Man charged with stabbing intruder

Forum Sponsor
Crap!

If my family is in the same house with an intruder (they are called intruders for a reason), I'm not inclined to ask questions first and I shouldn't be expected to. Should I inquire if he's there to just rob us or kill us, pat him down to see if he's armed and then have a round table discussion to find out what to do? There is an inherent risk being a thief, the risk of getting f...up if caught.

If there is something more to this story than just defending one's self and property, then I can understand the apparent victim's arrest.
 
The whole story sounds a bit sketchy.

Intruder is at Keele and lawrence-- gets caught by tenants of the home he is breaking into.

They then stab him several times

Yet, he makes it from Black Creek and Lawrence to Gulliver road which is quite the long trek if walking, maybe he took a cab or the TTC?

2 hours later, once he is home, he calls for an ambulance. At that point or in the hospital, police question him and then find out the "story" and go and arrest the tenant at the home he was breaking into?

If the story is true and the tenant did infact stab him, he shouldnt have said anything to the police.

The naivety of some people really amuses me.

When a police officer is charged-- regardless of charge (DUI, assault, etc...) the first thing he/she does is retaing their union/police association lawyer. They NEVER, EVER, speak to their police "brother" without a lawyer present.

Now, if the police, dont trust other police enough to issue a statement or to talk freely to each other, why, would you a citizen trust them to speak freely?

I suggest everyone follow the example of the police and keep their mouths shut.
 
twinn said:
The whole story sounds a bit sketchy.

Intruder is at Keele and lawrence-- gets caught by tenants of the home he is breaking into.

They then stab him several times

Yet, he makes it from Black Creek and Lawrence to Gulliver road which is quite the long trek if walking, maybe he took a cab or the TTC?

2 hours later, once he is home, he calls for an ambulance. At that point or in the hospital, police question him and then find out the "story" and go and arrest the tenant at the home he was breaking into?

If the story is true and the tenant did infact stab him, he shouldnt have said anything to the police.

The naivety of some people really amuses me.

When a police officer is charged-- regardless of charge (DUI, assault, etc...) the first thing he/she does is retaing their union/police association lawyer. They NEVER, EVER, speak to their police "brother" without a lawyer present.

Now, if the police, dont trust other police enough to issue a statement or to talk freely to each other, why, would you a citizen trust them to speak freely?

I suggest everyone follow the example of the police and keep their mouths shut.
Click to expand...

Well if he was smart, he wouldn't of just broken into someones apartment to begin with. Still reminds me of when my friend ran up and attacked 2 guys that were attempting to cut his bike lock and load his bike up onto a van. Friend was charged with a assault, while the others guys got off free since there was no100% evidence the bike was actually being stolen.
 
Icbones said:
How the law protects people depends on who you are. Michael Byrant got away with killing someone who pounded on the hood of his car after rear ending the guy's bicycle while driving his Audi. Politician"s current or ex get charges dropped.
Click to expand...

As an Audi driver, I find your post offensive.




Bryant was driving a Saab 9000 convertible when he murdered Darcy Sheppard.
 
mmmnaked said:
Excellent example of how inadequately the law protects victims in this country.

There's absolutely no valid reason for the homeowner being charged under any circumstances. Your home should be your castle, the last place you can possibly retreat to in case of danger. If someone invades that space we should be well within our rights to protect ourselves and our property any which way we can. Whether or not the intruder is armed should make no difference whatsoever...
Click to expand...

So are you suggesting that you should have free hand to do anything you want, anything at all, to someone if you should find them in your home? Maybe keep a good ole flogging post handy in the back yard? Maybe a dungeon? Maybe even a hanging rope from a limb in the backyard tree?

The law permits you to use reasonable force to protect self and property. It does not permit you to use deadly force to protect property. Thankfully we live in a society where a human life is considered to be worth more than a television set.

It does permit you to use deadly force if necessary to protect self against a reasonably-perceived threat of deadly force IF there are no other reasonably-available options available to you to remove or otherwise safeguard yourself against that threat of deadly force.

Your response must be reasonably proportional to the degree of threat facing you. You can use whatever force you reasonably need to protect yourself but you don't get carte blanche ok to do just anything you want. The allowance given is to provide means to protect and if able, detain, but is not intended to provide you free hand with which to inflict ad-hoc and unlimited summary punishment on a real or perceived offender.
 
