Nunavut man has murder convictions overturned in self defence case

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Was he justified?

For opening fire when they invaded his house? Hell yes. They were a threat to his life, and he had every right to keep them from killing/beating him to a pulp.

For shooting people who were retreating? Hell no. That's murder as far as I'm concerned, or manslaughter at the very best.

SimpleThunda':
Pretty much how it should be.

Sucks for the people who got killed, but serves them right for ganging up on a single person.

Some judge, jury and executioner on the spot. I like it.

So the fact that he instigated a fight the week before, said that one of them "had to pay" and bragged many times that he had shot people before is completely irrelevant?

Shaoken:

SimpleThunda':
Pretty much how it should be.

Sucks for the people who got killed, but serves them right for ganging up on a single person.

Some judge, jury and executioner on the spot. I like it.

So the fact that he instigated a fight the week before, said that one of them "had to pay" and bragged many times that he had shot people before is completely irrelevant?

It is. People bicker all the time. That doesn't justify breaking into someone's house and ganging up on him.

Vigilantees need to be severely punished for their murders for order to be secured. This is very bad.

The Gentleman:

prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

Once a perpetrator is retreating, self-defense no longer applies as it is no longer necessary to continue to engage.

It could be argued that the retreat did not imply a definitively final termination of hostilities.

Shaoken:

Anyway, I don't see people pointing out that the man in question had an illegal 25 round mag in his possession. What possible valid use could he have had for such a magazine size for a rifle?

You can't throw sarcasm like this into the middle of a serious argument or people might actually think that you are serious about it.

randomsix:

The Gentleman:

prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

Once a perpetrator is retreating, self-defense no longer applies as it is no longer necessary to continue to engage.

It could be argued that the retreat did not imply a definitively final termination of hostilities.

Considering that the deceased were killed at over 40 metres away from the house and still running, hostilities were over for the moment. Considering that he had already called the police who were on their way, all he had to do was wait in his house for the police to arrive. ANd if, for whatever reason, his attackers decided that the first time was just a fluke and charging again would totally pay off for them (and by this point several people had come out to see what the shooting was about, so they would of had to have known there would be even more people out), he has a long-range rifle and the benifit of having a home to protect him. Worst came to worst he could have simply shot them when they charged his house again. He wouldn't have run out of ammo (witnesses say he emptied his magazine after killing the man trying to get up, and that was a 25-round mag), and when the cops showed up he could have told them who attacked him, so they could then go and arrest the men with bullets in them for attempted murder.

Shaoken:

Anyway, I don't see people pointing out that the man in question had an illegal 25 round mag in his possession. What possible valid use could he have had for such a magazine size for a rifle?

You can't throw sarcasm like this into the middle of a serious argument or people might actually think that you are serious about it.

I am being serious.

A man starts a fight with another man, after bragging about having shot people before, and has a number of illegal modifications to his firearm in question. It was only a few months ago that someone posted a story of an American man trying to game the self-defense laws to his advantage (and getting found guilty because a jury didn't buy it). All the people who are stopping just short of calling this man a hero keep ignoring the fact that he was breaking several laws already, on top of being no saint himself.

Seanchaidh:

generals3:
You are making a very big assumption when you claim they were there to kill him. Maybe they just wanted to give him a good beating for whatever reason. And even if they would be there to kill them the fact remains they posed no threat to him anymore

Could it not be argued that people who have attacked you in your own house, who therefore know where you live, are a continuing threat whether presently in the act of attacking or not? Especially if previously in that encounter you had been shooting at them, as people tend to resent that?

That's what a prison is for.

Kopikatsu:

They broke into his house, hunted him down, and then broke down the door to his bedroom while armed with deadly weapons. The assumption that they were going to kill him is not a very big jump in logic.

While it may not be a big jump in logic it still remains an assumption. As such even if your logic is deemed acceptable (that you forfeit your life when you go out to kill someone else) you'd still need to prove they were going to kill him. Until that is proven even by your standards the culprit is guilty of murder.

generals3:

Kopikatsu:

They broke into his house, hunted him down, and then broke down the door to his bedroom while armed with deadly weapons. The assumption that they were going to kill him is not a very big jump in logic.

While it may not be a big jump in logic it still remains an assumption. As such even if your logic is deemed acceptable (that you forfeit your life when you go out to kill someone else) you'd still need to prove they were going to kill him. Until that is proven even by your standards the culprit is guilty of murder.

And even then, if there were three corpses in his house, with all the evidence present he would have gotten off on self-defense. Considering the effort they took to break into the room he holed up in on top of breaking into the house, and given their armaments, it's a logical leap to assume they weren't looking to do anything less than peramently injure him.

randomsix:

It could be argued that the retreat did not imply a definitively final termination of hostilities.

So it's okay to kill anyone you're at odds with at any point because it's the only way to be sure they're not coming for you some time in the future?

I'm sorry, but that's exactly what you said "could be argued".

Yes. Yes it "could" be argued, but it would still be asinine and one would be a complete, utter and irredeemable moron to argue it.

Vegosiux:
So it's okay to kill anyone you're at odds with at any point because it's the only way to be sure they're not coming for you some time in the future?

Yeah. I was always under the impression that issues of self-defense (or defense of others) were predicated on immediacy of threats to life and limb.

Skeleon:

Vegosiux:
So it's okay to kill anyone you're at odds with at any point because it's the only way to be sure they're not coming for you some time in the future?

Yeah. I was always under the impression that issues of self-defense (or defense of others) were predicated on immediacy of threats to life and limb.

Yep. Even stand your ground recognizes that if the threat has been neutralized, ie they're crawling away in the snow wounded, there is no longer an immediate threat and thus self-defense can not be used as a defense.

Skeleon:

Vegosiux:
So it's okay to kill anyone you're at odds with at any point because it's the only way to be sure they're not coming for you some time in the future?

Yeah. I was always under the impression that issues of self-defense (or defense of others) were predicated on immediacy of threats to life and limb.

They are. That's why I'm fully in the camp of saying this guy wasn't defending himself, he was executing them and should go up for murder 2.

LetalisK:
A firearm is an equalizer, but not by that much.

I wouldn't say a gun which can fire 25 rounds in a matter of seconds is an "equalizer".

I don't care if his attackers were the Clones of Bruce Lee, he was barricaded in a room with a gun. That's the kind of thing you call in a SWAT team for, not a bunch of guys with improvised weapons and fists.

LetalisK:
In a life or death situation, issuing a warning is one of those things that are nice to have, but not always practical.

A bunch of people trying to break down the door to a room you're in is not yet a life or death situation yet, it could easily become one (and it did) but it is not yet. He clearly had plenty of time to warn them that he had a gun. If he chose to wait until they did break down the door and then open fire without warning, that's not him responding out of fear, that's a calculated ambush intended to cause maximum loss of life.

They were clearly completely unprepared and unwilling to face someone with a gun, as evidenced by the fact that they ran away. If he had given them opportunity, maybe they could have done so before it even got to the "life or death situation" stage and maybe lives could have been spared.

Blablahb:
What's next US judges? Adam Lanza wasn't guilty of anything because he was defending himself against getting bad grades?

Did you even read the article? Probably not.

This happened in Canada, of all places. And yet you automatically assume it happened in the US because a firearm was involved.

evilthecat:

LetalisK:
A firearm is an equalizer, but not by that much.

I wouldn't say a gun which can fire 25 rounds in a matter of seconds is an "equalizer".

I don't care if his attackers were the Clones of Bruce Lee, he was barricaded in a room with a gun. That's the kind of thing you call in a SWAT team for, not a bunch of guys with improvised weapons and fists.

Firearms are not this magic wand that creates miracles in every situation. This is not an action movie. A firearm does not automatically trump being outnumbered that badly. Considering the situation he was in, anything short of a firearm would not have been sufficient for his defense and without the chokepoint the firearm probably wouldn't have been sufficient even then. And having a closed door =/= barricaded. Even if it's locked =/= barricaded. Random aside: A riot grenade might have worked instead of a firearm, I suppose, but I don't think civilians are allowed those. Though considering the close quarters, he probably would have incapacitated himself just as much as them, thereby nullifying its defensive applications.

A bunch of people trying to break down the door to a room you're in is not yet a life or death situation yet, it could easily become one (and it did) but it is not yet.

At the front door, which is what the article tells use was broken down, no, no warning was necessary because he did not yet possess a weapon. When he was in his bedroom with his weapon, with a much less sturdy door that would have taken much less time to break down if any time at all even if it's locked, it's entirely reasonable to believe it may not have been practical to give a warning.

He clearly had plenty of time to warn them that he had a gun. If he chose to wait until they did break down the door and then open fire without warning, that's not him responding out of fear, that's a calculated ambush intended to cause maximum loss of life.

You're right, it couldn't have possibly have been that he was scared to death and he may not have been thinking "I should warn these guys breaking into my bedroom that I intend to meet their lethal force with my own." Which is ultimately irrelevant because...

They were clearly completely unprepared and unwilling to face someone with a gun, as evidenced by the fact that they ran away. If he had given them opportunity, maybe they could have done so before it even got to the "life or death situation" stage and maybe lives could have been spared.

...the attacker does not need to know you're going to respond against their threat to your life or grievous bodily harm with lethal force of your own. The attacked has an obligation to retreat, not to save the attackers from their own belligerence should they push it further.

Edit: Changed the first paragraph around to make more sense.

Kopikatsu:

Xan Krieger:
"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."
That is murder, he had defended his home successfully when they were running away, what this guy did is a straight up execution. I think he was right in shooting up till the point they left the house running and screaming.

Their lives were forfeit the moment they broke into his home with weapons. The only tragedy in this case is that he didn't get all five of them.

Completely agree, they knew the risks and they deserve every bit of it. Those men he killed won't be harming anyone ever again.

I honestly can't believe some of the people on here. Victimizing the criminals instead of the owner of the house. "Oh he should of warned them" "Oh he shouldn't have kept shooting" quit being such pussies. Those criminals had evil intentions and were more than likely going to harm anyone they found in that building. They deserved to be killed, they are scumbags of the Earth and now they won't EVER try to break into a house again.

"OH IT WAS MURDER WHEN HE SHOT THE GUY TRYING TO GET UP AJSFSKJBA" You do realize that if he didn't kill that man he could have gone on to cause more crime right?

Put yourself in the defenders situation. Hes in a room and 5 guys are trying to break in. You have no idea what their intentions are or what they have on them. The ONLY logical and RIGHT thing to do would be to arm yourself and defend what you own and love. Quit sympathizing for criminals, this man is a hero for defending his home and doing the right thing.

"OH HE SHUD HAV CALLED TEH COPS DUH"

Yes, because Cops surely would have arrived that instant and prevented those guys from doing any harm.

Grow some balls people.

"The judge did not allow Mr. Bishop's lawyer to tell jurors that those who died had a history of burglary, violent crimes and home invasions. During deliberations, the jury asked to revisit only one part of the trial transcript - that of Mr. Bishop's boast of prior shootings."

His past is irrelevant in this case.

This is what makes me sick about our culture, we victimize criminals, and we criminalize the victims. Great logic guys.

Fisher321:

"OH IT WAS MURDER WHEN HE SHOT THE GUY TRYING TO GET UP AJSFSKJBA" You do realize that if he didn't kill that man he could have gone on to cause more crime right?

Doesn't matter. He has a right to defend himself, as he did, not to be Tom Cruise in Minority Report.

Fisher321:
Grow some balls people.

Yeah, shooting people in the back while they are running away sure takes balls...

Fisher321:

Put yourself in the defenders situation. Hes in a room and 5 guys are trying to break in. You have no idea what their intentions are or what they have on them. The ONLY logical and RIGHT thing to do would be to arm yourself and defend what you own and love. Quit sympathizing for criminals, this man is a hero for defending his home and doing the right thing.

No. Defending your home with lethal force is not the right thing to do. Your life yes, but not your home. On top of that he killed one who posed no threat anymore whatsoever. Executing a wounded person crawling on the snow is not defence. That's a plain execution. And this makes him a murderer. So i'll have to throw your argument against you: stop sympathizing with murderers.

Fisher321:
You do realize that if he didn't kill that man he could have gone on to cause more crime right?

You know that that is NRA bullshit. Criminals aren't some kind of alternate species of humans, and contrary to gun owner logic 'black people' or 'hispanics' aren't subraces of the species 'criminal'. We're all people, and sometimes people have a reason to do something which is considered a crime. Like wanting to beat up someone who assaulted your friend. Or cowardly lying in wait with a gun and trying to murder five people.

In this case from the information available, the murdering had been causing trouble for quite a while and had assaulted and threatened at least one of the victims before. So they went to his house to put him in place, and he murdered them.

Fisher321:
Put yourself in the defenders situation. Hes in a room and 5 guys are trying to break in. You have no idea what their intentions are or what they have on them.

Oh yes he had an idea. He had been picking fights and threatening them before, and there's no way in hell nobody said anything or you couldn't read their bodylanguage.

And actually I have faced armed or multiple attackers before. It's always possible to avoid deadly violence and firearms are never needed. For one thing his house has windows. Windows you can use to get out. And if you're going to pick up a weapon anyway, it's nothing short of a requirement to make your attackers aware of that; they change their minds in all cases.

Of course in most cases in the US, changing their mind means pulling a gun too and killing you, but hey.

Fisher321:
His past is irrelevant in this case.

It proves he was looking for trouble with them, and he had a history of violent behaviour towards his victims.

It sends the scenario of "Dude did nothing, people came to his house to kill him" to the land of fairytales for one thing.

Fisher321:
This is what makes me sick about our culture, we victimize criminals, and we criminalize the victims. Great logic guys.

That's totally true. It's sickening how you can claim the victims deserve to be shot in the back, while the coward murdering them is some sort of hero in your book.

Xan Krieger:
"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."
That is murder, he had defended his home successfully when they were running away, what this guy did is a straight up execution. I think he was right in shooting up till the point they left the house running and screaming.

Right, and that poor murderer gets to break into people's houses with weapons. Why do you not place emphasis on the first crime.

Champthrax:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/31/chris-bishop/

Just an interesting article I was reading, though I am sure some of you may find it contentious

The Facts:
-A feud between young men resulted in a dispute at the house of the accused
-Accused called police
-The people he was feuding with, of which there were 5, broke into his house with weapons
-He retreated to his bedroom, where he readied his legal semi-auto rifle
-he swapped out the 5 round mag for an illegal 25 round mag
-When they broke into his bedroom he opened fire, and chased them as they retreated, killing 3 of them outside and leaving 2 wounded

That is just a summary, and you will have a better understanding if you read the article.

I agree with the appeal judges who overturned his murder charges. Even though he pursued his attackers, I do not have much sympathy for them as they has broken onto private property with the intent to harm.

what do you think?

It's called common sense he is not a sniper, and even snipers don't have a good chance of hitting moving targets charging at them with weapons with only 5 rounds in close quarters. The first guy even had a SWORD not just a prop sword but a samurai sword. I don't know about you but any sane person would not think that group of people would JUST injure him.

Fisher321:
I honestly can't believe some of the people on here. Victimizing the criminals instead of the owner of the house. "Oh he should of warned them" "Oh he shouldn't have kept shooting" quit being such pussies. Those criminals had evil intentions and were more than likely going to harm anyone they found in that building. They deserved to be killed, they are scumbags of the Earth and now they won't EVER try to break into a house again.

"OH IT WAS MURDER WHEN HE SHOT THE GUY TRYING TO GET UP AJSFSKJBA" You do realize that if he didn't kill that man he could have gone on to cause more crime right?

Put yourself in the defenders situation. Hes in a room and 5 guys are trying to break in. You have no idea what their intentions are or what they have on them. The ONLY logical and RIGHT thing to do would be to arm yourself and defend what you own and love. Quit sympathizing for criminals, this man is a hero for defending his home and doing the right thing.

"OH HE SHUD HAV CALLED TEH COPS DUH"

Yes, because Cops surely would have arrived that instant and prevented those guys from doing any harm.

Grow some balls people.

"The judge did not allow Mr. Bishop's lawyer to tell jurors that those who died had a history of burglary, violent crimes and home invasions. During deliberations, the jury asked to revisit only one part of the trial transcript - that of Mr. Bishop's boast of prior shootings."

His past is irrelevant in this case.

This is what makes me sick about our culture, we victimize criminals, and we criminalize the victims. Great logic guys.

HEy, Uh, Fisher...

You know me, and you know where I stand on both firearms and self defense, and even I say that once the assailants were in retreat, he should not have shot them. Defending against attack is one thing. Gunning down people trying to escape you is another. The threat was neutralized. Someone running away from you is no longer an immediate threat and therefore does not warrant lethal force.

You going to call ME a pussy then? You think I sympathized with the criminals?!

Gergar12:

Xan Krieger:
"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."
That is murder, he had defended his home successfully when they were running away, what this guy did is a straight up execution. I think he was right in shooting up till the point they left the house running and screaming.

Right, and that poor murderer gets to break into people's houses with weapons. Why do you not place emphasis on the first crime.

Funny, none of the five had a history of murder.

Champthrax:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/31/chris-bishop/

Just an interesting article I was reading, though I am sure some of you may find it contentious

The Facts:
-A feud between young men resulted in a dispute at the house of the accused
-Accused called police
-The people he was feuding with, of which there were 5, broke into his house with weapons
-He retreated to his bedroom, where he readied his legal semi-auto rifle
-he swapped out the 5 round mag for an illegal 25 round mag
-When they broke into his bedroom he opened fire, and chased them as they retreated, killing 3 of them outside and leaving 2 wounded

That is just a summary, and you will have a better understanding if you read the article.

I agree with the appeal judges who overturned his murder charges. Even though he pursued his attackers, I do not have much sympathy for them as they has broken onto private property with the intent to harm.

what do you think?

It's called common sense he is not a sniper, and even snipers don't have a good chance of hitting moving targets charging at them with weapons with only 5 rounds in close quarters. The first guy even had a SWORD not just a prop sword but a samurai sword. I don't know about you but any sane person would not think that group of people would JUST injure him.

Funny, despite not being a sniper he still managed to kill all three while they were over 40 metres away from his house, all whilst they were running away ie presenting a smaller profile.

So apparantly shooting men charging him is difficult, but he managed to hit people running away from him.

Just because someone is running away doesn't mean they've stopped being a threat to you. The assailants could have simply been performing a tactical retreat to gain cover, grab their guns, or come back later when they're better prepared. It's understandable that shooting people who are running away from you would be illegal since they are unlikely to still be a threat, but killing the assailants was the correct tactical decision for ensuring his own safety, which should really be his primary concern.

In my opinion the assailants forfeited their rights when they attacked him and he was justified in treating them as enemy combatants and killing them as they attempted to retreat from his superior weaponry. If the assailants had put their hands in the air and surrendered instead of running away, killing them would have been less justified but still somewhat arguable because of the danger of controlling five prisoners until the police arrived.

I do find it amusing how poorly armed the assailants were, why would one of them be carrying a sword. It sounds like Kill Bill, but if the bride had just pulled out a gun and killed everyone.

This was no more than manslaughter; murder charges were bogus. The criminals attempted murder. Had he merely thwarted them, then later raided the hospital where the villains were being treated and killed them that would be murder.

I call it wrong but when five people break into your home with weapons and you fear for you life, do you honestly know what you are capable of? It takes years of training to properly condition yourself in spite of things like fear, adrenaline and the reality of life or death situations. The ruling rightfully pardons this lapse of judgment in the heat of the moment.

Personally though? Good riddance. I don't believe in the "time-out"/"I quit" defense when a victim retreats and attackers pursue anyway. It certainly didn't afford the man any defense; the criminals don't deserve a better legal standing than the victim.

Blablahb:
Criminals aren't some kind of alternate species of humans, and contrary to gun owner logic 'black people' or 'hispanics' aren't subraces of the species 'criminal'. We're all people, and sometimes people have a reason to do something which is considered a crime. Like wanting to beat up someone who assaulted your friend. Or cowardly lying in wait with a gun and trying to murder five people.

One, quit generalizing, there are 80 million gun owners in the US alone, the NRA only has a membership of about 4 million. Assuming every gun owner is a right wing conspiracy nut who has a life time NRA membership and a closet full of AR-15s is just as bad as assuming everyone who's a person of color is a criminal.

Two, there's a better alternative than assaulting the guy who assaulted one of your friends. File a police report, make an angry rant on Facebook, punch a wall. Resorting to criminal activity to get back at a criminal is just plain stupid. You are not the Punisher.

In this case from the information available, the murdering had been causing trouble for quite a while and had assaulted and threatened at least one of the victims before. So they went to his house to put him in place, and he murdered them.

Both sides escalated the situation and put themselves there. So instead of breaking into a guys home to assault him, or him getting himself cornered, they should have just told him to fuck off and go about their lives like rational human beings.

There are very few reasons to resort to violence, this I will admit. Just because someone called you a name does not grant you immunity from the law when you go to bash his head in with a bat.

Both sides are a fault, this is a fact.

And actually I have faced armed or multiple attackers before. It's always possible to avoid deadly violence and firearms are never needed. For one thing his house has windows. Windows you can use to get out. And if you're going to pick up a weapon anyway, it's nothing short of a requirement to make your attackers aware of that; they change their minds in all cases.

In Arizona, we have the Castle Doctrine, which basically boils down to this:
If a malevolent force is trying to enter your home (Castle), you are not obligated to retreat. If it can be proven that said force was intent on doing you harm, you can deter or neutralize them by any mean necessary.

There are also an unspoken set of rules when trying to deter an attacker trying to break in:
1. Call the cops
2. Let it be known that you have called the cops
3. If they persist, arm yourself (Bat, golf club, firearm, mace, etc.)
4. Let it be known that you are armed
5. If the persist, and get in, you are well within the law to take a good swing, give a good spray, or shoot.

Break any of these rules and you leave yourself to being rolled by the courts.

Of course in most cases in the US, changing their mind means pulling a gun too and killing you, but hey.

Wait, when did Canada get annexed by the US? Are we in the Fallout Universe? Because last I checked Canada was a separate country with its own courts.

That's totally true. It's sickening how you can claim the victims deserve to be shot in the back, while the coward murdering them is some sort of hero in your book.

Neither side is the victim, both sides got themselves in that situation. Mr. SKS cornered himself when he had plenty of attempts to defuse the situation verbally and the deceased could have also defused the situation, or just walked away and gone on with their lives.

But no, they went with the "let's try and one up this asshole/these assholes" approach and shit hit the fan. Bad.

Executing a struggling injured and unarmed person is a calculated act of sadism. Thats not defence. Ill stand up for his right to kill an attacker who wants to harm him props to anyone who defends themselves. But locating and point blank killing someone who is crippled and weak on the ground is just psychotic. You need to be a twisted broken person to do that to another person who is totally helpless. It takes balls to defend yourself. It takes none to execute a helpless injured man. He was injured anyway, he couldnt pose a threat to anyone anymore since he was hardly going to go anywhere until the police arrived and he would go to jail where he couldnt cause further harm. He might even have reformed.

Its unfair to say that people who are criminals are always criminals. Thats the point of the justice system. If such a thing is true lets get rid of prison forever and execute all people for all crimes. If its ok to execute a criminal after they have committed a crime 5 minutes later its ok to execute them 5 months later. You kill people to save your own life. Killing them in revenge and then justifying it pretty much means that breaking and entering should be the immediate death penalty in all cases.

I HATE criminals with the burning fury of a billion suns. I relish the idea of dishing out personal justice myself. But i know its wrong. I understand its wrong. And i know that you shouldnt want to hurt people for some sadistic thrill or revenge, only to defend yourself. I know if i was in that situation i would try to restrain myself.

The man deserves NO charge for injuring the people while they were a threat. Executing a helpless person is a cowardly sadistic move and should be charged.

Blablahb:

Quaxar:
Also, as I've stated above his defense could argue with section 34, 2b or possibly 37, 1 for acting out of a reasonable fear of them returning with deadlier force. Not that I hope that could go through.

That's kind of surprising. So I guess the complaints I heard a few years ago from Canadians being Americanised had at least some truth to it... ^_^

Kopikatsu:
Judging from your past comments, you'd say the right thing for Bishop to have done is to lay down and die quietly as not to be a bother, right?

No, that would be the filhty lies that advocates of gun violence spread about me and anyone else who disagrees with random violence and murder.

I actually happen to know that if someone has a sword, and you get in their face, their weapon is useless because they have no room to swing it, and small spaces are the perfect place to face multiple attackers, so that if you quite simply pick up a chair and hold it in front of you, there could be an entire army coming for you without anything happening. Also table legs make lovely clubs. You can clean out a disco with them if you want, so I guess they can stop one goon in a door opening too.

I also happen to know that if you constantly pick fights with other people like the killer did, sooner or later a bunch is going to show up at your doorstep, whether you were right or wrong.

Vegosiux:
How is someone that's running away from you, a direct threat to you?

If they had escaped, they would've voted in favour of gun legislation! Also they were not true Christians. Or maybe homosexual. Or they voted democratic. Maybe they were communists too. Or wait, I know, they were black and in same neighbourhood.

As we all know, there has never been a time in human history where humans armored is solid steel have been killed by swords at close range, so clearly, a chair is akin to a sword-proof wall. No one should ever have the audacity to defend themselves in their own home, only a fascist right-wing racist would ever suggest doing anything other than meekly submitting to whatever the invaders want.

theguineapigguy:
Just because someone is running away doesn't mean they've stopped being a threat to you. The assailants could have simply been performing a tactical retreat to gain cover, grab their guns, or come back later when they're better prepared. It's understandable that shooting people who are running away from you would be illegal since they are unlikely to still be a threat, but killing the assailants was the correct tactical decision for ensuring his own safety, which should really be his primary concern.

In my opinion the assailants forfeited their rights when they attacked him and he was justified in treating them as enemy combatants and killing them as they attempted to retreat from his superior weaponry. If the assailants had put their hands in the air and surrendered instead of running away, killing them would have been less justified but still somewhat arguable because of the danger of controlling five prisoners until the police arrived.

I do find it amusing how poorly armed the assailants were, why would one of them be carrying a sword. It sounds like Kill Bill, but if the bride had just pulled out a gun and killed everyone.

Well, I'm not sure Canada is currently in the state of war, so all this talk about "tactics" and "combatants" kind of doesn't apply. Especially "combatants", do I have to pull up my friend Inigo Montoya on that one? I really shouldn't have to...

Vegosiux:

theguineapigguy:
Just because someone is running away doesn't mean they've stopped being a threat to you. The assailants could have simply been performing a tactical retreat to gain cover, grab their guns, or come back later when they're better prepared. It's understandable that shooting people who are running away from you would be illegal since they are unlikely to still be a threat, but killing the assailants was the correct tactical decision for ensuring his own safety, which should really be his primary concern.

In my opinion the assailants forfeited their rights when they attacked him and he was justified in treating them as enemy combatants and killing them as they attempted to retreat from his superior weaponry. If the assailants had put their hands in the air and surrendered instead of running away, killing them would have been less justified but still somewhat arguable because of the danger of controlling five prisoners until the police arrived.

I do find it amusing how poorly armed the assailants were, why would one of them be carrying a sword. It sounds like Kill Bill, but if the bride had just pulled out a gun and killed everyone.

Well, I'm not sure Canada is currently in the state of war, so all this talk about "tactics" and "combatants" kind of doesn't apply. Especially "combatants", do I have to pull up my friend Inigo Montoya on that one? I really shouldn't have to...

From my understanding, tactics is a term that applies to a variety of situations, not simply formal wars. Perhaps the term combatant was misleading, anyone who is engaged in combat is a combatant. I looked it up and found the definition "engaged in or ready for combat". Combat is defined as "To oppose in battle; fight against". These words have a lot of meanings though so it could be interpreted either way. I'm not really sure what the correct terms would be in a situation like this.

Can't say I can agree with his actions. Firing upon the men when they broke into his room was certainly the correct move, however once he chased them outside it ceased to be defense. If the men attacking him were armed with firearms or he had reason to believe they were going to retrieve a firearm (I don't believe he did but I may be wrong) I cannot in good conscience say he was justified in his actions. If he pursued and apprehended them with less then lethal means that would be all well in good, but you can't kill a fleeing man and call it self defense. However I can't call him a murderer either. In such a situation one's only thoughts are really to simply eliminate threats and he probably still considered them to be so. One has to remember we have as much time as desired to consider his decisions with a calm mind, he had seconds and had adrenaline pumping.

GunsmithKitten:

Fisher321:
I honestly can't believe some of the people on here. Victimizing the criminals instead of the owner of the house. "Oh he should of warned them" "Oh he shouldn't have kept shooting" quit being such pussies. Those criminals had evil intentions and were more than likely going to harm anyone they found in that building. They deserved to be killed, they are scumbags of the Earth and now they won't EVER try to break into a house again.

"OH IT WAS MURDER WHEN HE SHOT THE GUY TRYING TO GET UP AJSFSKJBA" You do realize that if he didn't kill that man he could have gone on to cause more crime right?

