Too far or self-defence?

[North Shore]

There is plenty of case law in Canada supporting your right to self defence, including a man who shot and killed a police officer who entered his home. Basil Parasiris is his name.

http://www.canadacarry.org/subdream/ind ... ticleid=29

That's an interesting case! I wonder what people would say if CPL-ATC posted it on here?

[AEROBAT]

If the 5 RCMP officers feel threatened enough my one Polish man with a stapler to kill him, than someone breaking into my home definitely qualifies for deadly force. In my mind if someone breaks into my home then I have to assume they mean to do harm. If I can, I will resist with all force available.

Exactly!

[SuperchargedRS]

What a joke!!!!

4 men broke into his home, the judge agreed that they meant to cause him harm, he responds with a .22 (and the fact that he killed them with a .22 should be deserving of a award) and he not only gets in trouble but looses his life to the jails.

wow, Canada's justice system have just failed

[Brown Bear]

What a joke!!!!

4 men broke into his home, the judge agreed that they meant to cause him harm, he responds with a .22 (and the fact that he killed them with a .22 should be deserving of a award) and he not only gets in trouble but looses his life to the jails.

wow, Canada's justice system have just failed

Okay, after a little research/soul searching, I totally agree with you! If people break into your home at night, they can only be assumed to intend you harm. Any legal system that will not allow you to defend yourself in the most aggressive manner, really needs an overhaul. You should have the right to expect safety within the confines of your own home. However, I will go on to say, that once the "theat" is over, ie. the intruders are retreating, the use of deadly force should be ceased.

[SuperchargedRS]

However, I will go on to say, that once the "theat" is over, ie. the intruders are retreating, the use of deadly force should be ceased.

Agree 100%

[Just another canuck]

I wonder how many bullet wounds entered the front of the victims versus the back... did they continue to advance even after several shots were fired? Could mean the difference here, although in my opinion, just drawing the weapon and, if necessary, firing a few shots in the air is likely more than enough to scare anyone off in most home invasion situations, especially if the invaders aren't armed with guns.

[Brown Bear]

I wonder how many bullet wounds entered the front of the victims versus the back... did they continue to advance even after several shots were fired? Could mean the difference here, although in my opinion, just drawing the weapon and, if necessary, firing a few shots in the air is likely more than enough to scare anyone off in most home invasion situations, especially if the invaders aren't armed with guns.

Yah....what a great idea. Blow holes in your ceiling! If ANY of the shots entered the back of an intruder, it's really bad. That indicates no threat, and the use of force was excessive, IMHO. You MUST get your double taps in before the perp turns to flee.
....."firing a few shots in the air....." Right into your children's bedrooms? That was a real well thought out idea.


Another point. The "victim" here was at home minding his own business. I wouldn't refer to a home invader as a "victim" regardless of how many bullet holes he has in him. He made a conscious decision to be a scumbag. He is NOT a "victim".

[Conquest Driver]

From what I understand Canadian law allows for equal or lesser force. If someone comes at you with a bat you cannot shoot them.

Wrong, I think. You're allowed to take it up one level. It's nuts to expect someone in legitimate defense of himself or others to respond with only equal force. If the attacker has a bat or a knife, you're likely justified in shooting him (assuming he makes no attempt to retreat).

If he's coming at you with bare hands, that's a whole lot more complex.

[Just another canuck]

I wonder how many bullet wounds entered the front of the victims versus the back... did they continue to advance even after several shots were fired? Could mean the difference here, although in my opinion, just drawing the weapon and, if necessary, firing a few shots in the air is likely more than enough to scare anyone off in most home invasion situations, especially if the invaders aren't armed with guns.

Yah....what a great idea. Blow holes in your ceiling! If ANY of the shots entered the back of an intruder, it's really bad. That indicates no threat, and the use of force was excessive, IMHO. You MUST get your double taps in before the perp turns to flee.
....."firing a few shots in the air....." Right into your children's bedrooms? That was a real well thought out idea.


Another point. The "victim" here was at home minding his own business. I wouldn't refer to a home invader as a "victim" regardless of how many bullet holes he has in him. He made a conscious decision to be a scumbag. He is NOT a "victim".

I didn't say start flailing the gun around like a maniac and shoot at random, did I?? Personally, I would rather fix a hole in my roof than have someone's blood on my hands, whether they meant to rob me or not. You can look at this situation a thousand different ways... but my main point was that it's not right to kill someone, no matter what the situation. This guy probably could have ended up okay in the end by wounding the group and not killing four people. He likely would also not be spending the rest of his life in jail.

"Get your double taps in"... settle down there, Rambo...

BTW... a "victim" can also mean a range of things, like someone who's been shot dead. It's just a term... they were initially assailants and in the end, became victims of a homicide.

[xsbank]

So, I break into somebody's house, expecting the full force of Canadian law to protect me? What's wrong with that picture?

The home-owner, frightened badly and afraid for his life (weren't there four of them?) goes bat-shit with a .22. We are not talking a Navy Seal or a trained police officer here, but some regular guy, maybe like me, sitting in front of his TV, maybe even having a beer, and these bozos smash into his house with the intent to hurt him? Rational thought is the last thing I would expect from him.

Why do the courts expect it?

[niss]

"Get your double taps in"... settle down there, Rambo...

Actually I believe that the only time you should be arming yourself with a gun is if you are prepared to shoot someone, if you are prepared to shoot someone it better be because it was absolutely necessary and you had to kill him. Makes more sense to double tap.

That said how often is it that houses are broken into and a violent crime is committed?

Most of this rhetoric stems from the scary idea that someone is in our home and we do not know what their intent is. I would bet that most home invasions the invaders are usually unarmed and just looking to steal stuff while the occupant is away and that most turn violent when the invader is confronted.



PUT.DOWN.THE.FUCKING.VASE.

[North Shore]

What a joke!!!!

4 men broke into his home, the judge agreed that they meant to cause him harm, he responds with a .22 (and the fact that he killed them with a .22 should be deserving of a award) and he not only gets in trouble but looses his life to the jails.

wow, Canada's justice system have just failed

Well, according to the article here: http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/ ... _killing/ it was a 7.62, with an illegal 30-round clip. Not only did he chase them out of his house, he continued firing from his porch, and put at least two extras into one of the already dead guys. That seems a little more than self-defence to me...you'd think if it was so, then he'd have quit shooting once the retreat out the door was in progress? OTOH, if this was a feud that was being settled, then I can see where the guy was coming from - but that's not allowed by the law...

[Just another canuck]

So, I break into somebody's house, expecting the full force of Canadian law to protect me? What's wrong with that picture?

The home-owner, frightened badly and afraid for his life (weren't there four of them?) goes bat-shit with a .22. We are not talking a Navy Seal or a trained police officer here, but some regular guy, maybe like me, sitting in front of his TV, maybe even having a beer, and these bozos smash into his house with the intent to hurt him? Rational thought is the last thing I would expect from him.

Why do the courts expect it?

This is precisely why I said there's many different ways to look at this situation... but like someone already said on the first page, there is a difference between reasonably defending yourself and like you said, "going bat shit with a .22". If they did "smash" into his house, his gun must have been pretty close considering the outcome of the situation. Was he expecting these assailants? He was quite obviously more prepared than they were...

Actually I believe that the only time you should be arming yourself with a gun is if you are prepared to shoot someone, if you are prepared to shoot someone it better be because it was absolutely necessary and you had to kill him. Makes more sense to double tap.

I don't know about that... wouldn't a couple leg and shoulder shots not have been sufficient to win this "battle"? Yes, you should be prepared to kill someone, but it is rarely necessary in most situations, home invasions fitting into that category, IMO.

Most of this rhetoric stems from the scary idea that someone is in our home and we do not know what their intent is. I would bet that most home invasions the invaders are usually unarmed and just looking to steal stuff while the occupant is away and that most turn violent when the invader is confronted.

Agree for sure... but this was not one of those situations. There was history in this one... and the shooter went too far.

[niss]

Actually I believe that the only time you should be arming yourself with a gun is if you are prepared to shoot someone, if you are prepared to shoot someone it better be because it was absolutely necessary and you had to kill him. Makes more sense to double tap.

I don't know about that... wouldn't a couple leg and shoulder shots not have been sufficient to win this "battle"? Yes, you should be prepared to kill someone, but it is rarely necessary in most situations, home invasions fitting into that category, IMO.

My point being that the only time you should draw your weapon is to kill the person, and people should not be so hasty to use heat.

Just like the police, when you are working on instinct/adrenaline and the house is full of innocents (your family) then is not the time to get creative and try to hit a limb. Centre of mass. The only time you should be aiming a gun at a person is when you are damn good and ready to end their life.

[Just another canuck]

My point being that the only time you should draw your weapon is to kill the person, and people should not be so hasty to use heat.

Just like the police, when you are working on instinct/adrenaline and the house is full of innocents (your family) then is not the time to get creative and try to hit a limb. Centre of mass. The only time you should be aiming a gun at a person is when you are damn good and ready to end their life.

Point taken... well said.

[xsbank]

The problem with aiming to wound or disable, under stress most of us are not capable of that kind of precision. You are supposed to shoot at the largest part. Once you point you are supposed to also shoot. Double-tap is correct. I think the police wording is you never aim a gun at anything you are not expecting to destroy.

If the guy chased them out of the house and shot them while they were fleeing, perhaps that is going a bit too far... in my humble opinion, these guys showed intent to harm him and he was able to prevent that. I still think that the average guy (not a homicidal psychopath!) would be nearly mindless with fear and rational thought is not available to him. How many of you have been confronted with death in a situation you are not trained for and react with rational thought? The last time you were cut off and narrowly missed death on the highway, was your response rational for the first 5 minutes or so?

This is the 'north,' so firearms are part of your everyday tools. "Illegal 30-shot clip" is a red herring.

The opposite side would say that he should have allowed them to hurt him? He should have used a bat? Against 4?

I think that the moment these goofs broke down this person's door they had acted in such an unreasonable way that they forfeited all their rights to protection by the law. Why would they have not expected the shooter to have been armed? Why would they expect that they would prevail? Because they had such superior numbers.

If they had not crossed the 'break-in' line, nothing would have happened. Nothing.

[xsbank]

Sorry, bit of overlap with your posts!

[Expat]

Actually I believe that the only time you should be arming yourself with a gun is if you are prepared to shoot someone, if you are prepared to shoot someone it better be because it was absolutely necessary and you had to kill him. Makes more sense to double tap.

I don't know about that... wouldn't a couple leg and shoulder shots not have been sufficient to win this "battle"? Yes, you should be prepared to kill someone, but it is rarely necessary in most situations, home invasions fitting into that category, IMO.

My point being that the only time you should draw your weapon is to kill the person, and people should not be so hasty to use heat.

Just like the police, when you are working on instinct/adrenaline and the house is full of innocents (your family) then is not the time to get creative and try to hit a limb. Centre of mass. The only time you should be aiming a gun at a person is when you are damn good and ready to end their life.

+1

[. ._]

Actually I believe that the only time you should be arming yourself with a gun is if you are prepared to shoot someone, if you are prepared to shoot someone it better be because it was absolutely necessary and you had to kill him. Makes more sense to double tap.

I don't know about that... wouldn't a couple leg and shoulder shots not have been sufficient to win this "battle"? Yes, you should be prepared to kill someone, but it is rarely necessary in most situations, home invasions fitting into that category, IMO.

My point being that the only time you should draw your weapon is to kill the person, and people should not be so hasty to use heat.

Just like the police, when you are working on instinct/adrenaline and the house is full of innocents (your family) then is not the time to get creative and try to hit a limb. Centre of mass. The only time you should be aiming a gun at a person is when you are damn good and ready to end their life.

Just like this guy did when firing at the fleeing people.

Right or wrong (and I'm not an expert by any means), the dude must be a good shot to have that many rounds hit the moving targets.

I still think he needs a time-out.

And in a blatant attempt to threadjack- do time-outs even work? I know the threat of the wooden spoon and grounding for half of a few summers worked for me.

-istp