Another Homeowner gets Charged for Harming Poor Innocent Thieves

[Albertadiver]

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alber.../15833211.html

Mounties have charged a Taber area man with assault for allegedly hitting a suspected intruder on his property with a hatchet.

On May 29, at 10 p.m., Taber and Vauxhall RCMP were called to a farm northwest of the town after a man arrived home to find a stranger’s car parked on his driveway.

He parked his vehicle behind it, searched his home but could not find anyone inside.

But when he came back outside, he discovered a man inside the car.

Police allege he hit the suspect twice with a hatchet, leaving him with facial and dental injuries.

The suspect then fled the scene but was arrested a short time later at his house along with two other men nabbed nearby.

All three have been charged with break and entry.

Sgt. Patrick Webb said Canadian laws permit homeowners to defend their property, even with force, but to a certain degree.

“The Criminal Code provides provisions for people to defend their own property or the property they are responsible for, but at the same time they are limited on what you can do,” he said.

“Under the law you are permitted with limitations to protect property or person — in every situation similar to this the circumstances have a lot to say whether it was in the limits or exceeding those limits.

“In this case ... it is up to the court to determine if it was excessive or not.”

He said the Crown took some time and reviewed all the information and eventually advised to lay the two charges.

Joseph Bradley Singleton, age 46, has been charged with assault with an weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

He is scheduled to appear in court Nov. 16.

Another Brian Knight'esque situation on our hands...

[maxpower2506]

Sad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DuckBrat]

Booo

[moosefever]

Ralph Klein- "Shot, shoveled and shut up"

[BlackHeart]

Neat! I am sure the justice system and the judges have not heard of the the "law of unintended consequences", but they should, because examples like this are starting to get too common place.

The more times the victim/home owner gets charged for defending his place/property against criminals, the more everyone hears what the results are.....charges against the defender. After a point everyone gets the message....hurt the poor criminal and you will be charged and then get to spend a lot of time and money now, defending yourself against a govt sanctioned idiotic process and a system that want to mantain its monoploy on law and order.

After a while, most common sensed people will have discussed this, debated it, steamed about the stupidity, and understand what actions need to be taken to avoid the stupidity.

The result is that people will become creative in dealing with these criminals. It may result in people following the concept of shoot, shovel and shutup or the pirates way of dead men tell no tales - that way the only version is the home owners. Other actions may involve extracting a little justice the DIY way, without even calling the irrelevant police to make things worst for themselves. The police cheifs/associations can sit in their offices and brag about how crime stats are decreasing because of their actions. (Notice I said crime STATs, not crime)

Then what??? Pretty hard to stop the ball rolling down hill. They will reap what they sow!

Seems just like gun control-make the law abiding the bad guy and don't really deal with the true problem. What the justice system has long forgotten is that a good(strong) deterent is more effective than reforming or wrist slapping into a bloated costly overcrowded system. I guess their vested interest is in having plenty of work backed up from repeat offenders.

Would be nice to vote judges in......might change their vested interest directions a bit in line with the common sense and be a little more responsive to the public's views.... verses protecting the current system that keeps all of them fully employed.

[rugatika]

to have elected prosecutors. I wonder if charges would have been laid if the prosecutor was up for re election in a year or two. This is a total waste of resources and taxpayer money. This guy is obviously not a threat to the public as the thieves are. So why bother him?? Because the crime industry needs to maintain their revolving door justice system.

This whole Canadian political/legal system needs to be overhauled.

What a load of crap that this guy is even getting a second look.

[stinkynuts]

I for one can not see how a jury could convict on this i for one would vote not guilty

[Okotokian]

OK, I know this isn't gonna go over well with the "shoot first and ask questions later" gang..... Now don't get me wrong.... I believe a person should be able to protect his home and family, but hang on for a second and consider what actually happened... I come home to find a car in my driveway. I look around my house and find no one. I come back out and there is now a guy in the car. THE FIRST THING I DO IS HIT HIM WITH A HATCHET?????? That's what the story said happened. And yes of course there was probably more to it, but none of us know what that "more" is.

Heck, for all the home owner knew at that time, the guy could have pulled over to have a pee in the bushes, or been lost and looking around. A reasonable response would have been "Who are you, and what the hell are you doing here?" This sort of response is how the immigrant kid got shot and killed when he approached a house to ask directions down in the States. AT THE TIME the home owner had no indication that the person was trying to get into his house or had done so. I'm all for using the hatchet on the guy coming through the door... not sure about using it on anyone parked in your driveway. Seems over the top to me.

The key question is "where does protection stop and punsihment start?" I admit that isn't easy or clear.

[elkhunter11]

I would be claiming that the thief attacked me,and that I acted in self defense.If I was a juror,I would not be taking the word of an accused thief over that of a homeowner who was being robbed.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by stinkynuts

I for one can not see how a jury could convict on this i for one would vote not guilty

But the point is the guy now has to lawyer up, stress, time off work etc etc.

I'm guessing this is a federal law...how hard would it be to get this changed so that there is no discretion left to the prosecutor? Sounds like we need to remove the prosecutors ability to go around making criminals out of innocent people. Perhaps if the criminals feared for their safety they would think twice about stealing. Canada needs a castle type law.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

OK, I know this isn't gonna go over well with the "shoot first and ask questions later" gang..... Now don't get me wrong.... I believe a person should be able to protect his home and family, but hang on for a second and consider what actually happened... I come home to find a car in my driveway. I look around my house and find no one. I come back out and there is now a guy in the car. THE FIRST THING I DO IS HIT HIM WITH A HATCHET?????? That's what the story said happened. And yes of course there was probably more to it, but none of us know what that "more" is.

Heck, for all the home owner knew at that time, the guy could have pulled over to have a pee in the bushes, or been lost and looking around. A reasonable response would have been "Who are you, and what the hell are you doing here?" This sort of response is how the immigrant kid got shot and killed when he approached a house to ask directions down in the States. AT THE TIME the home owner had no indication that the person was trying to get into his house or had done so. I'm all for using the hatchet on the guy coming through the door... not sure about using it on anyone parked in your driveway. Seems over the top to me.

The key question is "where does protection stop and punsihment start?" I admit that isn't easy or clear.

got to say I agree with this statement,the law is to protect yourself,when there is a guy in your driveway I don't think he was going to harm anyone,if he did a citizens arrest or tried to keep the guy there til the cops came that would be different,but from what I am reading here it seems excessive,but I will have to wait til all the facts come out I guess.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

OK, I know this isn't gonna go over well with the "shoot first and ask questions later" gang..... Now don't get me wrong.... I believe a person should be able to protect his home and family, but hang on for a second and consider what actually happened... I come home to find a car in my driveway. I look around my house and find no one. I come back out and there is now a guy in the car. THE FIRST THING I DO IS HIT HIM WITH A HATCHET?????? That's what the story said happened. And yes of course there was probably more to it, but none of us know what that "more" is.

Heck, for all the home owner knew at that time, the guy could have pulled over to have a pee in the bushes, or been lost and looking around. A reasonable response would have been "Who are you, and what the hell are you doing here?" This sort of response is how the immigrant kid got shot and killed when he approached a house to ask directions down in the States. AT THE TIME the home owner had no indication that the person was trying to get into his house or had done so. I'm all for using the hatchet on the guy coming through the door... not sure about using it on anyone parked in your driveway. Seems over the top to me.

The key question is "where does protection stop and punsihment start?" I admit that isn't easy or clear.

He went inside and then came out. The 3 were charged with break and entry...ergo...there must have been signs inside the house that he had been burgled AND evidence connecting them with said burgling...like his stuff in the car...just bad journalism again. I know...it's an assumption on my part...but a pretty safe one to make.

I say wail away. He should have been using an axe or something instead of a hatchet. It gets kinda tiring having to always be worried about some creep breaking into your house, car whatever...just because the law dogs are more concerned with curtailing citizen defence of their own property than they are with prosecuting criminals.

AND then...not only do honest citizens have to worry about commie judges and lawyers...they have to worry about liberals that won't stand beside them. And instead second guess their actions instead of coming down on the criminals. Sad.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

OK, I know this isn't gonna go over well with the "shoot first and ask questions later" gang..... Now don't get me wrong.... I believe a person should be able to protect his home and family, but hang on for a second and consider what actually happened... I come home to find a car in my driveway. I look around my house and find no one. I come back out and there is now a guy in the car. THE FIRST THING I DO IS HIT HIM WITH A HATCHET?????? That's what the story said happened. And yes of course there was probably more to it, but none of us know what that "more" is.

Heck, for all the home owner knew at that time, the guy could have pulled over to have a pee in the bushes, or been lost and looking around. A reasonable response would have been "Who are you, and what the hell are you doing here?" This sort of response is how the immigrant kid got shot and killed when he approached a house to ask directions down in the States. AT THE TIME the home owner had no indication that the person was trying to get into his house or had done so. I'm all for using the hatchet on the guy coming through the door... not sure about using it on anyone parked in your driveway. Seems over the top to me.

The key question is "where does protection stop and punsihment start?" I admit that isn't easy or clear.

X2, Thats how I see it too. Taking the axe to the escape vehicle sure....taking the axe to someones head that hasn't threatened me....thats wrong. Are we supposed to kill thieves on sight?

[Redfrog]

I agree with Okie

This homeowner has set himself up as cop, judge and jury.

Maybe he's trying to be a B.C. cop. You know where they stop you for no apparent reason and say "blow" and then they impound your vehicle for a week or a month and you haven't even been to court yet.

Talk about a slippery slope.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by ehntr

X2, Thats how I see it too. Taking the axe to the escape vehicle sure....taking the axe to someones head that hasn't threatened me....thats wrong. Are we supposed to kill thieves on sight?

Who said anything about killing?? When a criminal is in danger or injured the police and ambulance are there in seconds to protect them.

Sorry...I have absolutely zero sympathy for thieves. And frankly...if he had been killed I'd have not shed a single tear. He made his own bed...now lay in it. Time for these loser scumbags to bare some responsibility for their actions. What kind of society have we become that we now side with a criminal over an innocent home owner, through no malicious action of his own, is forced to defend his property?? Who are we to question what level of force was required:? He was defending his property from three (for all he knew...violent) criminals.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Who said anything about killing?? When a criminal is in danger or injured the police and ambulance are there in seconds to protect them.

Sorry...I have absolutely zero sympathy for thieves. And frankly...if he had been killed I'd have not shed a single tear.
.

I agree with you there, but that's not the same issue as being able to legally use lethal force on someone who is on your property (and probably trying to exit) and not threatening your life, which is what we had here at the time of the axe use. Next time it could be someone innocent. Sympathy or disgust for the "victim/thief" has nothing to do with it.

I think all of us would support a shop owner shooting an armed robber confronting and threatening him. But how about shooting a shoplifter in the back of the head as she ran away down the street? I suspect many would not be so supportive of civilians applying the death penalty on their own.

[jaylow?]

keep up the good work! hatchet to the face! holy crap thats crazy. nobodys going near this guys house again. i think id rather get shot in the arse than a friggen hatchet to the face. good on him.

[KANTRESIST]

This is a little bit more info. The fellow came home to his house on the farm. Parked behind a strange car in his drive so it could not pull out left his wife in his vehicle went threw his garage grabed the hatchet searched around the house herd a door. Then went back outside to find a guy trying to back up and by doing so hitting his vehicle. Smashes the window hits the the guy and pulls him out. Just protecting his own.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I agree with you there, but that's not the same issue as being able to legally use lethal force on someone who is on your property (and probably trying to exit) and not threatening your life, which is what we had here at the time of the axe use. Next time it could be someone innocent. Sympathy or disgust for the "victim/thief" has nothing to do with it.