Put yourself in the defenders situation. Hes in a room and 5 guys are trying to break in. You have no idea what their intentions are or what they have on them. The ONLY logical and RIGHT thing to do would be to arm yourself and defend what you own and love. Quit sympathizing for criminals, this man is a hero for defending his home and doing the right thing.

"OH HE SHUD HAV CALLED TEH COPS DUH"

Yes, because Cops surely would have arrived that instant and prevented those guys from doing any harm.

Grow some balls people.

"The judge did not allow Mr. Bishop's lawyer to tell jurors that those who died had a history of burglary, violent crimes and home invasions. During deliberations, the jury asked to revisit only one part of the trial transcript - that of Mr. Bishop's boast of prior shootings."

His past is irrelevant in this case.

This is what makes me sick about our culture, we victimize criminals, and we criminalize the victims. Great logic guys.

HEy, Uh, Fisher...

You know me, and you know where I stand on both firearms and self defense, and even I say that once the assailants were in retreat, he should not have shot them. Defending against attack is one thing. Gunning down people trying to escape you is another. The threat was neutralized. Someone running away from you is no longer an immediate threat and therefore does not warrant lethal force.

You going to call ME a pussy then? You think I sympathized with the criminals?!

No, I'm calling the people that always cry out "Call the Cops" or "He didn't have to shoot them" pussies. I think its the Army mentality that I have. Seeing the enemy retreat doesn't mean they quit, they will just regroup and rearm for the next attack. So the best thing to do is to eliminate them for good and they will never pose a threat again.

On retrospect that was a little harsh. I think its the sickness that I'm currently dealing with and the lack of sleep that is causing some clouded judgement. Sorry to offend anyone.

Fisher321:

GunsmithKitten:

Fisher321:
I honestly can't believe some of the people on here. Victimizing the criminals instead of the owner of the house. "Oh he should of warned them" "Oh he shouldn't have kept shooting" quit being such pussies. Those criminals had evil intentions and were more than likely going to harm anyone they found in that building. They deserved to be killed, they are scumbags of the Earth and now they won't EVER try to break into a house again.

"OH IT WAS MURDER WHEN HE SHOT THE GUY TRYING TO GET UP AJSFSKJBA" You do realize that if he didn't kill that man he could have gone on to cause more crime right?

Put yourself in the defenders situation. Hes in a room and 5 guys are trying to break in. You have no idea what their intentions are or what they have on them. The ONLY logical and RIGHT thing to do would be to arm yourself and defend what you own and love. Quit sympathizing for criminals, this man is a hero for defending his home and doing the right thing.

"OH HE SHUD HAV CALLED TEH COPS DUH"

Yes, because Cops surely would have arrived that instant and prevented those guys from doing any harm.

Grow some balls people.

"The judge did not allow Mr. Bishop's lawyer to tell jurors that those who died had a history of burglary, violent crimes and home invasions. During deliberations, the jury asked to revisit only one part of the trial transcript - that of Mr. Bishop's boast of prior shootings."

His past is irrelevant in this case.

This is what makes me sick about our culture, we victimize criminals, and we criminalize the victims. Great logic guys.

HEy, Uh, Fisher...

You know me, and you know where I stand on both firearms and self defense, and even I say that once the assailants were in retreat, he should not have shot them. Defending against attack is one thing. Gunning down people trying to escape you is another. The threat was neutralized. Someone running away from you is no longer an immediate threat and therefore does not warrant lethal force.

You going to call ME a pussy then? You think I sympathized with the criminals?!

No, I'm calling the people that always cry out "Call the Cops" or "He didn't have to shoot them" pussies. I think its the Army mentality that I have. Seeing the enemy retreat doesn't mean they quit, they will just regroup and rearm for the next attack. So the best thing to do is to eliminate them for good and they will never pose a threat again.

On retrospect that was a little harsh. I think its the sickness that I'm currently dealing with and the lack of sleep that is causing some clouded judgement. Sorry to offend anyone.

Yeah, you're starting to sound like a crazed ex-soldier two steps from finding a clock tower.

Once they retreated, it's not his job to kill them, it's the job of the police force to step in. They were certainly on their way, the man had his neighbours who came out to see the shooting, and by that point he had no immediate threat to his life or property. This isn't the wild west or a warzone, having people take the law into their own hands renders the law obsolute.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked