Milton Man, 22, charged with murder after fatally shooting suspect who tried to rob his house, lawyer says

[anonemouse]

Dude I didn't make anything up. Think about it for a second. The police are not lawyers. They cannot determine whether a killing is 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary), criminal negligence causing death or no charges (as in the case of self defense). But yes I admit I was wrong they can lay charges without a prosecutorial review. But it is the prosecutor that ultimately determines whether that person is officially charged in a court of law.

Still wrong but you do you.

 

[SchlongConery]

Dude I didn't make anything up. Think about it for a second. The police are not lawyers. They cannot determine whether a killing is 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary), criminal negligence causing death or no charges (as in the case of self defense).

Think about this for a second. The cops ARE trained in the laws they enforce. They know the law, the evidentiary burden etc. They don't have to be lawyers.

And think about this also... you have demonstrated you do not understand the process yet you continue to speak with authority when yoou are demonstrably wrong.

But yes I admit I was wrong they can lay charges without a prosecutorial review. But it is the prosecutor that ultimately determines whether that person is officially charged in a court of law.

Again, you show the most fundamental misunderstanding of the Canadian criminal law process.

Once the police lay the charge, the suspect becomes the accused and is "officially charged" at that moment.

The Crown does not then doubly "officially charge" in court. The Crown can only "withdraw" charges.


You have been too brainwashed by watching US tv.

 

[richaceg]

I think that I would rather take my chances with the courts if they charge me rather than worry about someone [ and several others ] who broke into my house with a gun, even if their back is turned at that moment.

Shooting someone at the back could still pass as self defense...cops aren't dumb. crown isn't dumb...only people who assume shooting someone fleeing is murder are dumb...you just need a good lawyer....

 

[K Douglas]

Think about this for a second. The cops ARE trained in the laws they enforce. They know the law, the evidentiary burden etc. They don't have to be lawyers.

And think about this also... you have demonstrated you do not understand the process yet you continue to speak with authority when yoou are demonstrably wrong.



Again, you show the most fundamental misunderstanding of the Canadian criminal law process.

Once the police lay the charge, the suspect becomes the accused and is "officially charged" at that moment.

The Crown does not then doubly "officially charge" in court. The Crown can only "withdraw" charges.


You have been too brainwashed by watching US tv.

A criminal charge is not official until it is read into a court of law. That decision is made by the prosecutor/crown attorney, not the police. Yes the police can lay charges without a lawyer's advice. So can you or I.
But In this specific case there is no doubt in my mind that it was the Crown Attorney, not the police, who made the initial decision to charge Mr. Ali Mian with second degree murder.

 

[dirtyharry555]

You still can't shoot people in the back. It's not me saying that. It's the law.

Cite your source.

 

[mandrill]

Cite your source.

Defence — use or threat of force

• 34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
  • (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
  • (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
  • (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
• Marginal note:Factors
  (2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
  • (a) the nature of the force or threat;
  • (b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
  • (c) the person’s role in the incident;
  • (d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
  • (e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
  • (f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
  • (f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
  • (g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and
  • (h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
• Marginal note:No defence
  (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

 

[dirtyharry555]

Defence — use or threat of force

• 34(1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
  • (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
  • (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
  • (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
• Marginal note:Factors
  (2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
  • (a) the nature of the force or threat;
  • (b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
  • (c) the person’s role in the incident;
  • (d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
  • (e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
  • (f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
  • (f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
  • (g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and
  • (h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
• Marginal note:No defence
  (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

Nothing in your source says that it's illegal to shoot someone in the back.

Do you have another source?

 

[SQUAD51]

Buddy should have raped the guy, not shot him.
Jail time is significantly less and you could bring in the whole gender argument. Maybe would get a suspended sentence and a CBC interview.
(If you don't see the humour in this, then dial up some Don Rickles and reboot the sense of humour)

 

[anonemouse]

Nothing in your source says that it's illegal to shoot someone in the back.

Do you have another source?

If someone is running away from you with their back to you but their arm turned and pointing a gun at you, it seems like it would be fair game. I doubt there's a law that would be so specific to say "you can't shoot someone in the back"

 

[dirtyharry555]

If someone is running away from you with their back to you but their arm turned and pointing a gun at you, it seems like it would be fair game. I doubt there's a law that would be so specific to say "you can't shoot someone in the back"

Correct. There are circumstances when it is reasonable to shoot someone in the back.

THAT is the law.

 

[dirtyharry555]

mandrill might actually be a lawyer (this has been his claim), but he also has an agenda. For this reason, he is a perfect example of why experts cannot always be trusted at face value.

 

[HotDogger]

mandrill might actually be a lawyer (this has been his claim), but he also has an agenda. For this reason, he is a perfect example of why experts cannot always be trusted at face value.

Maybe he’s a divorce lawyer

 

[mandrill]

Correct. There are circumstances when it is reasonable to shoot someone in the back.

THAT is the law.

Okay, aside from the situation where someone is running away and shooting back at the same time - and ask yourself if that would ever actually happen! - give me a circumstance where you could shoot someone in the back and claim self defence?

 

[mandrill]

mandrill might actually be a lawyer (this has been his claim), but he also has an agenda. For this reason, he is a perfect example of why experts cannot always be trusted at face value.

So what's my "agenda"?.... I just posted you the actual text of the self defence provision of the Criminal Code. Given that, you should be able to figure it out enough to realize that you have to agree with me.

 

[Not getting younger]

I can think of one or three very good reasons and easily justified reasons for someone to be dead, face down on the floor and an entry wound in the back or back of the head…

I’ll start with said intruder going towards my wife/child.

I’ll follow up with a fight for control of the weapon…or trying to retrieve/grab one…

And no, we don’t have to agree with you , though I’m pretty sure you would agree with those two…

And
That’s why defense lawyers get paid big money to test it in court. Way too often.

 

[dirtyharry555]

Okay, aside from the situation where someone is running away and shooting back at the same time - and ask yourself if that would ever actually happen! - give me a circumstance where you could shoot someone in the back and claim self defence?

Use your imagination. You're an adult.

 

[dirtyharry555]

I just posted you the actual text of the self defence provision of the Criminal Code. Given that, you should be able to figure it out enough to realize that you have to agree with me.

Good grief. There is what the Criminal Code states and then there is what you claimed that it states (which it DOESN'T). You're becoming a lost cause.

 

[mandrill]

Use your imagination. You're an adult.

You could claim self defence if the fleeing person was simply running for cover to continue a gunfight, maybe. (There would be the question as to whether you could reasonably disengage yourself, while the other party was running though.)

That's about the only situation I can think of. Most running guys with their backs turned are simply fleeing. And you can't shoot fleeing vics.

 

[mandrill]

I can think of one or three very good reasons and easily justified reasons for someone to be dead, face down on the floor and an entry wound in the back or back of the head…

I’ll start with said intruder going towards my wife/child.

I’ll follow up with a fight for control of the weapon…or trying to retrieve/grab one…

And no, we don’t have to agree with you , though I’m pretty sure you would agree with those two…

And
That’s why defense lawyers get paid big money to test it in court. Way too often.

Okay. You could probably run those and win.

 

[Darts]

I would apply the NHL rule. He turned his back just as the bullet(s) hit him/her/they.