REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum


Welcome to the REVscene Automotive Forum forums.

Registration is Free!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.


Go Back   REVscene Automotive Forum > Automotive Chat > Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events

Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events The 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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-01-2013, 11:56 PM   #1
Official Texas Ambassador
 
El Bastardo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 10,135
Thanked 5,356 Times in 1,206 Posts
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.


Chris Bishop has murder convictions overturned after shooting intruders | Canada | News | National Post
Advertisement
__________________
Follow Revscene on Twitter
Join Revscene on Facebook


[14-01, 13:15] GLOW older the chicken, sweeter the stirfry
El Bastardo is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 02-02-2013, 01:17 AM   #2
I STILL don't get it
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancity
Posts: 465
Thanked 526 Times in 136 Posts
good riddance. only scumbags break into peoples' homes. I'm glad they died. Even if it was at the hands of potentially, another scumbag
wstce92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 01:22 AM   #3
Cant Stop Modding Fat Cars w/ Cheap Pasts!
 
StylinRed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CELICAland
Posts: 23,046
Thanked 9,234 Times in 3,293 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

it's an interesting case

Last edited by StylinRed; 02-02-2013 at 01:33 AM.
StylinRed is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 02-02-2013, 01:36 AM   #4
Banned By Establishment
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 5,376
Thanked 435 Times in 189 Posts
I could shoot someone in self-defense, but I don't think I could shoot someone in the back, while they're running away.
Jason00S2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 02-02-2013, 01:50 AM   #5
RS Veteran
 
bcrdukes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YYZ / YUL
Posts: 24,828
Thanked 6,596 Times in 2,598 Posts
^
You're getting soft, Jason.
(That's what she said.)
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowguy
Fuck you hipster
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLOW View Post
no one said being a hipster was cheap.
bcrdukes is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 02-02-2013, 01:52 AM   #6
Banned By Establishment
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 5,376
Thanked 435 Times in 189 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcrdukes View Post
^
You're getting soft, Jason.
(That's what she said.)
If I were drunk, well, yeah I would empty the clip for sure haha
Jason00S2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 02:13 AM   #7
What hasn't Killed me, has made me more tolerant of RS!
 
Ron_Swanson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Richmond
Posts: 193
Thanked 418 Times in 54 Posts
^
are u talking about your penis or your gun?
Ron_Swanson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 02:15 AM   #8
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
 
parm104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,779
Thanked 2,599 Times in 672 Posts
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.
__________________
Clicky Clicky For my Feedback
parm104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 08:47 AM   #9
nns
Rs has made me the man i am today!
 
nns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 3,101
Thanked 1,747 Times in 533 Posts
Stand your ground.
__________________
nns
nns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 09:08 AM   #10
My bookmarks are Reddit and REVscene, in that order
 
Culverin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,443
Thanked 13,465 Times in 1,814 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason00S2000 View Post
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.
__________________
***Sarlo's Awesome Eatery ***
Facebook // Instagram
Culverin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 09:44 AM   #11
NEWBIE ACCOUNT!
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: VanShitty
Posts: 13
Thanked 6 Times in 3 Posts
^ I concur.
Zudi8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 11:52 AM   #12
Ready to be Man handled by RS!
 
dangonay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 1,798
Thanked 1,502 Times in 506 Posts
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.
dangonay is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 02-02-2013, 12:37 PM   #13
Even when im right, revscene.net is still right!
 
Mr.C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Richmond
Posts: 1,323
Thanked 1,696 Times in 424 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dangonay View Post
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!

http://www.e38registry.org/
Mr.C is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
This post FAILED by:
Old 02-02-2013, 01:15 PM   #14
& Associates Inc.
 
ruthless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Canada Eh
Posts: 1,625
Thanked 1,215 Times in 409 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by parm104 View Post
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
__________________
Ruthless and Associates Inc
Serving Revscene proudly since 2008
ruthless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 01:23 PM   #15
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
 
parm104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,779
Thanked 2,599 Times in 672 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Culverin View Post
His property was crossed.

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 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.
__________________
Clicky Clicky For my Feedback

Last edited by parm104; 02-03-2013 at 12:56 AM.
parm104 is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 02-02-2013, 01:35 PM   #16
rsx
Los Bastardo owned my ass at least once
 
rsx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 6,223
Thanked 3,381 Times in 805 Posts
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.
rsx is offline   Reply With Quote
This post FAILED by:
Old 02-02-2013, 01:47 PM   #17
RS controls my life!
 
Wykydtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lower Mainland
Posts: 782
Thanked 90 Times in 38 Posts
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.
Wykydtron is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 02-02-2013, 02:11 PM   #18
My AFC gave me an ABS CEL code of LOL while at WOT!
 
bing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 1,842
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 (rip)
07' BMW 323iA (sold)
05' BMW Z4 5spd (sold)
06' BMW 330i 6spd (sold)
10' Audi A4 quattro
08' BMW M3 6spd
10' Honda Ridgeline
17' Audi Q5

Motorcycles:
15' Kawasaki Ninja300
08' Yamaha R6

bing is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 02-02-2013, 02:36 PM   #19
My homepage has been set to RS
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: surrey
Posts: 2,036
Thanked 3,872 Times in 695 Posts
,,

Last edited by vitaminG; 05-16-2013 at 06:53 PM.
vitaminG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 05:29 PM   #20
Even when im right, revscene.net is still right!
 
Yodamaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 1,324
Thanked 1,481 Times in 465 Posts
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.
Yodamaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 06:12 PM   #21
#savethemanuals
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Richmond
Posts: 3,755
Thanked 2,232 Times in 860 Posts
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..
__________________
987 Porsche Cayman S 6MT


Gone:
E92 BMW 335i
AP1 Honda S2000
FA1 Honda Civic

Last edited by Energy; 02-02-2013 at 06:27 PM.
Energy is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 02-02-2013, 09:25 PM   #22
I subscribe to the Fight Club ONLY
 
westopher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: vancouver
Posts: 7,167
Thanked 18,419 Times in 3,973 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsx View Post
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.
westopher is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 02-02-2013, 09:43 PM   #23
Banned By Establishment
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 303
Thanked 939 Times in 124 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by parm104 View Post
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.
Ronith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 11:55 PM   #24
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
 
Hehe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: YVR/TPE
Posts: 2,955
Thanked 1,385 Times in 576 Posts
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.
__________________
Nothing for now
Hehe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 12:16 AM   #25
Captain Happy Bubble is my Homeboy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 305
Thanked 55 Times in 22 Posts
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"

Last edited by ynot-llat; 02-03-2013 at 12:22 AM.
ynot-llat is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net