I think all of us would support a shop owner shooting an armed robber confronting and threatening him. But how about shooting a shoplifter in the back of the head as she ran away down the street? I suspect many would not be so supportive of civilians applying the death penalty on their own.

Lethal means killing someone. this guy got a booboo on his face. This guy was threatening the life of his wife still in his car by ramming into it and he restrained himself from killing the guy. Sounds like a totally level headed response to me. Maybe the wife wanted her hubby to get rid of the dog...who knows.

You're really stretching when you try equating civilian application of the death penalty to getting busted in the chops with a hatchet. The thief was using his car as a weapon. I wonder what would have happened if the police were there and this guy was ramming into their car with a partner still in the passenger seat. Think guns might have been drawn??? Darn right!! Think shots might have been fired if the guy kept using his vehicle as a weapon? Yup.

It's a shame this INNOCENT home owner is being harrassed by those that are supposed to be protecting him, his family, and his property.

[Ishpah]

Originally Posted by BlackHeart

Neat! I am sure the justice system and the judges have not heard of the the "law of unintended consequences", but they should, because examples like this are starting to get too common place.

The more times the victim/home owner gets charged for defending his place/property against criminals, the more everyone hears what the results are.....charges against the defender. After a point everyone gets the message....hurt the poor criminal and you will be charged and then get to spend a lot of time and money now, defending yourself against a govt sanctioned idiotic process and a system that want to mantain its monoploy on law and order.

After a while, most common sensed people will have discussed this, debated it, steamed about the stupidity, and understand what actions need to be taken to avoid the stupidity.

The result is that people will become creative in dealing with these criminals. It may result in people following the concept of shoot, shovel and shutup or the pirates way of dead men tell no tales - that way the only version is the home owners. Other actions may involve extracting a little justice the DIY way, without even calling the irrelevant police to make things worst for themselves. The police cheifs/associations can sit in their offices and brag about how crime stats are decreasing because of their actions. (Notice I said crime STATs, not crime)

Then what??? Pretty hard to stop the ball rolling down hill. They will reap what they sow!

Seems just like gun control-make the law abiding the bad guy and don't really deal with the true problem. What the justice system has long forgotten is that a good(strong) deterent is more effective than reforming or wrist slapping into a bloated costly overcrowded system. I guess their vested interest is in having plenty of work backed up from repeat offenders.

Would be nice to vote judges in......might change their vested interest directions a bit in line with the common sense and be a little more responsive to the public's views.... verses protecting the current system that keeps all of them fully employed.

Originally Posted by rugatika

to have elected prosecutors. I wonder if charges would have been laid if the prosecutor was up for re election in a year or two. This is a total waste of resources and taxpayer money. This guy is obviously not a threat to the public as the thieves are. So why bother him?? Because the crime industry needs to maintain their revolving door justice system.

This whole Canadian political/legal system needs to be overhauled.

What a load of crap that this guy is even getting a second look.

I'm all for electing the judges as Blackheart suggests and the same for the prosecutors as suggested by Rugatika.

I am angered by the fact that the homeowner was named, but the names of the thieving scumbags were omitted.

Law & Order. Bull****

[fordtruckin]

I don't agree with alot of things they do in the middle east but I do think that we should treat theifs like they do over there. Cut off a hand! Do that for a few months and I bet people would think twice about puttin their sticky little hands on someone elses stuff!

[tractor1971]

People, people, lets roll over and play dead, nobody gets hurts! Property gets divided fairly between the thief and the owner. I meant the thief is likely disadvantaged, and his mom stole his breast milk....

I am tired of thieves. This thread would not existed if they did not break and entered, that is where it started---end of story.. I do not care what the owner did, even if it is excessive, the perpetrators were there for no good reason. It is called occupational hazard among thieves.

[CaberTosser]

How are we so sure the hatchet was over the top? It may have been one swing to break open the window and the perps face just caught some of the follow-through..... How are we as casual observers to judge what choice of defense weapon/object this homeowner chose? He arrives home to evidence that there were thieves about. He lives rurally where emergency help is only 20-30 minutes away, and thus he has to be self-reliant. Picture yourself in the same situation; do you pick a pillow, the Halloween pumpkin or the hatchet? Whatever is sufficient that falls to hand first most likely, but nothing insufficient. You all pick the hatchet, because in a defensive situation (especially when you wife and/or kids are there) you pick the most effective tool for the job. You go 'thermonuclear'; its in the interest of self-preservation to stack the deck in your own favor as best you can. Who here would have picked a pillow or spatula to arm yourself with when faced with an unknown # of potential assailants? If Jackie Chan doesn't live there, a broom probably won't suffice.

I agree a hatchet to the face is a bit much; but it would have been lovely Middle-Eastern style, where a hand got removed, or all smashed up Joe Pesci style.

The perps should all be named in bold, with larger typeface as well as frontal and profile photos. Its vulgar that only the real victim (the homeowner) is named.

[Got Juice?]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

The key question is "where does protection stop and punsihment start?" I admit that isn't easy or clear.

Easy to answer.

You apply the amount of force necessary to subdue/stop an attacker, and do not stop the application until the attacker has submitted/surrendered and is no longer a threat to you or your property.

Self Defence is an absolute defence. English Canon Law.


Now. this is what the world is starting to lean towards in the 'victim' mentality. A good read, just take some blood pressure medication before you start reading it.

http://www.cufoa.ca/documents/The-Hu...lf-Defense.pdf

[baz]

Tractor1971,
I agree 100%, the moment the theives chose to enter onto someone's property for theivery, they forfeit a large portion of they're rights. If they weren't there no consequences. The old adage you play you pay. Now just the simple task of changing our laws.
Baz

[gitrdun]

If the thief only required dental work to have his booboo fixed, then obviously the big bad homeowner didn't make use of the "business" end of the hatchet That alone says a lot about him NOT using excessive force. Let the man walk and hold the wannabe thieves responsible for his court costs and lost time, maybe throw in some extra cash for his missus being traumatized.

[220swifty]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Lethal means killing someone. this guy got a booboo on his face. This guy was threatening the life of his wife still in his car by ramming into it and he restrained himself from killing the guy. Sounds like a totally level headed response to me. Maybe the wife wanted her hubby to get rid of the dog...who knows.

You're really stretching when you try equating civilian application of the death penalty to getting busted in the chops with a hatchet. The thief was using his car as a weapon. I wonder what would have happened if the police were there and this guy was ramming into their car with a partner still in the passenger seat. Think guns might have been drawn??? Darn right!! Think shots might have been fired if the guy kept using his vehicle as a weapon? Yup.

It's a shame this INNOCENT home owner is being harrassed by those that are supposed to be protecting him, his family, and his property.

It happened last night outside Sylvan Lake. RCMP fired 3 rounds, and the perp was charged with attempted murder. I am willing to bet he was also introduced to the Red Deer superpages. I have heard nothing about the RCMP officer being charged with anything.

It is my opinion that the homeowner used the wrong side of the hatchet, and should have swung a few more times.

[ishootbambi]

makes you wonder who called the cops? i donated to the defence fund of the last victim of canadas bassackwards justice system and i will this time too. anyone heard of a trust yet?

[scaffoldgod]

simple soultion hold the person at g/npoint tell them u will use it and then tell him to hold a knife in a defensive motion then unl/,p.d problem solved

[monsterdeer]

Makes the world look scary for us with kids, what r we raiseing them in. This is very sad