[ShepherdsDog]

http://www.cbc.ca/manitoba/story/mb-cha ... 60619.html

Would he have had less of a headache if he had shot and killed them both in the house?

[jazzman]

Why the hell did the home owner get charged for ?. He was only protecting his belongings and himself and wouldn't they have have hurt him had he not pulled out his gun ?.

[Hardy]

I can't say that I'm current on the applicable case law, but since the intruders were apparently unarmed, and fled at the sight of a weapon, shooting them in the back would probably not go over a whole lot better even if they were still in the house.

My guess, anyway. Do not construe it as legal advice.

[Hardy]

jazzman wrote:

Why the hell did the home owner get charged for ?. He was only protecting his belongings and himself and wouldn't they have have hurt him had he not pulled out his gun ?.

They seem to have been unarmed, and were running away. "Self defense" doesn't usually include shooting unarmed people who are running away, even if they aren't very nice people.

[jazzman]

Well, yeah I suppose that makes sense.

[fatbasturd]

He should have shot them in the house

[Regina]

He'll get off those charges. Unless there's more to the story than this article, he was only charged to deter anyone else from doing the same thing. That's the part we'll never here and only assume he was found guilty, just because he was charged.
Maybe the judge will sentence him to a week on the target range, so he'd do more than just "wing" one of them next time.

[Thematic-Device]

basically, if someone is running away, you can't shoot them. "Revenge" negates "self defense"

[ridenrain]

The catch-all is "improper storage of a firearm" and he'll definitely get that one. I wouldn't doubt that the charges would stick. After all, these poor, dis-enfranchised fellows were simply engaging in an alternate lifestyle....bla, bla bla
This is typical.
If they left him alive, he was supposed to phone the police, who would probably not attend, but would tell him to simply let his home insurance deal with it.

[Canadian_Mind]

Could say they were running in an agressive manner toward your kid.

[Speshul_ED]

the operative word here is HE ... he is protecting property, and that is not worth killing for in the eyes of our justice system... not since kootenay brown got off before the turn of the last century for hanging the men who stole his horse... that is the last case of such a case i know of... if SHE had shot them... in our system, she would have been protecting herself, and would have been ok... men have to actually get raped before they can prove they were protecting themselves... that's how the law sees it in a nutshell... a bit over simplified perhaps, but that's how it is. sorry

[Ripcat]

If he had shot them dead in the house he'd have been charged with something but after a complete investigation the charges would have been dropped. I really don't think a jury would return a guilty verdict for someone who shot two intruders in his home. I think the trauma of having that on your conscience, that you had to kill someone, would be punishment enough.