[andyt]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/mom-kills-intruder_n_1183336.html

[DrCaleb]

She did do everything by the book. The intruders always had the option to leave, and to not carry weapons.

[DanSC]

The intruder charged at her with a knife. She did the right thing.

[andyt]

I think the castle doctrine in the US can go too far. But in Canada we've gone too far in the other direction. If you have reasonable fear for your life or safety, you should be able to shoot an intruder in your own home. Someone who breaks in meets that definition, IMO.

I would like to then see some sort of judicial review to make sure the shooting was justified - maybe something like the cops go thru. Don't just have the cop on the scene determine if the shooting was justified, but don't make the shooter go thru a trial unless it's determined the shooting was not justified.

[DrCaleb]

andyt wrote:

Don't just have the cop on the scene determine if the shooting was justified, but don't make the shooter go thru a trial unless it's determined the shooting was not justified.

Why not? They are better trained in use of force than a jury is, and if there is any doubt they are the ones to reccomend charges to the Crown. Then the Crown can take it to a judge and jury if they think it is warranted.

[andyt]

As I said, don't make the shooter go thru a trial unless it's determined that the shoot was no good. (ie no jury if there's no trial). But have the shooter go thru a similar process that a cop goes thru when s/he shoots somebody. If trained personnel have to justify their actions, so should civilians.

Wasn't what I wrote clear enough? I thought it was.

[DrCaleb]

andyt wrote:

As I said, don't make the shooter go thru a trial unless it's determined that the shoot was no good. (ie no jury if there's no trial). But have the shooter go thru a similar process that a cop goes thru when s/he shoots somebody. If trained personnel have to justify their actions, so should civilians.

Wasn't what I wrote clear enough? I thought it was.

I'm getting a double negative vibe from you.

"I would like to then see some sort of judicial review to make sure the shooting was justified"

"but don't make the shooter go thru a trial unless it's determined the shooting was not justified."

Why not have the cop on scene determine if the shoot was good or not? That saves a judicial review just as if it were a police involved shooting. To me, if you are before a judge - it's a court trial.

[GreenTiger]

DanSC wrote:

The intruder charged at her with a knife. She did the right thing.

With an infant son in the home? Hell yes she did the right thing. It is true that in The States we go a bit overboard with guns but in this case to argue that she should call the police and sit an wait for them as this creep is carrying a weapon close to her infant child while might be PC would be more than most of us would tolerate.


The police who would arrive on the scene can make a determination is the shooting was justified.

[andyt]

DrCaleb wrote:

andyt wrote:

As I said, don't make the shooter go thru a trial unless it's determined that the shoot was no good. (ie no jury if there's no trial). But have the shooter go thru a similar process that a cop goes thru when s/he shoots somebody. If trained personnel have to justify their actions, so should civilians.

Wasn't what I wrote clear enough? I thought it was.

I'm getting a double negative vibe from you.

"I would like to then see some sort of judicial review to make sure the shooting was justified"

"but don't make the shooter go thru a trial unless it's determined the shooting was not justified."

Why not have the cop on scene determine if the shoot was good or not? That saves a judicial review just as if it were a police involved shooting. To me, if you are before a judge - it's a court trial.

Same reason we don't have the cops on the scene determine if the shoot was good when a cop does it. The cops go thru a review, so should the civilian. It's not a trial, there's no finding of guilt or innocence. It's a review to determine if there should be a trial or not.

[DrCaleb]

andyt wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:

andyt wrote:

As I said, don't make the shooter go thru a trial unless it's determined that the shoot was no good. (ie no jury if there's no trial). But have the shooter go thru a similar process that a cop goes thru when s/he shoots somebody. If trained personnel have to justify their actions, so should civilians.

Wasn't what I wrote clear enough? I thought it was.

I'm getting a double negative vibe from you.

"I would like to then see some sort of judicial review to make sure the shooting was justified"

"but don't make the shooter go thru a trial unless it's determined the shooting was not justified."

Why not have the cop on scene determine if the shoot was good or not? That saves a judicial review just as if it were a police involved shooting. To me, if you are before a judge - it's a court trial.

Same reason we don't have the cops on the scene determine if the shoot was good when a cop does it. The cops go thru a review, so should the civilian. It's not a trial, there's no finding of guilt or innocence. It's a review to determine if there should be a trial or not.

Since officer involved shootings are reviewed by a civillian oversight board, what you therefore don't want are civillian involved shootings reviewed by civillians. Why not have them reviewed by the officer on the scene then? Police oversight of civillian shootings, just as there is civillian oversight of Police involved shootings? Charges then reccommended to the Crown?

Saves everyone time and money. Justice is swifter.

[andyt]

I wan't more than one cop involved in the decision. I want a proper review board look at civilian shootings, just as cop shootings are reviewed. I'm not interested in saving time and money if it means an illegal shooter gets off, or for that matter a legal shooter has to go to court to prove it, the way it mostly seems to happen now.

At the moment, cops seem to mostly charge people in what sound like reasonable shootings, because the cops don't have clear guidelines about what's a reasonable shooting. I'm proposing a step before charging to take a second look at the shooting to see if charges are justified. We probably need to make the law clearer about all this too. As I said once before, if somebody breaks into your basement, you can't go down to just shoot him. If he comes up the stairs to where you are, feel free to open up.

[Macguyver]

If shooting a guy who has a knife, has broken into your house and who is moving toward you is not justified, then there is no such thing.

And if I'm stupid enough to be accidently shot/murdered in someone's house while holding a knife after a 20 minute 911 to the police from the home owner, then I am too stupid to deserve justice.

[andyt]

Every one deserves justice. In this case the intruder doesn't need it because he's dead. He got justice in the sense of a justified shooting. But in Canada, this woman would likely be charged, from what I've seen in the news.

[BRAH]

Oklahoma mom calling 911 asks if shooting an intruder is allowed
(CNN) -- Home alone with her 3-month-old son, Sarah Dawn McKinley of Blanchard, Oklahoma, said she decided to make a stand when two men tried to break into her home on New Year's Eve.

McKinley, who had been widowed less than a week before, placed a couch in front of one door and went to the bedroom and put a bottle in her baby's mouth before calling 911, she said on HLN's "Dr. Drew" on Wednesday.
A 911 operator calmly spoke with McKinley, who asked if it was permissible to shoot an intruder, officials said.

"I've got two guns in my hand. Is it OK to shoot him if he comes in this door?" asked McKinley, 18.

"Well, you have to do whatever you can do to protect yourself," dispatcher Diane Graham responded. "I can't tell you that you can do that, but you do what you have to do to protect your baby."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/04/justice/oklahoma-intruder-shooting/index.html
_

The 911 Operator did the right thing telling the mother to do whatever she had to do to protect herself and her baby.

[Bruce_E_T]

andyt wrote:

Every one deserves justice. In this case the intruder doesn't need it because he's dead. He got justice in the sense of a justified shooting. But in Canada, this woman would likely be charged, from what I've seen in the news.

I don't think so. It is clearly a case of self defence (and defence of child) against an aggressive, armed intruder. Maybe a more formal investigation but what is the gain of pressing charges?