Using A Knife For Self Defence costs 10 to Life

If your topic has nothing to do with Spyderco, you can post it here.
User avatar
Bowie Man
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Using A Knife For Self Defence costs 10 to Life

Postby Bowie Man » Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:18 am

Hello Everybody,

Hope you all had a great Christmas and a bleated Happy New Year! :D

We are involved in a home invasion/homicide investigation that took place shortly after Christmas 2006. I'm going give you the "Cole's Notes" version of the incident, as it is currently still an open and ongoing investigation. Don't feel sorry for the parties involved as they are all a####les who wouldn't think twice about hurting you or your families.

The fact that all parties are known to Police and have extensive criminal histories, has no bearing on the on the types of charges laid or the Crown Prosecutor's enthusiastic lobby for a lenghty prison term.

Two bandits armed with handguns forced their way into the victim's house and shot him twice when he didn't comply with their demands. Unbeknownst to them, his brother was in the basement and surprised them with a kitchen knife. The fight was on, and both bandits panicked at the ferocity of the attack. They fled from the residence and were chased by the brother who continued to slash and stab at one of them. (The brother later told Police that he believed they were going to come back to finish the job.) Eventually one of the bandits collapsed from his injuries and died on the sidewalk. The brother then ran back to the house and called 911 for help. He was completely cooperative and honest when interviewed by the Police, and then was arrested for homicide.

Right or wrong, the argument here is the undisputed fact that bandit was fleeing from the residence while he was being attacked by the brother. Although armed with a loaded handgun, he did not use it, therefore did not pose an immediate threat to the brother's life. The brother also chased them out of his residence, thus eliminating the continued threat against him and the victim (his brother). And once that threat was gone, regardless for how long, they were safe from immediate danger at that very point and time. Therefore, there was no need for self defence or the excessive/lethal use of force that the brother used while chasing the fleeing bandit. He pursued the bandit when he should of stayed in the house.

You don't have to agree with it, but it is the law. And quite often the law is not on our side.

This type of incident is not too far fetched from the typical "self defence" scenarios that are discussed at length on all of these knife forums. Everyone has their favoriate SD knife, and envisons themselves using it when a safe escape is no longer an option. That's nice....the reality of the matter is that you can be trained in a hundred different martial arts, and carry as many swords & knives that will fit on your belt... HOWEVER, will you be able to stand up against that other man and not only do what it takes to survive, but face the consequenses afterwards? That's a question each and every one of us can only answer when faced with that threat.

If you do injure, wound, maim or kill somebody while defending yourself...remember, that you WILL be held accountable for your actions in a court of law. You cannot possibly expect to escape the liabiliy of that incident with all of the modern forensics, witnesses (who are generally not credible in court), video surveillance etc.. There will also be the testimony of the bandit who will lie to evade being arrested and make himself the victim. I've seen it happen and it works.

Past criminal histories of these a####les cannot be introduced into a court because it will give a biast portrayal, regardless if it's validity in the investigation. In order to facilitate a fair trial the courts will not allow any information that will be prejudicial against the accused.

Nobody hates this more than the Police. Remember it's not a Justice System but a Legal System.

It would be much more easier to explain carrying an impact weapon, then a knife. I know this.....but every day when not working I still carry a heavy Spyderco in my right pocket and a fixed Ontario TAK 1 (sorry) concealed on my left hip.

That's my rant. I've have a 22 hour night shift (10 hours overtime) and am tired and pissed off.

Thanks. ;)

User avatar
CWO
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:55 pm

Postby CWO » Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:22 am

I would be interested in reading a print media account of the incident or case if you have a current/future link to one.

Thanks,
CWO

User avatar
kbuzbee
Member
Posts: 4762
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 8:37 am
Location: Mentor, OH

Postby kbuzbee » Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:34 am

Thanks for relating. With many years of "conservative" folks being elected many states have introduced legislation protecting the initial victim. One such law is generically refered to a the Castle doctrine, which basically says "If you are attacked you are under no compulsion or duty to comply or retreat and self defense may be employed as a first, not last option". This is a reversal of many years of holding the victim at fault for anything (including the initial comission of the crime).

I would expect many or most of these gains to victims rights to be done away with after coming elections which will likely be a return to "Liberal" values (is that an oxymoron?)

All this said, there does come a point where sucessful defense turns to offense and at that point all bets are off. In the case you cite, where one party has a shotgun and the other has a knife, I would also worry that the shot gun weilding thug would return and, if I had managed to get the upper hand, I would want to do whatever I could to ensure the safety of my family.

Ken
玉鋼

User avatar
blackmist
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:14 pm

Postby blackmist » Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:40 am

Won't the DA use his/her own discretion when deciding what charges to file?

Another question: Would a CLEAN record benefit a person in this same position.. you said the guy's criminal record can't be introduced in court but how about a lack of a criminal record in the same scenario?
we want you to understand that we understand that you cannot possibly understand

User avatar
Bowie Man
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby Bowie Man » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:02 pm

blackmist wrote:Won't the DA use his/her own discretion when deciding what charges to file?

Another question: Would a CLEAN record benefit a person in this same position.. you said the guy's criminal record can't be introduced in court but how about a lack of a criminal record in the same scenario?
CWO - Sorry brother, can't offer any additional information.

Blackmist - The fact that an individual does not have a criminal record/history will only benifit them during the Show Cause/Bail Hearing. Pending on the descretion of the Judge, this would allow them to be released to a Surety (person approved by the court to reside with), strict recognizance/bail conditions, or a monetary deposit. During the course of a trial it dosen't mean very much. Your only real hope is to get a "crusty old school Judge" that's pro Police and could give a s### about being politically correct.

User avatar
Dr. Snubnose
Member
Posts: 8761
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 10:54 pm
Location: NewYork

Postby Dr. Snubnose » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:06 pm

Too bad the first brother who was shot twice didn't have his knife...Doc

BTW: This should prob be moved over to off-topic (posting it here can get you 10-Life in a Spyders Web)
"Always Judge a man by the way he treats someone who could be of no possible use to him"

*Custom Avatar with the Help of Daywalker*

User avatar
Zac
Member
Posts: 1506
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:56 pm
Location: Lutherville, Maryland, USA, Earth, Solar System
Contact:

Postby Zac » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:09 pm

I have heard of this many a times and part of using a blade or gun as a self defense weapon is being prepared to face legal consequences. Unfortunately, it is quite often that the defensive side will do better legally if they kill their attacker. Conservative states indeed often give more defensive rights to the victim...
WARNING: Sanity not guaranteed.

User avatar
ruxton
Member
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:33 am
Location: United Kingdom

Postby ruxton » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:12 pm

Too bad the 2nd brother didn't use a Glock instead of a kitchen knife, could'a got both ***holes while they were still on his property ;)
"Even though I, Bruce Lee, may die some day without fulfilling all of my ambitions, I will have no regrets. I did what I wanted to do and what I've done, I've done with sincerity and to the best of my ability." - Bruce Lee
Avatar By Dialex!

User avatar
Jeep274
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:58 am
Location: Bucks Co., PA

Postby Jeep274 » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:29 pm

[quote="ruxton"]Too bad the 2nd brother didn't use a Glock instead of a kitchen knife, could'a got both ***holes while they were still on his property ]


I agree, but this was Canada. Aren't they only allowed to own shotguns and bolt rifles? :(

User avatar
Kaizen
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:01 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Postby Kaizen » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:41 pm

I don't the think moral of the story is so much not to use a knife for SD. Aside from the fact that the property owners had criminal histories. What was the guy supposed to do, let them continue to shoot his brother? Of course not, he should've known the law and stop when the guys were running for their lives.

User avatar
ruxton
Member
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:33 am
Location: United Kingdom

Postby ruxton » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:45 pm

Well I suppose I can't really talk as I live in the UK, here you'd be in hot water for defending your home in the first place, let alone with a knife! I think you're supposed to lock yourself in the bathroom, adopt the brace position on the toilet and phone the police or something :rolleyes:
Attacking intruders in your home would probably be a violation of their human rights...
"Even though I, Bruce Lee, may die some day without fulfilling all of my ambitions, I will have no regrets. I did what I wanted to do and what I've done, I've done with sincerity and to the best of my ability." - Bruce Lee
Avatar By Dialex!

User avatar
ruxton
Member
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:33 am
Location: United Kingdom

Postby ruxton » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:54 pm

Ignoramus wrote:I don't the think moral of the story is so much not to use a knife for SD. Aside from the fact that the property owners had criminal histories. What was the guy supposed to do, let them continue to shoot his brother? Of course not, he should've known the law and stop when the guys were running for their lives.
To be fair I know plenty of people who would have done much worse. In fact if two armed intruders broke into my home in the middle of the night and shot a member of my family I'd probably chase them down the street with a civilian in each hand...
"Even though I, Bruce Lee, may die some day without fulfilling all of my ambitions, I will have no regrets. I did what I wanted to do and what I've done, I've done with sincerity and to the best of my ability." - Bruce Lee
Avatar By Dialex!

User avatar
Medic
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: USA, New Jersey

Postby Medic » Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:04 pm

what is a "impact weapon" :confused:

also, does this story apply for the states, or for canada? if someone came into my house and shot my brother and killed him, i'd be in a state of mental insanity and so scared i probably wouldn't know what i just did or what happened. that wouldn't hold up in court?

anyway, if he stabbed and killed someone on his property (including outside on the lawn etc) what would of happened then?

User avatar
Episteme
Member
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Postby Episteme » Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:53 pm

I have thought about these sort of scenarios at great length. I am going to school to be a professor of philosophy, with areas of specialtiy in philosophy of law, moral philosophy, and the moral limits of the criminal law. Unfortunately, the law does not always coincide with substantiated moral reasoning. However, in the case described, I would maintain that a statute that would forbid citizens from chasing down bandits who already broke off the attack and are fleeing for their lives sounds like a reasonable statute to have on the books. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would not feel safe living in a society in which people were permitted to discharge firearms out of their windows at bandits who got away with their TV, or one in which people were allowed to chase down bandits with a butcher knife two miles away from their house and then "execute" them. Now, to say that one should be permitted to pursue and kill a bandit who has fled the scene because you fear that they will return really is not substantial enough warrant to gain license to hunt down and kill. Along this line of reasoning, that would allow for you to hunt down and kill a bandit 'the next day' or even weeks after the initial break-in, in order to alleviate fears of retaliation from the bandit. Surely we wouldn't want that. Furthermore, if you're not chasing down a bandit because of fear of retailation, than the only other reason to chase a fleeing bandit would be to exact revenge. And I think most here would agree that personal vendettas that end in murder should not be permitted by modern law.
However, I wholeheartedly embrace the "Castle Statute" in its general formulation in that if an intruder breaks into your home and threatens harm, you ought not be bound by legal duty to retreat or otherwise refrain from harming/killing the intruder. I think that the homeowner should have the legal flexibility in such cases so as to make reasonable decisions without being overly fearful of going to prison for reasonably defending his home and family. I also think that to some extent, a person should not have the duty to retreat when outside of their own home if they are attacked by an unprovoked assailent.
A careful balance in the legal system must be kept, however, so as to prevent our society from becoming favorable to criminals, and also to prevent the return of the wild west, where murder, mayhem, and pillage went largely unnoticed and unaccounted for compared to modern day standards. Finding and maintainting this balance seems the crucial mechanism for developing a just and safe society.
-Mike
"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me." -Immanuel Kant

"I do not worry about what will happen; only what needs to be done". -Lucious Hunt, "The Village"

enduraguy
Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:38 pm

Postby enduraguy » Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:02 pm

Regardless of a past criminal history of the property owner, I cannot for the life of me help but side with them. I would be hard pressed to not follow similar actions. Some cockface breaks into MY private residence, and expects to not face any threat of bodily harm? He's leaving with no less than some missing teeth. Said cockface also injures me, and or someone else inside my private residence after committing a B&E? His *** is pretty much in my hands. My attorney better also do nothing less than his/her best to side with me, and if that means coming up with some BS "temporary insanity" story on my behalf, so be it. Whether or not I lose my mind, and cannot help but revert back to deeply ingrained Marine Corps training such as "two to the chest, one to the head"...well, that's just how it goes. The law should always side with the property owner. Once a perp steps foot over onto MY property, with any intent to disown me of any of my belongings, it's a done deal.

Rogcohen
Member
Posts: 361
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:01 pm

Postby Rogcohen » Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:36 pm

I would expect many or most of these gains to victims rights to be done away with after coming elections which will likely be a return to "Liberal" values (is that an oxymoron?)

Hey, I resent that! I'm liberal (well, that's what people call me) and I think people should be able to defend themselves.

Horrible situation above. Still, to be found guilty of a crime you need a jury trial, and I find it amazing ordinary people could find you guilty in a situation such as this. I mean, all you have to do is empathise. Someone in your family's just been shot, what do you do?!

Ok, I don't see me chasing after someone with a gun when I've only got a knife, but I could definitely see going, for lack of a better term, temporarily insane.

User avatar
elt1
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: northwest coast

Postby elt1 » Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:41 pm

blackmist wrote:Won't the DA use his/her own discretion when deciding what charges to file?

Another question: Would a CLEAN record benefit a person in this same position.. you said the guy's criminal record can't be introduced in court but how about a lack of a criminal record in the same scenario?
In addition to what Bowie Man said about the bail/show cause hearings, an individuals criminal record (extensive or not) will also play a part in sentencing if the defendant is found guilty...

I'd agree with Bowie Man's opinion that you have to realize that you will be held accountable for your actions when using an edged weapon for self-defence. It will mean the difference as to which side of the courtroom you'll be sitting on...

Prior to my own municipal PC experience, I didnt know much about the Canadian legal system. As probably in most countries, I've discovered it to be a lengthy, complicated process, with lots of shades of grey as opposed to the "black and white" of the Criminal Code.

I've found that being able to understand situations in legal terms helps out when I'm away from work, but I dont think the average citizen needs to live their lives by the minutae of the Crim Code...most of the important stuff we learn from parents, teachers, school & Walker, Texas Ranger.

Thanks Bowie Man... I'll be interested in the outcome of the trial.
Hodie piaculum cras suspectus.
"Todays victim, tomorrows suspect."

s11ews
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: cheltenham, gloucestershire

Postby s11ews » Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:52 pm

i feel that the gunmen put themselves into that situation, it was their choice as to whether to enter that guys house or not, i also feel that if i had just known that one of my family members had just been murdered, i would feel like killing them both.

if i were a juror i would think that the brother would not have been in a sound state of mind when he stabbed the bloke and i think that he would have felt so angry that if he had the chance he would have killed the other chap as well, he wouldn't have had time to make a rational decision

User avatar
argyll
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:33 am
Location: California USA

Postby argyll » Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:55 pm

GangstaMedic wrote:what is a "impact weapon" :confused:

also, does this story apply for the states, or for canada? if someone came into my house and shot my brother and killed him, i'd be in a state of mental insanity and so scared i probably wouldn't know what i just did or what happened. that wouldn't hold up in court?

anyway, if he stabbed and killed someone on his property (including outside on the lawn etc) what would of happened then?
Impact weapon = club, or the like.

Yes, the same general rule applies in the states. Chasing a fleeing attacker off your premises and killing him = excessive force.

The rest of your questions can't be answered with any degree of certainty.

Best regards,

Argyll
Qui non est hodie cras minus aptus erit -- Ovid (He who is not prepared today will be less so tomorrow)

User avatar
Fred Sanford
Member
Posts: 5690
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Fred Sanford » Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:15 pm

It was a big mistake for the home owner to go chasing the guy down the block.

It would have just been so much better after they ran out of the house to call the cops and wait.

I doubt that the guys would have come back. Especially since they should figure that after an incident like that you would probably make sure you have a firearm close at all times for quite a while.

I hope that the brother that got shot lived.
“I'm callin' you ugly. I could stick yo face in some dough and make some gorilla cookies.” - Fred Sanford


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests