I think technically if you cant load the firearm if the bylaws don't let you shoot in on your property (special circumstances such as defence apply if it was a legal use)
Glanbrook homeowner charged with second degree murder!
- Thread starter Skully
- Start date
I think technically if you cant load the firearm if the bylaws don't let you shoot in on your property (special circumstances such as defence apply if it was a legal use)
He is absolutely right... If he is talking about someone just grabbing a gun, walking outside, and shooting the person without hesitation... without giving the thief a chance to leave/surrender... without there being a real threat. If that is what happened in this situation, and it may or may not be, we don't know... then he should rot in prison.
Would you still support the guy if it comes out that the thief was shot in the back as he was running away? Or, if he was shot in the back while still leaning in the truck, not knowing it was coming? May be he had his hands up, bawling and begging for his life when he was shot?
May be it was totally justified shooting... thief attacked, had weapon, etc... homeowner could have been in real danger when he shot.
Again, we don't know what happened yet...
He will pay out more for lawyers than he would to replace a truck. Unless Khill can prove someone's life was in danger before he stepped out the door he is toast.
That's the choice he made. I'm not gonna call someone a moron or retard for wanting to protect what's his. That's twisted.
Im also gonna side with the individual who WASN'T committing a crime, a guy with a clean background.. until PROVEN otherwise.
I think it's time to build a wall!
Classic dindo.
I wonder if he checked his face book page before confronting him
I'm guessing he formed the correct opinion of this scumbag when he realized he's stealing his car.
I thought that myself when i saw the link. This is why you never check in a burglary locations guys
Last edited:
Not everything is black and white. If Canadian laws allowed you to kill someone else because you are a man and you want to protect your ego, we will be in some serious ****.
Your truck has insurance so if you come out with a gun to confront a potential thief you are subject to 2 things, one get killed or second kill the potential thief.
The grey area is when there is a miss understanding so the law swings to prevention and makes a statement "you can not kill someone to defend property" period, like it or not it probably makes things safer for the owners of said items to be stolen.
It has nothing to do with your ego or manhood, it has to do with what it makes sense and makes everyone generally safer.
Now you can hit your chest like a primate and insult others manhood because of their common sense but that is on you budd.
Last edited:
How do you go about proving that the dead guy was committing a crime that justified him being shot dead? You can't very well put him on trial now, can you?
If somebody was messing with my sweet ride I'd cower behind the blinds not because I don't have an ego but because some eco weenie suggested I should. Of course if there were two thieves I'd go outside to put a foot up each of their $@@es and walk them around like a pair of autistic flip flops because I'm always looking for a reason to do that.
That's up to the jury and lawyers to suss out. I can be sure of one thing - this guy wasn't there to ask for a cup of sugar at 3am.
I'm always gonna give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt. Someone was on HIS property, he didn't have to go looking for trouble it came to him. Confronting someone for stealing your **** is apparently bad these days. Bend over and take it.
If he were alive he would lie anyway. These guys like to use circular reasoning.
The law says quite clearly that when someone CONTINUES stealing your property after you tell them to stop, it becomes ASSAULT. If that person is armed or further threatens your well-being you are absolutely justified in using reasonable force (up to and including the fatal variety) to stop them.
The question now is why so many bleeding hearts choose to side with the criminal instead of giving the homeowner benefit of the doubt. If the perp and victim weren't known to each other, and the victim (home owner) has a clean past, conclusions can be drawn about how the situation probably transpired. Yeah the thug is dead, but his word wouldn't be worth anything to begin with.
Last edited:
I can't see anybody being convicted if the only action taken was a properly executed AFF.
Find and interrogate the 1,2, or 3?? others that were involved with styres, he was not alone. Untill then, leave this young man alone and let him get on with his life! whats done is done.
Peter Khill case: Petitions compete on property rights, vigilantism
Bail hearing for Peter Khill in shooting death expected later this week
CBC News Posted: Feb 09, 2016 7:00 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 09, 2016 7:00 PM ET
More than 11,500 people have signed an online petition calling on authorities to withdraw charges against a Hamilton man charged with murder in a confrontation over an attempted theft of his truck.
A bail hearing has been pushed back to later this week for Peter Khill, the man charged with second-degree murder in the death of a man on his Glanbrook driveway last Thursday.
Police say Khill, 26, was involved in a confrontation with a man who appeared to be stealing a truck in the driveway of Khill's home in Hannon, just after 3 a.m. on Thursday.
Police say Khill was armed when he confronted the man, who was 29-year-old Jon Styres.
During the confrontation, the man that police say was attempting to steal the truck "died as a result of gunshot-related injuries."
'Stealing is not right but death over theft is not right either'
The case has ignited speculation and arguments on issues of personal property rights and vigilantism. And it's sparked at least two competing petitions.
The online petition to completely withdraw charges against Khill has attracted more than 11,500 signatures.
"Canadians must have a right to use as much force as needed to protect their families, children, life, limb and property without fear of prosecution," the petition reads.
Meanwhile, 800 people have signed a petition started yesterday that is called "Justice for Jon Styres" – pushing back.
"Stealing is not right but death over theft is not right either," the petition reads.
'Second-degree murder seems pretty harsh'
At Ontario Superior Court on Tuesday, a woman who was there with a group of four others said she came to the court in support of Styres, but she did not say how or whether she knew him. The other members also declined to comment further.
Two men from Niagara who described themselves as right-wing, property-rights advocates attended court Tuesday to try to get some answers to questions they have about the case.
They said they don't know Khill.
"Second-degree murder seems pretty harsh," said Fred Bracken, who said his position lines up with the Second Amendment in the U.S., which identifies Americans' rights to keep and bear arms.
"I'm just a property rights guy," he said.
The other man, Niagara Regional Councillor Andy Petrowski, said based on the details revealed so far in the case, he also thinks second-degree murder is too high of a charge.
An attorney representing Khill, Derek Martin, declined comment outside the courtroom on Tuesday.
During a brief video hearing Tuesday, details were worked out for the next step in the case. Khill is expected to appear by video on Thursday ahead of an expected bail hearing on Friday. story from the CBC
Peter Khill case: Petitions compete on property rights, vigilantism
Bail hearing for Peter Khill in shooting death expected later this week
CBC News Posted: Feb 09, 2016 7:00 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 09, 2016 7:00 PM ET
More than 11,500 people have signed an online petition calling on authorities to withdraw charges against a Hamilton man charged with murder in a confrontation over an attempted theft of his truck.
A bail hearing has been pushed back to later this week for Peter Khill, the man charged with second-degree murder in the death of a man on his Glanbrook driveway last Thursday.
Police say Khill, 26, was involved in a confrontation with a man who appeared to be stealing a truck in the driveway of Khill's home in Hannon, just after 3 a.m. on Thursday.
Police say Khill was armed when he confronted the man, who was 29-year-old Jon Styres.
During the confrontation, the man that police say was attempting to steal the truck "died as a result of gunshot-related injuries."
'Stealing is not right but death over theft is not right either'
The case has ignited speculation and arguments on issues of personal property rights and vigilantism. And it's sparked at least two competing petitions.
The online petition to completely withdraw charges against Khill has attracted more than 11,500 signatures.
"Canadians must have a right to use as much force as needed to protect their families, children, life, limb and property without fear of prosecution," the petition reads.
Meanwhile, 800 people have signed a petition started yesterday that is called "Justice for Jon Styres" – pushing back.
"Stealing is not right but death over theft is not right either," the petition reads.
'Second-degree murder seems pretty harsh'
At Ontario Superior Court on Tuesday, a woman who was there with a group of four others said she came to the court in support of Styres, but she did not say how or whether she knew him. The other members also declined to comment further.
Two men from Niagara who described themselves as right-wing, property-rights advocates attended court Tuesday to try to get some answers to questions they have about the case.
They said they don't know Khill.
"Second-degree murder seems pretty harsh," said Fred Bracken, who said his position lines up with the Second Amendment in the U.S., which identifies Americans' rights to keep and bear arms.
"I'm just a property rights guy," he said.
The other man, Niagara Regional Councillor Andy Petrowski, said based on the details revealed so far in the case, he also thinks second-degree murder is too high of a charge.
An attorney representing Khill, Derek Martin, declined comment outside the courtroom on Tuesday.
During a brief video hearing Tuesday, details were worked out for the next step in the case. Khill is expected to appear by video on Thursday ahead of an expected bail hearing on Friday. story from the CBC
may i have your permission to use the line above, its brilliant! :thumbup:
Wow - an online petition - nothing elicits long-term, effective change like an online petition.
Last edited:
