Man charged after defending his home


PDA






Desertdog
June 21, 2006, 10:55 PM
You just don't shoot after they have turned and are moving away. If you do, you will probably be in more trouble than the BG.

Man charged after defending his home
By PAUL TURENNE
http://winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipeg/2006/06/20/1643069.html


A western Manitoba man has been arrested for allegedly shooting at two men who were trying to break into his house.

Harvey Joseph Young, 28, has been charged with attempted murder, assault with a weapon, and a variety of other weapons-related charges after people who were allegedly trying to break into his home turned the tables and called the cops on him after one of them got shot.

After receiving treatment for the non-life-threatening gunshot wound, the man and his colleague were then both arrested and charged with breaking and entering.

But Young’s lawyer, Sheldon Pinx, said his client was justified if he used a weapon to defend his home.

“Mr. Young will maintain he acted in self-defence,” Pinx said yesterday.

The incident happened Saturday afternoon at the man’s rural home, located about 45 kilometres north of Roblin in the RM of Park.

KICKING DOOR

RCMP say two men were trying to kick in Young’s front door, but he was home at the time. Police say that “an altercation ensued,” at which point Young grabbed a gun, which prompted the others to leave.

Mounties allege that as the two were leaving, Young fired a shot at their vehicle and hit one of them.

The men apparently then drove to Russell, called the RCMP, then went to the hospital.

Russell resident Terry Eldred Curle, 50, and 37-year-old Darren Norman Lindsay of Roblin were then turned over to Mounties and have been charged with a number of offences including break and enter, uttering threats, and mischief.

But it’s Young that faces the more serious charges, including attempted murder, assault with a weapon, discharging a firearm with intent, possession of a weapon for dangerous purpose, and other offences.

All three men are being held in jail in Dauphin.

Pinx declined to say whether Young knew the would-be robbers, and RCMP spokesman Sgt. Steve Colwell was unsure.

Colwell said it’s up to the courts, not police, to decide if Young was justified in allegedly shooting at the men.

Canada’s Criminal Code states that people whose homes are being invaded are entitled to use “as much force as is necessary” to prevent someone from breaking into or forcibly entering their house.

The law also states people can use force to remove trespassers from their property, but can use “no more force than is necessary.”

Colwell advised anyone in that situation to call police immediately then leave the house if it’s possible.

Roblin is located 128 kilometres northwest of Brandon.

If you enjoyed reading about "Man charged after defending his home" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
FTF
June 21, 2006, 11:35 PM
Speaking from the American standpoint... you can't fire into a car leaving your house after a burglary. or you shouldn't IMO. That's offense, not defense. You missed your defensive chance the minute they turned their backs to you and left. The cops can probably get away with it if they think the dude poses a threat to the public... but not you... and maybe not them either in a civil suit.

I can speak from experience that gun laws in Canada are not even remotely close to those in the United States... half of the charges against him most likely could have been made for simply possessing a firearm... regardless if he used it at all. If it wasn't registered he's almost guaranteed screwed anyways, shooting or not.

Probably both parties were intoxicated. One thing I know about Canada, growing up so close to the border... they may tout their nazi-like gun laws as a success story, but I'll be damned if half the country isn't drunk at any given time. I doubt they even have an equivalent for domestic violence... if they did, the whole country would be in jail lol.

mp510
June 22, 2006, 12:23 AM
In Canada, isn't the use of firearms, especially handguns, illegal??

Anyhow, they were fleeing, and I agree that he shouldn't have shot. I also believe he deserves a while with Bubba for what he did. Not self defense.

Steve in PA
June 22, 2006, 12:31 AM
Once they left, any threat went with them. No claim for self-defense.

Handgun Midas
June 22, 2006, 01:50 AM
Colwell advised anyone in that situation to call police immediately then leave the house if it’s possible.
Pass

carpettbaggerr
June 22, 2006, 01:52 AM
Once they left, any threat went with them
True. But they hadn't left yet, which is how he was able to shoot them.
No claim for self-defense.
Unless they had a rifle and were pointing it from their vehicle.


As written, it seems the shooting wasn't justified, but the article leaves out so much, you can't really tell.

Jim March
June 22, 2006, 03:43 AM
There's always that tricky thing regarding "is he running towards cover in order to shoot from behind something solid?" or even worse, is he shooting wildly over his shoulder or with one arm backwards while running away?

The latter does happen sometimes...

Wiley
June 22, 2006, 04:25 AM
From the article Young shot at the 'vehicle' and missed. Oops.

"But, Your Worship, I was just trying to mark the get away vehicle so the authorities could identify it!"

Vex
June 22, 2006, 04:33 AM
I agree with the other posters who think this was unjustified. Once the thread leaves, there's no justification for a shooting. Instead, by following the guys to their car and shooting at the fleeing burglars, the perceived threat switced to the home owner.

bill in IN
June 22, 2006, 07:39 AM
This would be an interesting case to be on the jury for. If they are charged with making threats, maybe there's something there. A threat such as- "i'M GONNA COME BACK AND KILL YOU SUCKA" -would make a little difference in perspective to me.

yorick
June 22, 2006, 12:06 PM
I know it's not "according to the law" - but in my opinion - in any decent society any creep who broke into a persons house or assaulted/mugged/raped would automatically be fair game for anything the 'victim' can come up with during the entire duration of the encounter.

It's asinine that homeowners get charged in cases like this in any jurisdiction - just because the homeowner turned out not to be a defensless sheep and the bad guys now want to disengage - what - so they can find a little old defensless lady two doors down on which to prey? :banghead:

The HO didn't choose to be assaulted - and if in the heat of the moment he pops a couple rounds after the fleeing bad guys who are we to gainsay him? I vote good for him - too bad it wasn't more damaging to the perps..

it's cases like this that were made for 'jury nullification' - at least here in the states....based on the story as written there is no chance that guy gets any grief from me if I were on the jury...

HankB
June 22, 2006, 12:28 PM
Situations like this exist because, on some basic, visceral level, the politicians identify more closely with the crooks than they do with the homeowner.

sparx
June 22, 2006, 03:32 PM
Situations like this exist because, on some basic, visceral level, the politicians identify more closely with the crooks than they do with the homeowner.
I think that's because those that do, most likely are. (crooks)

Cosmoline
June 22, 2006, 04:02 PM
It's similar to the preacher up in Big Lake who shot the fleeing robbers with a .44 Magnum. Both died, and he went on trial but the jury acquitted him. I think he was over the line, but I probably would have voted to acquit as well. HOWEVER, if the preacher had been drinking and had gotten in a back-and-forth argument with the crooks for long enough to see they weren't armed, it would have been a different story. As it was he ran smack into them as they were rushing up the stairs and out of instinct he started firing as they darted out a door. There was no discussion or argument.

Kurush
June 22, 2006, 04:28 PM
Colwell advised anyone in that situation to call police immediately then leave the house if it’s possible.Good idea, after all it's only homeowners who shoot people when they're fleeing, home invaders play by the rules :scrutiny:

leadcounsel
June 22, 2006, 04:57 PM
In Colorado the threat must be an imminent threat of significant bodily harm to self or another innocent person, and you can also stop the commission of a violent felony with necessary force up to, and including, lethal force if necessary.

My response to this situation... "after I told them I had a gun they told me they had a bigger gun and went to their car; it sure looked like they had a bigger gun so I shot in self defense."

If you enjoyed reading about "Man charged after defending his home" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!