Last edited:
short stop said:
It sounds like there could be more to this story. It isn't quite adding up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, really. The first the police learn of anything amiss is when the burglar tells the police he was stabbed while in another person's house? Why didn't the homeowner call the police first to report the break-in and provide a description of the escaped (or stabbed and released) burglar?
 
turbodish said:
So are you suggesting that you should have free hand to do anything you want, anything at all, to someone if you should find them in your home? Maybe keep a good ole flogging post handy in the back yard? Maybe a dungeon? Maybe even a hanging rope from a limb in the backyard tree?The law permits you to use reasonable force to protect self and property. It does not permit you to use deadly force to protect property. Thankfully we live in a society where a human life is considered to be worth more than a television set. It does permit you to use deadly force if necessary to protect self against a reasonably-perceived threat of deadly force IF there are no other reasonably-available options available to you to remove or otherwise safeguard yourself against that threat of deadly force. Your response must be reasonably proportional to the degree of threat facing you. You can use whatever force you reasonably need to protect yourself but you don't get carte blanche ok to do just anything you want. The allowance given is to provide means to protect and if able, detain, but is not intended to provide you free hand with which to inflict ad-hoc and unlimited summary punishment on a real or perceived offender.
Click to expand...
You wake up with someone in your house who has kicked your door down. Please tell me how you assess that they are there not to cause you any harm. If someone is in your house they already crossed the line and should expect any and all consequences including death or they should stay home
 
turbodish said:
Yeah, really. The first the police learn of anything amiss is when the burglar tells the police he was stabbed while in another person's house? Why didn't the homeowner call the police first to report the break-in and provide a description of the escaped (or stabbed and released) burglar?
Click to expand...
Cause they didn't want to get charged with assault like they now are?? You gotta think long and hard before calling and admitting anything to the police.
 
maybe the burglar knew the person he was robbing, when the guy came home saw his "buddy" robbing his place and stabbed him up
 
sonnythebull said:
Cause they didn't want to get charged with assault like they now are?? You gotta think long and hard before calling and admitting anything to the police.
Click to expand...

Well you call your lawyer first and then have them deal with the police. Your job is to keep your yap shot and only answer questions that your lawyer allows you to answer :cool:
 
slowbird said:
That's Caveman thinking.

"Oog oog....who dis?
Me no know him.
STAB! STAB!"
Click to expand...

Ya because it's normal for some dickwad to be in your house uninvited. Personally I would have beat the dude to within in an inch of his life. People need to learn to respect others property. Unfortunately for some they need a severe beat down to learn their lesson.
 
So

Someone is in your house, you dont know if they are armed or not, better call the police to be safe (whats the response time on that again?)

Just to get this straight.

The police do not serve and protect anything. Society as whole and its recogniztion of the law is what keeps people safe. The morality of its citizens is what keeps people safe. Police are there to augment and reinforce this viewpoint. A deterent. They are reactionary-- as that is the nature of their job(s), they do not stop nor does there mere presence stop or deter violence. The fear of getting caught is what keeps most people from commiting crime.

Perfect example-- Shooting this weekend on Lakeshore, huge brawl broke out with cops being maybe 10-20 feet away, that brawl led to a shooting that injured 2 innocent people and the police having to shoot the suspect as he drew and fired his weapon into a crowd with police being a couple of feet away. the presence of the police did not deter this person from shooting into a crowd. Either the person that was shot and killed by the police was not afraid of the consequences or he did not care or he thought he could get away into the crowd.


Turbo here is a scenerio


Tenant goes into his place and see's an intruder, he tells the intruder to "not move and get on the floor" the intruder is shifting around and moves toward the tenant, tenant cannot see his hands or if he is armed or not. The intruder refues to comply and the tenant then a. stabs him b. hits him with blunt object c. does whatever is neccessary to protect his saftey. tenant gets charged and arrested for assualt etc....

Not lets replace the word tenant with the word police officer. In that case, it would be a perfectly legit shooting, suspect did not comply, unsure if he was armed, suspect moved toward officer, officer shot, rest is history.

Kind of odd no, ok for police to use lethal force to protect themselves, but not ok for a citizen to use same force to protect themselve.
 
twinn said:
Tenant goes into his place and see's an intruder, he tells the intruder to "not move and get on the floor" the intruder is shifting around and moves toward the tenant, tenant cannot see his hands or if he is armed or not. The intruder refues to comply and the tenant then a. stabs him b. hits him with blunt object c. does whatever is neccessary to protect his saftey. tenant gets charged and arrested for assualt etc....

Not lets replace the word tenant with the word police officer. In that case, it would be a perfectly legit shooting, suspect did not comply, unsure if he was armed, suspect moved toward officer, officer shot, rest is history.

Kind of odd no, ok for police to use lethal force to protect themselves, but not ok for a citizen to use same force to protect themselve.
Click to expand...

Do you know what happens to a cop who shoots an unarmed person, or even an armed person in some circumstances? You think that cop gets a free pass? It rarely happens here, and cops in the US, where cops have a lot more latitude to use deadly force than here, often find themselves in deep trouble if that should happen.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom