Another home defense precedent set.

[Jeron Kahyar]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

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]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

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]

Originally Posted by Jeron Kahyar

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]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

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

Not 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

^^^^^ yes

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Iskra

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by DiabeticKripple

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]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

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.
.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by DiabeticKripple

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]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

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.