Charged with attempted murder for shooting a home invasion criminal

[Talking moose]

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.breitb...ed-murder/amp/

[brslk]

He had my sympathy until I saw the "Possession with the intent to traffic" charge.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by brslk

He had my sympathy until I saw the "Possession with the intent to traffic" charge.

Yup, saw that, looks like some people came to rob a drug dealer.

[58thecat]

Good caught a wanker!

[bobtodrick]

And yet if a police officer disarmed a suspect and then shot him we would expect holy hell to be paid.

[CaberTosser]

That article was overlooking lots in regards to the event. The homeowner was a criminal before the other bad guys even broke in for some inter-criminal hijinx. There was likely another firearm found aside from the one the bad guys brought along, hence the storage and possession charges. If both parties involved died in an exchange of gunfire Halifax would be better off. The firearms community would be better off not choosing an example such as drug dealers battling things out amongst themselves to rally our forces behind, instead we should stick to backing up fellow law abiding firearms owners.

[elkhunter11]

The best outcome would have been for all of them to have killed each other. It would have rid us of drug dealers and home invaders, and the taxpayers would not be paying to try the survivors, and then pay again to keep them in our prison system.

[R3illy]

criminal or not no one should be charged when defending their life in their own home which this sounds like it was.

[ChickakooKookoo]

Breitbart stoking fear. Shocking.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by bobtodrick

And yet if a police officer disarmed a suspect and then shot him we would expect holy hell to be paid.

Why? I don't know of anyone who would want the cop to pay for that.

[DiabeticKripple]

i like how he gets slammed with possession of a weapon charges, only because he disarmed a thug.

[brslk]

Originally Posted by DiabeticKripple

i like how he gets slammed with possession of a weapon charges, only because he disarmed a thug.

He had a ban from having weapons. I'm sure for good reason.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by brslk

He had a ban from having weapons. I'm sure for good reason.

So he should not have disarmed the invader?

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by Newview01

So he should not have disarmed the invader?

Or the police later searched the house and found 5 shotguns in the basement maybe. It's unclear why the additional charges were laid, you're making a big assumption here.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by R3illy

criminal or not no one should be charged when defending their life in their own home which this sounds like it was.

Some call it a home, others might call it a criminal place of business. It they had a bunch of fentanyl in stock they might well be murderers...... Such people deserve no safe place of refuge

[pitw]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

Some call it a home, others might call it a criminal place of business. It they had a bunch of fentanyl in stock they might well be murderers...... Such people deserve no safe place of refuge

So then guilty until proven innocent?

[MAC]

Originally Posted by R3illy

criminal or not no one should be charged when defending their life in their own home which this sounds like it was.

They disarmed the invaders life was no longer in Danger.
Sounds more like was trying to get rid of the compeitition.

Originally Posted by DiabeticKripple

i like how he gets slammed with possession of a weapon charges, only because he disarmed a thug.

"improper storage of a firearm, pointing a firearm, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm knowing that possession is unauthorized, and possession for the purpose of trafficking."

You dont get these charges for dissarming a crook.


Scum bags deserved all they get and plus more, he was a dealer and already had guns. Pile on the charges to get him as much time as they can.

MAC

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by pitw

So then guilty until proven innocent?

The guy was already under a weapons ban and had enough illegal drugs on hand for possession with intent to distribute charges, do you want it written on large construction paper using crayons to get the picture? The person is a career criminal and was being targeted by other criminals. Its not a surprise when bad stuff happens because those are the circles they run in. I'd like a more in-depth report that details the offenders entire criminal history, then perhaps others might begin to comprehend.

If they walk like a duck, quack like a duck, fly like a duck and eat like a duck then they're most likely a duck. Same goes for criminals and their particular habits.

The important part is that law-abiding firearms owners interests are best-served keeping a wide distance from criminals and other ne'er do wells. Firearms advocacy groups would deservedly be torn a new one if they sided with the offender in such cases.

[R3illy]

Im surprised at some of the responses here as almost everyone agrees we need better laws to protect our home and our property.

caber- peta loving hippies regularly wish harm on hunters. If it was up to them they would have different laws for us hunters just like you seem to want for the guy charged with murder.

It seems your suggesting a criminal should have less rights to defend his home then others or do you think home owners shouldnt be able to defend themself at all?

[bucksman]

Originally Posted by R3illy

criminal or not no one should be charged when defending their life in their own home which this sounds like it was.

or how about the part where it says “several shots were fired as the suspects fled.”
I was under the impression that once the attacker is disarmed and "fleeing" that your life was no longer in danger, so shooting at them as they run away might be a big reason he is being charged?

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The best outcome would have been for all of them to have killed each other. It would have rid us of drug dealers and home invaders, and the taxpayers would not be paying to try the survivors, and then pay again to keep them in our prison system.

We think alike.

[R3illy]

Bucksman- If u disarm a home invader in your house will you take the honor system and hope they dont have another gun? It's one thing if the guys were a block away when he shot at them but in the heated moment when you disarm a thug wouldnt your first instinct be to shoot?

We are talking split second decisions.

What we all know is our laws for defending our home suck and they need to be improved. These laws should be upheld the same for everyone regardless of ones past history.

[Gray Wolf]

Originally Posted by bucksman

or how about the part where it says “several shots were fired as the suspects fled.”
I was under the impression that once the attacker is disarmed and "fleeing" that your life was no longer in danger, so shooting at them as they run away might be a big reason he is being charged?

BBBingo !!!
.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by R3illy

Im surprised at some of the responses here as almost everyone agrees we need better laws to protect our home and our property.

caber- peta loving hippies regularly wish harm on hunters. If it was up to them they would have different laws for us hunters just like you seem to want for the guy charged with murder.

It seems your suggesting a criminal should have less rights to defend his home then others or do you think home owners shouldnt be able to defend themself at all?

Don't go putting words in my mouth. I'm a big proponent of Castle doctrine but I'll throw in a caveat for someone who shouldn't be armed in the first place due to their criminal livelihood. All I'm saying is that the majority of the law abiding firearms community should not be defending criminals if we want to achieve more sensible firearms laws and even the right to CCW. We won't get the public who know little to nothing about firearms to sympathize with us if we're defending Bonnie & Clyde. If Richie Cunningham has a paperwork lapse and gets busted sure we want to help him, but convicted felons under weapons prohibitions no bloody way should they recieve help from us, it's their kind who have us the stupid knee-jerk laws in the first place!! They are the enemy. They are the ones responsible for the majority of firearms related crime, the should in no way shape or form be helped by us. Consider for a moment how many firearms murders the drug criminals commit and then ask yourself if these people are benefitting lawful firearms owners........ They are the enemy, full stop.

The criminals can defend their homes with pepper spray and Louisville sluggers. Firearms should be for people who can contribute to civil society.

[kujoseto]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The best outcome would have been for all of them to have killed each other. It would have rid us of drug dealers and home invaders, and the taxpayers would not be paying to try the survivors, and then pay again to keep them in our prison system.

Post of the year.
The second you run for prime minister, you have my vote.

[bucksman]

We are talking split second decisions.

What we all know is our laws for defending our home suck and they need to be improved. These laws should be upheld the same for everyone regardless of ones past history.[/QUOTE]

agreed about defending your home part, but this isn't a dad trying to protect his wife and kids. we are all reading the same article and in that article it says the invaders were "fleeing" as in running away/trying to leave the scene. this isn't some Jackie chan movie where he performs some sweet spinning head kick and disarms all 3 of the invaders at the same time, theres a reason they ran and theres a reason the "homeowner" didn't get shot. im just reading the information presented in the article

[EZM]

Originally Posted by ChickakooKookoo

Breitbart stoking fear. Shocking.

Yup - Brietbart is such a POS rag newspaper. Worse than CNN.

Tell "half a story" and all the toothless brainless hillbillies begin to wave their fists in the air.

Like someone said - best result - both of them die in the shoot out. Any excuse to jail a drug trafficker - good enough for me.

This was NOT a law abiding citizen protecting his property. If that was the case the story would be legit.

Typical rag story.

[Au revoir, Gopher]

Originally Posted by R3illy

If u disarm a home invader in your house will you take the honor system and hope they dont have another gun? It's one thing if the guys were a block away when he shot at them but in the heated moment when you disarm a thug wouldnt your first instinct be to shoot?

The point is, we don't know when/where the shots were fired. Were they fired while the invaders fled across the kitchen, or while the ran down the front steps, or while they ran down the sidewalk? The article doesn't say.

These laws should be upheld the same for everyone regardless of ones past history.

While I agree with that statement, when presented with incomplete information, I will make different assumptions based on "ones past history." In this case, I am assuming that the attempted murder charges are warranted.

ARG

[R3illy]

if the guys were fleeing the scene the charge is warranted. We all agree on that in this case.. what i find interesting is in the biggar sask thread many posters here claimed the farmer shouldnt have been charged with murder when he shot the kid that was fleeing his farm.

Now in this significantly more dangerous, life and death scenario people think charges in this case were warranted because the guy was a thug/drug dealer??

I guess you get a free pass if your a farmer. Oh the hilarity of some people.

[Ranets]

Exactly right on your last comment Caber