Murder convictions overturned on man who shot fleeing home intruders in the back
 

http://i.imgur.com/872bFK8.jpg

Chris Bishop has murder convictions overturned after shooting intruders | Canada | News | National Post

good riddance. only scumbags break into peoples' homes. I'm glad they died. Even if it was at the hands of potentially, another scumbag

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

it's an interesting case

I could shoot someone in self-defense, but I don't think I could shoot someone in the back, while they're running away.

^
You're getting soft, Jason.
(That's what she said.)

If I were drunk, well, yeah I would empty the clip for sure haha

^
are u talking about your penis or your gun?

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.

Stand your ground.

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


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.

^ I concur.

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.

+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

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.

Society wins! Four criminals just got taken off our streets (3 permanently and one potentially for a very long time)

Oh wait, taxpayers lose :okay:

,,

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 wonder how this will play out..

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.

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"