Another home defense precedent set.

[silverdoctor]

Gilbert Budgell, a Botwood homeowner who police say shot and killed a man who was invading his home, will not face trial for murder charges.

Crown attorneys have decided not to proceed with a second-degree murder charge against Budgell, citing a low likelihood of securing a conviction.

The charges were formally withdrawn Thursday morning in provincial court in Grand Falls-Windsor, where a preliminary inquiry was set to begin.

Crown attorney Karen O'Reilly said self-defence was always a "live issue that we needed to consider" in the case.

"What we've determined is that there is no reasonable likelihood of conviction, that we wouldn't be able to prove that it wasn't self defence," she told reporters after the short hearing.

Two men entered Budgell's home on April 9, 2016 in what police described as a home invasion.

Police said one of the men was shot and beaten, and eventually died of blunt force trauma to the head, according to O'Reilly. The other man ran away.

Deceased was friend of Budgell

According to Bob Buckingham, the lawyer representing Budgell in the case, the man who died was a friend.

"They had known each other for quite some time, and the deceased person had often been to my client's house and had been invited in as a friend," Buckingham said.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/murder-charge-gilbert-budgell-dropped-1.4351371

[Dick284]

There is zero precidence here, because the case never rendered a verdict from a court of law.:sign0161:

Crown prosecutors won't take such cases to court for fear of a precidence being set. It's more of the same nasty quagmire going forward.

[elkhunter11]

There is zero precidence here, because the case never rendered a verdict from a court of law.:sign0161:

Crown prosecutors won't take such cases to court for fear of a precidence being set. It's more of the same nasty quagmire going forward.

Exactly! They dropped the charges to avoid the chance that a precedence would be set.

[silverdoctor]

Well, let call it a precedent for the police. Maybe next time they'll dig a little deeper and think twice before trying to nail someone's arse to the wall.

There's no pleasing some people.

[Dick284]

Well, let call it a precedent for the police. Maybe next time they'll dig a little deeper and think twice before trying to nail someone's arse to the wall.

There's no pleasing some people.

Outside of the cops who were directly involved in this incident, there is no real knowledge of what transpired. Another detachment or department will carry on exactly in the same way.

Your desire to pull a plum out of a pile of dog crap is admirable, but quite mis guided.

Under standing what is going on here, instead of amping up a bunch of mis leading retoric is akin to posting fake news, btw.

[silverdoctor]

So would it be better if he were dragged through the court system for a year, spend thousands of dollars then be declared innocent?

Why are you arguing this?

[elkhunter11]

So would it be better if he were dragged through the court system for a year, spend thousands of dollars then be declared innocent?

Why are you arguing this?

If a court verdict was rendered, a legal precedent could be set that would apply in the future. Dropping the charges changes nothing.

[Unregistered user]

We have always had the right to use reasonable force to protect our own lives. Whether this case went to court or not would change nothing.

[Dick284]

So would it be better if he were dragged through the court system for a year, spend thousands of dollars then be declared innocent?

Why are you arguing this?

Found that plum yet?

There is no precedence!

It'll be the same old same old, until some sort of ruling comes from the courts(verdict)!

Until such time you are posting misleading if not fake information.

This point is worthy of argument, because you are saying and inferring something that is un true(fake).

Understanding what constitutes a precise topic would help you understand the term. It's obvious you don't understand the term.

[silverdoctor]

Has there ever been a case where a home owner didn't face charges after using a firearm to defend against an intruder?

I give up. Thought this would be good news but I guess not.

[Dick284]

Has there ever been a case where a home owner didn't face charges after using a firearm to defend against an intruder?

I give up. Thought this would be good news but I guess not.

Yup, one being Mr. John Lee.
And others I can't remember.

This is a quagmire, and understanding what to do and say during and after such an incident, will determine how it plays out.

As for your feelings about your post, well I guess you need to do some reading before you do the drum beating.

Kinda like the old quote.
"Better to be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
The mouth being a keyboard in modern context's.

[1899b]

No matter how the armchair lawyers and crown prosecutors debate this, I am fairly certain Gilbert Budgell feels victorious in all of this....

[silverdoctor]

It's interesting, people complain about not having castle laws, worried about defending their homes. Yet this fellow shot and beat a man that invaded his home - killing him and he walks. But you want to beat me up over a word? Get a life.

It may not be a legal precedent but it's still a precedent. Do you think crooks in the area that this happened are starting to think? Maybe I'll get shot if I break in here?

Do you think the cops in Newfie may think twice about wasting man hours and pressing charges only to have them thrown out?


You are your own worst enemy, no wonder nothing gets done in Canada.

[Dick284]

It's interesting, people complain about not having castle laws, worried about defending their homes. Yet this fellow shot and beat a man that invaded his home - killing him and he walks. But you want to beat me up over a word? Get a life.

It may not be a legal precedent but it's still a precedent. Do you think crooks in the area that this happened are starting to think? Maybe I'll get shot if I break in here?

Do you think the cops in Newfie may think twice about wasting man hours and pressing charges only to have them thrown out?


You are your own worst enemy, no wonder nothing gets done in Canada.

Careful when you point fingers.
There's usually 3 pointing back at you at the same time.

[silverdoctor]

Yeah, pointing fingers...

Raab started a thread about rural crime, trying to come up with some real world answers - am I to say if it's right or wrong? No, I live in the city.

But yet, so much negative surrounding his idea. If he's willing to grab the bull by the horn, do things right, go through the proper channels, why is that so bad?


People want castle law in Canada, so do I. This is the way you're going to get it, more people getting off.

I'm done.

[Dick284]

Yeah, pointing fingers...

Raab started a thread about rural crime, trying to come up with some real world answers - am I to say if it's right or wrong? No, I live in the city.

But yet, so much negative surrounding his idea. If he's willing to grab the bull by the horn, do things right, go through the proper channels, why is that so bad?


People want castle law in Canada, so do I. This is the way you're going to get it, more people getting off.

I'm done.

Better do a fact check on Rabb's post there.

I put zero comments in to that mess.

[Okotokian]

Your desire to pull a plum out of a pile of dog crap is admirable, but quite mis guided.

Under standing what is going on here, instead of amping up a bunch of mis leading retoric is akin to posting fake news, btw.

I think everyone but you understood what he was getting at and the reason for his celebration. No one was deluded by any fake news.

[243 wild cat]

Yeah, pointing fingers...

Raab started a thread about rural crime, trying to come up with some real world answers - am I to say if it's right or wrong? No, I live in the city.

But yet, so much negative surrounding his idea. If he's willing to grab the bull by the horn, do things right, go through the proper channels, why is that so bad?


People want castle law in Canada, so do I. This is the way you're going to get it, more people getting off.

I'm done. Silverdoctor no worries on your thoughts there is people out there that have your 6 on the bull**** critics of your post. The point is scumbag down!! And VICTIM is ok and living a life. :sHa_shakeshout: Just let it go its all bull **** tit for tat thanks for posting good news lol take care.

[MK2750]

If you read the news story it would seem the "scumbag" was a "friend" and frequent visitor to the home. Perhaps the precedent being set is that; if a fight breaks out at a house party and people get killed, lets not get involved.

"Friends" generally come to visit "friends" in this manner when one of them has ripped off, ratted out, sold bad drugs, touched under aged kids or screwed around on the other. Perhaps the guy had it coming and he got lucky and avoided some street justice by shooting buddy rather than fighting it out. "Shot and beaten" and eventually dying from blunt forced trauma is man slaughter at best and more likely murder. Once a guy is shot, how is the ensuing beating self defence?

If the homeowner ends up dead from another "incident" perhaps the whole story will be known OR perhaps he is an innocent victim protecting his life like suggested by the powers to be.

[saskbooknut]

Be careful who you choose as heroes.
The guy who got off these charges is serving time as a drug dealer.

[Battle Rat]

Silverdoctor no worries on your thoughts there is people out there that have your 6 on the bull**** critics of your post. The point is scumbag down!! And VICTIM is ok and living a life. :sHa_shakeshout: Just let it go its all bull **** tit for tat thanks for posting good news lol take care.

This was the best, most respectful non confrontational reply yet.
Well done.

[MK2750]

Be careful who you choose as heroes.
The guy who got off these charges is serving time as a drug dealer.

When I was a kid, if people were selling fentanyl and a like in the community, there would be multiple "visits" until the problem went away.

[elkhunter11]

Be careful who you choose as heroes.
The guy who got off these charges is serving time as a drug dealer.

This doesn't appear to be a simple case of someone protecting himself from a home invader. In fact, I can't help but wonder if the entire incident wasn't drug related. The shooter certainly isn't a hero of any kind.

[Jeron Kahyar]

So would it be better if he were dragged through the court system for a year, spend thousands of dollars then be declared innocent?


I would have loved to see this as an outcome. He can use his ill-gotten drug money to pay for it. Perhaps it would save a good hounest individual from having to set a legal precedence in court.

[Redfrog]

I think everyone but you understood what he was getting at and the reason for his celebration. No one was deluded by any fake news.

Am I the only one who understood what Dick 284 was getting at? I think he is right on the mark.

Knee jerk reaction is easy, put some thought into and it looks different.

I'd like to see castle law and homeowners not charged when threatened, but not being charged is not the same as being charged and acquitted.

[Selkirk]

Silverdoctor no worries on your thoughts there is people out there that have your 6 on the bull**** critics of your post. The point is scumbag down!! And VICTIM is ok and living a life. :sHa_shakeshout: Just let it go its all bull **** tit for tat thanks for posting good news lol take care.




X2 to that ^

And here's another one for the grumpy old men to spit on. This one happened last month, ~ 20km from where I live. The home & business owner who shot the perp wasn't even charged ... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/castlegar-b-c-restaurant-owner-won-t-face-charges-after-shooting-intruder-1.4292088

When use of force is reasonable, policing precedence 'is' being set !


Selkirk

[243 wild cat]

Be careful who you choose as heroes.
The guy who got off these charges is serving time as a drug dealer.

Yes you are right saskbooknut i assumed by the story it was just a guy protecting him self and his property. I guess scumbag kills scumbag robbing him. Point of the story is good on him to stop the threat! We could have only hope for KARMA on the other dirtbag! I did not look at it as a heroe thing i looked at it as im glad a scumbag is out of the GENE POOL lol should have been two down :sign0176:

[Redfrog]

X2 to that ^

And here's another one for the grumpy old men to spit on. This one happened last month, ~ 20km from where I live. The home & business owner who shot the perp wasn't even charged ... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/castlegar-b-c-restaurant-owner-won-t-face-charges-after-shooting-intruder-1.4292088

When use of force is reasonable, policing precedence 'is' being set !


Selkirk

Why would you want someone to spit on this story?:thinking-006: Sounds like it was handled properly.

[MAC]

Why do all the Castle law proponents Idolize scum bags as their poster child

Budgell will appear in Grand Falls-Windsor Provincial Court on Monday where he will face a number of charges including trafficking of controlled drugs and substances, possession for the purpose of trafficking and breach of recognizance.

Ya sounds like a good decent guy:thinking-006:

Wasnt the last thread the same a drug dealer kills someone on his property and is not charged and how many here were High fiving each other

MAC

[243 wild cat]

If you read the news story it would seem the "scumbag" was a "friend" and frequent visitor to the home. Perhaps the precedent being set is that; if a fight breaks out at a house party and people get killed, lets not get involved.

"Friends" generally come to visit "friends" in this manner when one of them has ripped off, ratted out, sold bad drugs, touched under aged kids or screwed around on the other. Perhaps the guy had it coming and he got lucky and avoided some street justice by shooting buddy rather than fighting it out. "Shot and beaten" and eventually dying from blunt forced trauma is man slaughter at best and more likely murder. Once a guy is shot, how is the ensuing beating self defence?

If the homeowner ends up dead from another "incident" perhaps the whole story will be known OR perhaps he is an innocent victim protecting his life like suggested by the powers to be.

:thinking-006: Perhaps the guy had it coming street justice at its best sewer rat is out of the gene pool all is good with the story period!! sounds like it should have been two go down. Tell me your joking that you think that him giving a beating on that dirtbag even matters in this issue street justice has been served :sHa_shakeshout:

[Jeron Kahyar]

Am I the only one who understood what Dick 284 was getting at? I think he is right on the mark.

Knee jerk reaction is easy, put some thought into and it looks different.

I'd like to see castle law and homeowners not charged when threatened, but not being charged is not the same as being charged and acquitted.I definitely think Dick was on the money with his comments. I wish all news outlets would stop and think a little more along these lines as well. To often they post a sensational title that implies incorrect information. But I will just leave it at that as we don't need more arguments on this form (there is plenty already).

[Okotokian]

Am I the only one who understood what Dick 284 was getting at? .

We all understand what BOTH individuals were getting at. The OP was happy that someone defending themselves got off, and that prosecutors realized no judge or jury is going to convict someone clearly trying to defend himself. Dick got hung up on the would "Precedent" and tried to point out that if there was no judicial finding, that there was no "legal precedent" set. Dick chose to use the narrowest legal definition, which the OP didn't make. All kinds of precedents are set in society that don't involve a court decision. The OP thinks that this instance might factor into future actions on the part of prosecutors. Dick doesn't think it will. Both are just opinions.

[Okotokian]

I definitely think Dick was on the money with his comments. I wish all news outlets would stop and think a little more along these lines as well. To often they post a sensational title that implies incorrect information. But I will just leave it at that as we don't need more arguments on this form (there is plenty already).


Not sure why you are critical of the news agency. What in the headline or story would you say is inaccurate? It's a good news story.... sorta. Our self-defending hero is a convicted drug trafficker. LOL

[Jeron Kahyar]

Not sure why you are critical of the news agency. What in the headline or story would you say is inaccurate? It's a good news story.... sorta. Our self-defending hero is a convicted drug trafficker. LOLNot referring to this story in particular. A general statement for the type of news headlines often used. I have no interest in defending Mr. Budgell myself.

[robson3954]

Sounds like he shot the guy, THEN beat him to death. Not exactly self defense at that point imo.

[DiabeticKripple]

Kind of like every time they have charged someone with possession of a prohibited device for .50 Beowulf mags, the charges get dropped because they know they cannot win in court, which will set a precedent.

[covey ridge]

On these threads a common mantra that I have read is that in Canada we are not allowed to defend our homes and that we will probably go to jail if we do.

Yadda yadda yadda!

and that criminals have more rights than victims

Yadda yadda yadda!

This is just one case that shows that the mantra is not always true. There are reasonable law enforcement officers and crown prosecutors that will not push the anti right to defense agenda and punish someone defending themselves.

Maybe I am missing something but I think this is a good story.

[covey ridge]

We have always had the right to use reasonable force to protect our own lives. Whether this case went to court or not would change nothing.

^^^^^ yes

[fitzy]

We have always had the right to use reasonable force to protect our own lives. Whether this case went to court or not would change nothing.

Very true! Some understanding of the law would go a long way for some guys.

Good story Silver appreciate it.

[Iskra]

Shooting an invader is a self defence. Bitting him to death is a murder.

[DiabeticKripple]

On these threads a common mantra that I have read is that in Canada we are not allowed to defend our homes and that we will probably go to jail if we do.

Yadda yadda yadda!

and that criminals have more rights than victims

Yadda yadda yadda!

This is just one case that shows that the mantra is not always true. There are reasonable law enforcement officers and crown prosecutors that will not push the anti right to defense agenda and punish someone defending themselves.

Maybe I am missing something but I think this is a good story.

Likely, the guy was charged and then the charges dropped. Which means he would have had to retain a lawyer which costs $$$

It’s ridiculous that you would have to do this, they should only come to clean up the bodies and blood and take some notes.

[Battle Rat]

Shooting an invader is a self defence. Bitting him to death is a murder.

Just like that eh?
If the invader had a gun or knife and you believed that your life was in danger would you give him a love tap with a bat or swing it to knock his head out of the park?

[58thecat]

So would it be better if he were dragged through the court system for a year, spend thousands of dollars then be declared innocent?

Why are you arguing this?

Exactly....and I bet drugs were involved too....if so just a loser taking out a loser...

[Okotokian]

Likely, the guy was charged and then the charges dropped. Which means he would have had to retain a lawyer which costs $$$

It’s ridiculous that you would have to do this, they should only come to clean up the bodies and blood and take some notes.


Hey, a convicted drug trafficker kills someone; I don't have any problem with the authorities putting him through the wringer and checking every avenue before deciding not to proceed. And it's not like they were even detaining him on the charge. HE'S ALREADY IN JAIL SERVING HIS TRAFFICKING SENTENCE.

[Gray Wolf]

Hey, a convicted drug trafficker kills someone; I don't have any problem with the authorities putting him through the wringer and checking every avenue before deciding not to proceed. And it's not like they were even detaining him on the charge. HE'S ALREADY IN JAIL SERVING HIS TRAFFICKING SENTENCE.




Phunny how so many people here missed that ^ part. :lol:
.

[covey ridge]

Likely, the guy was charged and then the charges dropped. Which means he would have had to retain a lawyer which costs $$$

It’s ridiculous that you would have to do this, they should only come to clean up the bodies and blood and take some notes.



I think this is not ridiculous! If one claims self defense after killing someone that claim should be investigated. I guess the person who did the killing could go without a lawyer, but until the investigators decide not to charge a lawyer is a good idea.

I thinks that the cops and most here come to the conclusion that this was a home invasion related to drugs. More was needed than to write a few notes and kiss suspect by e bye.

[silverdoctor]

Drugs aside, I wonder why the firearms charges when prohibited were dropped?

[ren008]

If only they had all killed each other.... Bunch of losers from the sounds of it.

Drug dealer gets away with it is how I read it. Not the type of person I would be rooting for and not gonna win public support with cases like these.

[Battle Rat]

Hey, a convicted drug trafficker kills someone; I don't have any problem with the authorities putting him through the wringer and checking every avenue before deciding not to proceed. And it's not like they were even detaining him on the charge. HE'S ALREADY IN JAIL SERVING HIS TRAFFICKING SENTENCE.

Colonel Jeff Cooper said it best that when drug dealer A kills drug dealer B it go into what he called the "good riddance factor" and not into homicide statistics.