You be the judge - Guilty or not guilty?
- Thread starter Ceiling Cat
- Start date
Guilty. The robbers were running away, he was no longer in danger. Yes, they shouldn't have come into his house but there is not the death penalty for robbery.
So were they trying to get away? He shot her in the back - twice. That would be grounds for arrest and conviction here in Ontario.
I would have shot them in my home face to face. Having been in a situation of walking in on a break and enter happening - without question I would shoot but not if they are running out of the house. I’m not shooting someone in the back.
I would have shot them in my home face to face. Having been in a situation of walking in on a break and enter happening - without question I would shoot but not if they are running out of the house. I’m not shooting someone in the back.
its florida so enough said.
in ontario he would be guilty.
personally, they broke into my house and know better. suffer the consequences.
in ontario he would be guilty.
personally, they broke into my house and know better. suffer the consequences.
If you let them get away you have to be double vigilant for the next time when they come back. As the guy said, "you can't break into people's home, man."
If It wasn't meant to be the bullet would of gone sideways. She got what she deserved.
They were not in the home but fleeing so at that point you have become judge, jury and executioner.
I'm curious how this 80 year old fart views abortion - he knowingly and with determination ended the pregnancy.
I have absolutely no problem with protecting yourself in your home. They attacked him and he fought them off. ( I give him benefit of the doubt but I am amazed two youths were attacking an 80 year old man and he overpowered them with enough time to retrieve a weapon. I suspect he approached them armed that they simply fended him off to escape).
Let's look at 'suffer the consequences' in a little more detail:
- Can we tie them up and torture them ?
- Can we rape the woman ?
- Can we put them in the oven and slowly cook them ?
- If they are kids - do we own them and can sell them into slavery ?
At the point the woman had fled the house, the old man ruthlessly shot an unarmed woman (presenting no threat) twice in the back. I think the old man should be charged and the penalty adjusted to the circumstances.
The biggest asshole is the gutless boyfriend/ father who probably pushed his girlfriends participation then abandoned her when things went wrong.
In Ontario he'd likely be found guilty. In California I'd say he'd probably be found not guilty, depending how good his lawyer is, since the imminent danger was fleeing although it started in his home. And being that he's older would be something his lawyer would use in his defense vs the much younger assailants.
LTO_3
LTO_3
this is where we differ in opinion. Im a fan of jamaican justice. when someone trespasses on your property and they dont know you, the machete comes out.
if by law I am able to do A I will do A. I will live within the boundaries set out in the law. in florida it was legal.
you are going into extremes which is your prerogative however the consequences in florida were in line with current law. he could have completed the list of crimes you mentioned and he would be held legally responsible for. if he did so he would be legally wrong, but people are foolish. they step into a complete strangers house and shit goes south . could have been jeffery dalmers or paul bernardos house.
moral of the story dont commit crimes and go into strangers house thinking that you will be safe or the law will keep you safe. crazy people are everywhere, so make your choices accordingly and suffer the consequences.
Last edited:
Yes. They were unarmed and running away from him. The threat was over and I doubt he had any concerns other than punishing them. Why stop there - he could feel the surviving family could be a risk and kill them. There has to be a limit. I am not suggesting the old man suffer jail time - he didn't plan this. Even if it's involuntary manslaughter - he should be charged and the sentence if convicted - adjusted to circumstances. I believe we should never suspend the law, just apply it as fairly to the circumstances as possible.
BTW: I'm not sympathetic to the plight of burglars. I don't want them to go unpunished. I just don't feel that it is a capital offence as determined by a pissed off vigilante. I also realize that as I discuss this topic with you - I don't know how I would react under the same circumstances.
A girl rings the doorbell of the wrong house and is immediately murdered. Kids collecting for charity assaulted - these happen. The law has to apply everywhere without exception. Strangers on your property should not give you immunity to inflect any punishment you want. Cops on the scene shouldn't determine guilt - a court of law should. I just don't see how you can prevent anarchy unless you have rules that apply to everyone. Hopefully the court will weigh the circumstances and administer justice accordingly.
I think the case you are referring to is an old white guy shot a young girl who rang his doorbell because she was lost. She was with a car load of friends on some back road in the country. That is quite different from people breaking into your house. At that point all bets are off. And as I posted, the chance of the same people coming back for either revenge or because it was an easy hit, or just for criminal shits and giggles, is quite high. So if you chose to finalize the problem for your own safety and peace of mind, maybe that should be taken into consideration.
I find mouse infestations bothersome. I deal with them. They don't belong in my apartment.
There was a case here in 2012 where a man was charged with aggravated assault for stabbing a man who broke in. He came home with his GF to find a man hiding behind the door of his mothers room. He chases him down the stairs and out the door and stabbed him in the front lawn if I remember correctly.
Fleeing the house is considered non threatening anymore and therefore anything done to the preps on the way out is criminal. At least being charged. I don’t know the outcome of that case. Wish I did.
EDIT: I found it. Charges were dropped and the prep was stabbed in the home. My bad.
Name of the man was Moses Mahilal in case anyone wants to look it up.
Well, in a perfect world, I guess saying "go away and don't come back" should be enough. Personally I would find somebody breaking into my home terrifying. You don't really know what you're dealing with. Somebody who's "normal" includes breaking in to someone's home can't really be considered normal. So what are you dealing with here? A polite request to leave should do the trick? What if they come back? How do I eliminate this threat? How much time do I have to weigh my options? If they are comfortable breaking in, how much of a stretch is it to think they might be comfortable inflicting personal injury on me to control their situation or eliminate me as a witness?
Last edited:
if its within the scope of the law the action is considered legal. it has also set out limitations which would be precedents set in previous court preceding.
the rules do apply to everyone, but in the US there are loophole such as stand your ground and castle doctrine(florida has this) which is more than likely why that gentleman will get off. hes an elderly man who had 2 people break in his house, more than likely did not know whether they were packing.
Fortunately he doesn't live in Ontario. We prosecute victims like him here and let criminals run the show.
