The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[suffolkowner]

The Crown will likely argue that this is Canada, not the US; people don’t carry guns therefore you should not reasonably expect someone breaking into your car at 3:00am in your driveway to hurt you, when confronted…

While I have no doubt that would be the Crown's position, I don't think it's a reasonable position at all. Why do we in Canada go to such extraordinary lengths to justify the actions of criminals? We're supposed to assume that they're just there to do property damage and are not a personal threat? I don't understand or accept this way of thinking. I don't think that the police should be charging people in half the cases we hear about nor should the Crown proceed with the case. But then I also don't think the life of an intruder on my property is worth anything either and am confident that if such a situation were to arise it would be found that the intruder had in his/their possesion a firearm that they had discharged.

 

[KevinB]

The Crown will likely argue that this is Canada, not the US; people don’t carry guns therefore you should not reasonably expect someone breaking into your car at 3:00am in your driveway to hurt you, when confronted…

Gun, Machete, knife, Baseball bat - he did not comply with the order to raise his hands and took what any reasonable person would assume to be a hostile aggressive action.

Criminals trying to force their way into your dwelling at 300am aren't generally reasonable people - thus expectations of threat would be higher than a nun knocking on your door in daylight...

 

[Brad Sallows]

Authorities would prefer you call them. Then the question of response time arises.

Best way I can see to ensure quick response is to claim a white guy with really short hair is beating up a transsexual PoC. Dealing with the false claim later is probably worth it if the situation is genuinely life/limb-threatening.

 

[KevinB]

Authorities would prefer you call them. Then the question of response time arises.

Best way I can see to ensure quick response is to claim a white guy with really short hair is beating up a transsexual PoC. Dealing with the false claim later is probably worth it if the situation is genuinely life/limb-threatening.

Oh I am all for calling 911, don't get me wrong.
I think the actions that lead up to the shooting where down right irresponsible and put he and his family at risk.
BUT his actions were not illegal.
It sounds like he is being judge more on the actions that lead up to the shooting, than the shooting itself - and while the lead up can be relevant - in this case since nothing illegal was done, and he was on his own property - they really don't (or shouldn't) have a bearing on the legality of the shooting.

Now if the Crown had gone for Manslaughter - it would be different IMHO - but I don't see how one could go (even in Canada) for a 2nd Degree Murder charge and think it would stick.

 

[Haggis]

I think the actions that lead up to the shooting where down right irresponsible and put he and his family at risk.

Indeed. In LE circles this is called "officer induced jeopardy". He knowingly escalated the situation and put himself, his family and the criminal at risk. He is charged with murder. The essential element of this is that he must have caused the death of the victim. So, if he had not taken the steps that he did, would the end result have been the death of the victim? The mens rea will be important for the Crown to prove. Was his intent to stop the theft or to induce a lethal confrontation?

 

[KevinB]

Indeed. In LE circles this is called "officer induced jeopardy". He knowingly escalated the situation and put himself, his family and the criminal at risk.

He did have a right to ascertain the actions and the identify of the individual on his property.
While it may have been dumb, it wasn't illegal.
As an individual as opposed to a trained LEO - he isn't judged to the same standard.

He is charged with murder. The essential element of this is that he must have caused the death of the victim. So, if he had not taken the steps that he did, would the end result have been the death of the victim?

Causation needs to be looked from the immediate events. Totality of the circumstance works for explaining the actions of the moment in time - Not necessarily everything that led up to the incident should be used.

The mens rea will be important for the Crown to prove. Was his intent to stop the theft or to induce a lethal confrontation?

Totally agree there as the onus is on the Crown to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Khill would have gone down looking for a violent encounter.
I would argue that bringing a firearm is a wise precaution when confronting anyone in/around their home at night.

 

[Haggis]

He did have a right to ascertain the actions and the identify of the individual on his property.
While it may have been dumb, it wasn't illegal.
As an individual as opposed to a trained LEO - he isn't judged to the same standard.

In his original trial, he argued that it was his military training that guided his actions. He was not, therefore, holding himself out to be simply a lay person.

I would argue that bringing a firearm is a wise precaution when confronting anyone in/around their home at night.

Was a confrontation necessary? Could the event have been deescalated by other means?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

In his original trial, he argued that it was his military training that guided his actions. He was not, therefore, holding himself out to be simply a lay person.

Was a confrontation necessary? Could the event have been deescalated by other means?

Is the Crown position going to be that you do not have the right to confront a trespasser on your property?

That would have massive Common Law implications.

 

[Haggis]

Is the Crown position going to be that you do not have the right to confront a trespasser on your property?

That would have massive Common Law implications.

I have no idea and I agree that would be a bad road to go down if it results in case law that you do not have the right to defend property by any means.

However, the Crown may argue that confronting the trespasser wasn't necessary, even if legal, and led to the escalation and eventual death of the trespasser. Khill could have kept eyes on and called 9-1-1. Or, he could've turned on a porch light (trespassers hate light) or yelled out a window. According to the SCC Case in Brief, Khill did none of these thing, but initiated an armed confrontation instead. Was there a need for him to conduct an armed confrontation - even if legally allowed - will be key.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I have no idea and I agree that would be a bad road to go down if it results in case law that you do not have the right to defend property by any means.

However, the Crown may argue that confronting the trespasser wasn't necessary, even if legal, and led to the escalation and eventual death of the trespasser. Khill could have kept eyes on and called 9-1-1. Or, he could've turned on a porch light (trespassers hate light) or yelled out a window. According to the SCC Case in Brief, Khill did none of these thing, but initiated an armed confrontation instead. Was there a need for him to conduct an armed confrontation - even if legally allowed - will be key.

I am all for proportionality- one does not apply lethal force to stop somebody from stealing the change out of your car ashtray.

But.

If the SCC gets this wrong, it could have the effect of forcing people to be mind readers when intruders are on their property/in their homes, especially at night. With perfect hindsight, in this case the intruder was unarmed. But, what if he wasn’t and did have a knife or gun? What if the vehicle robbery was just the appetizer to a home invasion?

There is also the frustration factor: if people are subjected to an ongoing string of petty crime that the police forces/governments are unwilling to deal with in any meaningful way, at what point are they also culpable for what happens when that frustration boils over?

These are not easy issues. If the SCC wants to take self defence off of the table (I am not sure that will be the outcome of this case) in the face of crime, then the other side of the coin has to be massively increased police forces/enforcement, does it not? Is this mot the opposite of “defund the police”?

 

[KevinB]

I have no idea and I agree that would be a bad road to go down if it results in case law that you do not have the right to defend property by any means.

It will ripple through very many other things as well...

However, the Crown may argue that confronting the trespasser wasn't necessary, even if legal, and led to the escalation and eventual death of the trespasser.

Many things are not necessarily - but the end result is IF the deceased hadn't been trying to break in - none of this would have happened.

Khill could have kept eyes on and called 9-1-1. Or, he could've turned on a porch light (trespassers hate light) or yelled out a window. According to the SCC Case in Brief, Khill did none of these thing, but initiated an armed confrontation instead.

He definitely SHOULD have done some (or all) those things - but I'd argue that being a Reservist in the CF for a few years doesn't make one a tactical genius.
He however did not initiate the confrontation - the deceased did when he tried to break into the accused's residence.

Was there a need for him to conduct an armed confrontation - even if legally allowed - will be key.

That really doesn't matter. The fact was he was legally allowed to do so is the only factor (or should be).
Also I would argue without being able to get a Positive ID, ll turning there porch light on would do is kick the scan down the road - and the next person would have been a victim when the deceased broke in.
One could argue the moral imperative to ascertain ID to turn over to LE (yeah he should have called the cops first).

Let's face it the ONLY reason that this is getting play by the SCC is the fact the deceased was a FN.
It's politically motivated - and short of a re-write to the Charter and Canadian Criminal Code, this is just a BS attempt to inflict "the sins of the parents on the child".

From the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

 

[KevinB]

I am all for proportionality- one does not apply lethal force to stop somebody from stealing the change out of your car ashtray.

I'd call that a Mathusian Check

Same issue occurs here in Virginia - we don't have the same response options for defense of property as Texas or Florida does - there is no duty to retreat, but lethal force is not authorized for property offenses.
That said - when things go bump in the night, I will look first before dialing 911 - and I am always armed, but I look first, because I know 1) LE response times for 'bump in the night' calls are fairly long - and if I can ascertain first if there is an issue that requires LE response or not, if I don't need LE - I free up a car to respond to something that needs to be responded too -- also if I do need LE response - I will be able to articulate that to the dispatch officer so a car arrives quickly.
Given I have Night Vision and belt fed machine guns at my residence - I don't usually call 911

But.

If the SCC gets this wrong, it could have the effect of forcing people to be mind readers when intruders are on their property/in their homes, especially at night. With perfect hindsight, in this case the intruder was unarmed. But, what if he wasn’t and did have a knife or gun? What if the vehicle robbery was just the appetizer to a home invasion?

It also won't stop at the individual - this will have massive issues for LE as well.

There is also the frustration factor: if people are subjected to an ongoing string of petty crime that the police forces/governments are unwilling to deal with in any meaningful way, at what point are they also culpable for what happens when that frustration boils over?

These are not easy issues. If the SCC wants to take self defence off of the table (I am not sure that will be the outcome of this case) in the face of crime, then the other side of the coin has to be massively increased police forces/enforcement, does it not? Is this mot the opposite of “defund the police”?

If the SCC takes Self Defense off the table for Canadians - that will also have Unintended Consequences - as it will overflow into the LE world - and how criminals are confronted, and what is reasonable force.
People on both sides will use that - and the only winner will be the criminals.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There has been quite a few successful self defense cases in Canada involving a firearm. People see this as a "petty crime" but how much crime is a home owner to endure? Theft of property and money in our society is actually a form of "Theft of time". We all have a finite amount of time to accumulate assets to provide for our families and our retirement. Theft depletes that amount always. At some point the victim can no longer recover from it.

 

[KevinB]

There has been quite a few successful self defense cases in Canada involving a firearm. People see this as a "petty crime" but how much crime is a home owner to endure? Theft of property and money in our society is actually a form of "Theft of time". We all have a finite amount of time to accumulate assets to provide for our families and our retirement. Theft depletes that amount always. At some point the victim can no longer recover from it.

I think you are viewing it wrong -- the issue isn't the theft itself -- it is the manner of theft - if there was violence or not involved in it.

If someone comes up and says "give me your wallet"
You have two COA's 1) Give the wallet 2) Refuse

If you chose COA 1, you cannot then act with force - unless the robbery doesn't stop there.
If you chose COA 2, the matter of what the robber does then relates to what you can do.

Civil society is based on the reasonableness of actions - and the minimum of force needed to accomplish a task.

Disparity of Force and Proportionality also dictate what levels of force can be used for Self Defense.
Down here case law exists on Disparity of Force justify the use of deadly force in situations where one if either dealing with multiple assailants - or a physical strength difference.

As well Deadly Force is Deadly Force - if you are attacked by a knife - you can use any means necessary to defend ones self, you don't need to use a knife - you can use a firearm.
*Again reasonableness - as an individual can't just shoot a guy at 100m because he had a knife and says 'I am going to kill you'.

Also if ones home is broken into when one is at home, most jurisdictions have found that a reasonable person would believe that harm up to and including the threat of death or gross bodily harm would befall them (or friends/family at the location) and deadly force can be used to defend ones self in those instances.
*Some US States do have duty to retreat laws - that basically make one withdraw if one can before deadly force is authorized - while in Florida one can shoot someone who is trying to take the hubcaps off ones car in their driveway, and have full Castle Doctrine.
**Some states have provisions that also block civil suits in that case - but not all.

The end result is no one case is identical - but I can pretty much guarantee claiming theft of time isn't an affirmative defense for anything.

 

[OldSolduer]

There has been quite a few successful self defense cases in Canada involving a firearm. People see this as a "petty crime" but how much crime is a home owner to endure? Theft of property and money in our society is actually a form of "Theft of time". We all have a finite amount of time to accumulate assets to provide for our families and our retirement. Theft depletes that amount always. At some point the victim can no longer recover from it.

In 1986 we relocated to Calgary from NS. At the time a local businessman was on trial for murder. He shot an armed robber to death and then chased the co robber and beat the tar out of him.
He was subsequently charged, tried and found not guilty. He had been robbed three times and IIRC it was the same robber every time.

---

The gutter skank girlfriend of the dead robber (he's not a victim) was upset as the robber was only looking for rent money.

---

 

[QV]

Gun, Machete, knife, Baseball bat - he did not comply with the order to raise his hands and took what any reasonable person would assume to be a hostile aggressive action.

Criminals trying to force their way into your dwelling at 300am aren't generally reasonable people - thus expectations of threat would be higher than a nun knocking on your door in daylight...

Criminals breaking into a home or vehicle usually use "break in tools" like crow bars, hammers, screw drivers, ect... any of which doubles as a weapon which can then present a threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

 

[mariomike]

In 1986 we relocated to Calgary from NS. At the time a local businessman was on trial for murder. He shot an armed robber to death and then chased the co robber and beat the tar out of him.
He was subsequently charged, tried and found not guilty. He had been robbed three times and IIRC it was the same robber every time.

---

The gutter skank girlfriend of the dead robber (he's not a victim) was upset as the robber was only looking for rent money.

---

Steve Kesler.

 

[OldSolduer]

Steve Kesler.

Thank you I thought that was it. He actually offered a job to my wife.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

You weren't there and neither was I. The SOB won't be robbing anyone else.

100% I was not there.

Upon further reflection, while the contents of my car are not worth my life or anyone's life, I would rather live in a country where a homeowner is given every benefit of a doubt than otherwise. So from that perspective the initial acquittal was right.

Completely independent of the foregoing considerations, the repeated Crown appeals in this case are wrong. Appeals of acquittals should be extremely rare and reserved for actual scumbags, not honest citizens who (maybe, and at worst) went a bit too far in a highly stressful/potentially dangerous situation.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

The Crown will likely argue that this is Canada, not the US; people don’t carry guns therefore you should not reasonably expect someone breaking into your car at 3:00am in your driveway to hurt you, when confronted…

More accurately, in Canada honest citizens don't carry guns because they're not allowed. But that in no way means that criminals don't.

Although your point is accurate, the Crown will no doubt make the claim.