.
The men were armed.
Have already shown a disregard for personal rights, and the rule of law by breaking an entering. These are now criminals.
Armed criminals are in my home.
You do not come armed unless you intend to harm.
I'm a strong believer in castle law.
Let's say I shot and killed your buddy in the hallway of my home.
Another on the lawn as you are retreating.
Do you expect me, to allow known criminals to get away?
What do you think happens if I allow you to walk?
You've already broken into my house once armed with weapons.
So he gets a new trial. Nobody has said he's not guilty or that he's allowed to shoot fleeing suspects. They said not all evidence was presented so he gets another crack.
I'd bet cold, hard cash he'll be found guilty.
If he shot/killed people inside his house I'd say he acted appropriately. Shooting people running away (in the back) is not. From the article:
Quote:
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.
That seems like calculated murder to me. Finishing off a wounded person.
So he gets a new trial. Nobody has said he's not guilty or that he's allowed to shoot fleeing suspects. They said not all evidence was presented so he gets another crack.
I'd bet cold, hard cash he'll be found guilty.
If he shot/killed people inside his house I'd say he acted appropriately. Shooting people running away (in the back) is not. From the article:
That seems like calculated murder to me. Finishing off a wounded person.
All fine and dandy, but if a gang of five are breaking into my house with the clear intent to maim or kill me, there is no way I'm letting them run, so that they can grab some guns, or more friends, or explosives, or whatever to finish the job. They chose to break into the dude's house. It was clearly a bad choice. Tough luck.
__________________
Have an E38? Check out E38Registry.org!
Well Jason, your mentality is in accordance with the law. The LAW values human life above all. If someone is walking away with your possessions, the law does not allow you to defend those possessions with deadly force. You may use reasonable force to get your belongings back but not deadly force. After all, it's material objects vs. human life regardless of how you feel about scumbag thieves. It's how the law works...
Unless deadly force was being used against him, or he reasonably believed deadly force was going to be used against him, the law most probably, not see his killings as justifiable.
DISCLAIMER: I have not read this case/story, I am making a general comment with regards to how the law would interpret/should interpret a situation.
+1 to this. If they were in his house and he shot them then it could have been a different story, but since they are running away there was no immediate danger/harm to himself
I wonder what would happen if this was in the states hhhhmmm
Let's say I shot and killed your buddy in the hallway of my home.
Another on the lawn as you are retreating.
Do you expect me, to allow known criminals to get away?
What do you think happens if I allow you to walk?
You've already broken into my house once armed with weapons.
I don't think you understand the Castle Doctrine completely, a doctrine which you are a "strong believer in."
In your self-created scenario, the intruder that you did not want to get away was walking away. You aren't just open to shooting someone that walks into your house with the castle doctrine, it's NOT how it works. You still need to have a reasonable belief that the intruder is about to use deadly force on you or cause serious bodily harm. How can the intruder be doing that if he's walking away...
The Castle Doctrine is significant not because of your ability to just shoot criminals that enter your house. That is not a "perk" if you will of the doctrine, you simply cannot use deadly force against someone who has no intention of doing so to you. The significance of the doctrine is that you are not obligated to RETREAT. In jurisdictions that do not use the castle doctrine, a home-owner would have the obligation of retreating, if he could do so safely, rather than confronting the intruder.
I hope these fucktards parents get hung too. Only dumb parents raise cunts. Not enough accountability.
If my dog bites another person, I'd be in deep shit, featured on the news and a whole segment about how my "dog's breed" is dangerous. It's how you train/raise any person.
He'll be found guilty in a new trial. I would put my money on manslaughter. He went over and beyond what is considered for a defense of self-defense, which is the absolute minimum amount of force required. Shooting someone in the back as they are fleeing, is in no way, the minimum. Plus, with the way that the SCC is making decisions as of late, he's fucked.
My AFC gave me an ABS CEL code of LOL while at WOT!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 1,843
Thanked 563 Times in 229 Posts
Society wins! Four criminals just got taken off our streets (3 permanently and one potentially for a very long time)
Oh wait, taxpayers lose
__________________
Cars:
02' Lexus IS300 5spd
07' BMW 323iA
05' BMW Z4 5spd
06' BMW 330i 6spd
10' Audi A4 quattro
08' BMW M3 6spd
15' Kawasaki Ninja300
08' Yamaha R6
10' Honda Ridgeline
17' Audi Q5
16' BMW X5D
The second the criminal scum turns around and walks away, you are not longer able to touch him. That is unless the police find evidence that he was retreating to obtain more weaponry to use against you.
I believe that I should be able to shoot a home intruder dead if he does not comply to any warnings I give him, from there on it's assumed that he means to harm me. But, I'm not going to shoot somebody in the back if they are clearly running away from me, that's as good as being the criminal.
Guns can be there to save your life, but they are not badges, catching or killing a home intruder that is running is up to the police.
Interesting, thanks for sharing the article. As I understand it, to use self-defense in this case (when you yourself caused death or grievous bodily harm) you need to have a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm AND there are no other reasonable grounds to prevent that death or grievous bodily harm.
The problem for this guy would be the second requirement. The trial judge didn't let the jury hear important contextual evidence that might have supported the guy's claim that there were no other reasonable grounds to prevent death.
Self-defense can work even if you shoot a person in the back of the head as they are leaving or kill someone sleeping in a truck although both these situations involved battered-wives.
I hope these fucktards parents get hung too. Only dumb parents raise cunts. Not enough accountability.
That is one of the most retarded things I have read on RS. Lots of fucking idiots have come from very decent homes, and lots of great people have come from shit homes. You want to talk about accountability, then you blame shit on someone that had no part in the decision making process of these assholes.
Well Jason, your mentality is in accordance with the law. The LAW values human life above all. If someone is walking away with your possessions, the law does not allow you to defend those possessions with deadly force. You may use reasonable force to get your belongings back but not deadly force. After all, it's material objects vs. human life regardless of how you feel about scumbag thieves. It's how the law works...
Unless deadly force was being used against him, or he reasonably believed deadly force was going to be used against him, the law most probably, not see his killings as justifiable.
DISCLAIMER: I have not read this case/story, I am making a general comment with regards to how the law would interpret/should interpret a situation.
Are you a lawyer? Or are you a law student? Just curious.
I think if I were the guy, I'd try to bargain a bit with prosecutors.
He did gone a bit too far on shooting on the back. But I think it's reasonable to argue that a person, under the stress of being broken into and possibly killed, his adrenaline kicked in and he couldn't suppress it in an adequate manner.
Nevertheless, it's very likely for people in similar situation to do similar things. If they can find an expert in victim psychology and consult about the possibility on this, or anything similar to explain his reactions, they might have a case.
why isn't anybody talking about the prohibited 25 round magazine.
Possession of that itself is 2 years in jail and a life long weapons ban
If he were using a legal magazine pinned at 5 rounds there would be a lot less carnage. Sure, he could've had multiple magazines, but the reloading of new magazines would show more guilty intent. If he had let 5 rounds off as they were coming into his house, more than likely they would've all ran off and he wouldn't needed to have killed them. But in small towns like that, its a matter of time before this situation went full circle.
This guy is going to jail ...i guess you can say he was "idle no more"
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
