Glanbrook homeowner charged with second degree murder!

Forum Sponsor
raginduck said:
What makes you say that?
Click to expand...

Well there was history before the land was bought the previous owners had had run ins with the Neighbors , dumping stuff and other property line violations and he let Ian known this. However as the previous owner was vacating the land he must have seen the two neighbours and said something along the lines of "This new owner wont take any of your crap so you better watch out". Ian I belive also said something inflammatory to them on their first encounter eventually there were further disputes that then that lead up to the attempted firebombing (and i was wrong it was his house they were attempting to set alight) and the shots and eventually Ian being acquitted of charges. The point is that the entire thing could have been avoided if instead of continuing the old neighbors dispute going Ian had went to speak to them maby had a beer with the guys the entire thing could have been avoided. Ian was and from what i understand of people who know him a confrontational hot head and that did not help his situation.
 
Two50noob said:
Well there was history before the land was bought the previous owners had had run ins with the Neighbors , dumping stuff and other property line violations and he let Ian known this. However as the previous owner was vacating the land he must have seen the two neighbours and said something along the lines of "This new owner wont take any of your crap so you better watch out". Ian I belive also said something inflammatory to them on their first encounter eventually there were further disputes that then that lead up to the attempted firebombing (and i was wrong it was his house they were attempting to set alight) and the shots and eventually Ian being acquitted of charges. The point is that the entire thing could have been avoided if instead of continuing the old neighbors dispute going Ian had went to speak to them maby had a beer with the guys the entire thing could have been avoided. Ian was and from what i understand of people who know him a confrontational hot head and that did not help his situation.
Click to expand...

The fact that the neighbour would resort to arson would indicate to me that the situation was hopeless to start with.
 
Considering there was a fella selling his pick up ended up shot and incinerated, I'd take a gun outside to see who was messing with my truck.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
nobbie48 said:
The fact that the neighbour would resort to arson would indicate to me that the situation was hopeless to start with.
Click to expand...

Who knows what was said/done when to escalate it that far however not starting off in an adversarial position would not have made things worse.
 
Two50noob said:
Who knows what was said/done when to escalate it that far however not starting off in an adversarial position would not have made things worse.
Click to expand...

If I remember right... the guys that threw the bombs weren't his neighbors.. were paid to do it by the neighbor.
 
The dead guy, Jon Styres, 29, of Ohsweken... did he have a criminal record? Car thief, break and enter, etc?

Or was he in the wrong place at the wrong time, standing next to the wrong pickup truck?
 
You don't get shot for just standing there. Maybe if there's a cop around, yes.
 
inreb said:
You don't get shot for just standing there. Maybe if there's a cop around, yes.
Click to expand...

He could have been shot in the back while running away.. or.. He could have been shot while advancing towards the homeowner. I doubt most, if not all, of us have little idea of what actually happened at this point. I don't have an opinion yet... as I don't know enough about the incident.
I would think.. considering the home owner went outside of his house to confront the thief... putting himself in further danger (if there was any at all) that he will have a very hard time claiming self defense.
 
raginduck said:
He could have been shot in the back while running away.. or.. He could have been shot while advancing towards the homeowner. I doubt most, if not all, of us have little idea of what actually happened at this point. I don't have an opinion yet... as I don't know enough about the incident.
I would think.. considering the home owner went outside of his house to confront the thief... putting himself in further danger (if there was any at all) that he will have a very hard time claiming self defense.
Click to expand...

He will have a hard time claiming self defence because of the nanny (which isn't there to help, ironically) state we live in. The onus should be on the prosecution to prove not self defence. Which it can't.
 
inreb said:
He will have a hard time claiming self defence because of the nanny (which isn't there to help, ironically) state we live in. The onus should be on the prosecution to prove not self defence. Which it can't.
Click to expand...

Would be a whole lot easier for the crown to prove... if the guy was shot in the back while running away.. vs.. shot the chest at close range, while swinging his arm, with a knife in hand.
 
raginduck said:
There was nothing that happened beforehand that would justify bombing his house.... or his dog(s).
Click to expand...

Oh course not but im saying Ian wasn't not escalating the issues either now as far as i know nothing ian did leading upto that was illegal but does not mean he wasn't partially responsible for the escalations. The mistake were made on both sides way before the events of that night.
 
Gotta love Canada.

Land of the free. Really. Just walk on up and take what you want.

You might be politely asked to leave.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
1988 Christmas Day 3am. Two men broke into my step fathers truck to look for any valuables and possibly steal it.

These fellas didn't leave when asked. We yelled at them and told them we called the cops.

They decided to engage us.

One had a knife.

I was in underwear and step dad in flannel pjs.

I'm not suggested anyone go out and shoot first and ask questions later.

Or murder anyone.

I kinda wish they just left so we could go back to bed.

I beat the **** out of one of the guys that night and held him until the cops arrived. And the other was caught a couple of blocks away.

I wouldn't want to live with taking the life of anyone.

But that night, I feared for my life. And if I had a gun, would have used it.

The thiefs were high on glue and out of their minds.

Staying in and calling 911 sure sounds like a great idea.

Unfortunately, these fellas were aggressive and we thought they may enter the house and had no idea if they were armed or not.

Should we have stayed inside? I'm sure it would have been the best thing to do.

These guys could have killed me and my family. They didn't.

And you don't have time to go over what's the best thing to do.

It's frightening.

I don't think folks have the right to blow away someone stepping on their property.

We have folks to enter property all the time. Mail, meter readers, surveys etc.

But you don't get to ***** someone on your property at 3am. If they have a gun or weapon or violent behaviour or mental health.

It's easy to judge from the safety of the keyboard and poke holes in theories etc.

But when you go through it, you'll know it. And it's not fun to be violated.

And I remember that day like it happened just moments ago.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
caboose56 said:
Anyone who thinks its ok to walk outside to confront the thief, shoot and kill them, then claim self defense is living in the wrong century and the wrong country.

Get a brain, morans!
Click to expand...

Nobody here thinks that. I don't know why you think it can't be self defense if he was, gasp, ATTACKED.

I know, bleeding hearts have a hard time imagining such a scenario... but just try.

Him walking out of his home with a gun isn't necessarily an illegal act at all. The crown would have to prove that he was looking for a confrontation, or that he went out there guns blazing.
 
mmmnaked said:
Nobody here thinks that. I don't know why you think it can't be self defense if he was, gasp, ATTACKED.

I know, bleeding hearts have a hard time imagining such a scenario... but just try.

Him walking out of his home with a gun isn't necessarily an illegal act at all. The crown would have to prove that he was looking for a confrontation, or that he went out there guns blazing.
Click to expand...

Stay inside!!!

Stay the **** inside! He created the confrontation. He killed the dude.

This isn't the Wild West. We live in a world where that could be murder.... So he got charged.
 
caboose56 said:
Stay inside!!!

Stay the **** inside! He created the confrontation. He killed the dude.

This isn't the Wild West. We live in a world where that could be murder.... So he got charged.
Click to expand...

Someone is stealing your **** and the usual bleeding heart advice is to cower inside. Amazing.

Listen, this situation ended badly (could've been worse though) and that's crystal clear to me. I would personally NOT do what he did and walk out there with a gun. With that said, I also don't know what the situation was. Did this guy also try the front door??? Was he peeking into house windows? Maybe it was an attempted break-in before an attempted vehicle theft?

If someone is stealing your stuff and you ask them to stop, and they continue, that's assault in the eyes of the law. Its up to the jury to determine what a reasonable level of force was in that particular situation. If this guy had a weapon, or attacked the homeowner, this case is absolutely clear cut.. that man was defending his life.

But yeah as usual, the actual victim is turned into the guy who 'created the confrontation' by walking outside to see what was up. And the criminal is now the victim, because, you know, it's just a truck, guys.


**** me
Forum Sponsor
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom