Defending self defence (SUN)
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/01/13...g-self-defence
To read the official police report, you’d think the incident at Michael Woodard’s New Brunswick home just before Christmas involved four criminals, not three.
But the truth is a 68-year-old homeowner confronted three burglars inside his remote home, at least one of whom was armed. While trying to defend himself and his home, Michael Woodard shot one of the alleged assailants in the leg. Now he and the three alleged criminals have all been charged; Woodard with “discharging a firearm with intent and discharging a firearm in a reckless manner.”
Just before midnight on Dec. 19, 2014, Woodard, an industrial process engineer, found a 19-year-old man and woman and a 17-year-old man in his home about 90 km west of St. John, N.B.
The younger man had a weapon, according to RCMP, that he allegedly used to assault Woodard. Woodard managed to get hold of a gun and allegedly shot the 17-year-old in the leg.
The charges against Woodard carry a potential for greater prison time than the charges against his three alleged attackers.
That’s outrageous.
You find three criminals in your house in the middle of the night. One of them attacks you with a weapon. You’re badly outnumbered and in genuine fear for your life, so you respond by using a gun to defend yourself. And you end up facing more jail time than the little darlings who broke into your home.
Even worse, though, is that this is hardly the exception in Canada. Again and again homeowners who use guns to fend off attacks against themselves, their loved ones or their property end up cuffed by police and prosecuted by Crown attorneys.
Despite the fact that the Criminal Code still clearly permits armed self-defence (especially when armed intruders have invaded your home), criminal justice officials have convinced themselves that self-defending homeowners should be punished.
Too many police officers and prosecutors simply cannot accept that ordinary citizens have the right to defend themselves, with deadly force if necessary.
Early on an August morning in 2010, Ian Thomson of Port Colborne, Ont., awoke to find four masked men attempting to firebomb his remote rural home. A licensed firearms instructor, Thomson grabbed a pair of legally owned handguns from his safe and fired three warning shots at his attackers.
When he showed police surveillance footage of the incident, he was arrested and charged with weapons offences even before any of his assailants had been caught.
Thomson was eventually acquitted, but it took two-and-a-half years and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees before his right to self-defence was restored.
I have no sympathy for burglars or home invaders. If you break into someone’s home, I don’t care if they shoot you dead, whether or not you plan to attack them.
In situations such as the one Michael Woodard found himself, there isn’t time to ascertain the burglars’ motives or level of violence. Homeowners haven’t time to wonder whether a burglar is the victim of a rough childhood or addicted to substances that are clouding his mind.
A homeowner who hesitates can end up dead
If you, a criminal, have chosen to enter a home uninvited in the middle of the night, you and you alone should be responsible for any harm that befalls you. No handwringing about root causes or psychobabble about the need to give criminals a chance to reform.
And as the homeowner, you shouldn’t have to spend a small fortune in lawyers’ fees or have years of your life suspended while you wait to be cleared by the courts.
Too many in officialdom wrongly believe ordinary Canadians have no right to use force to keep themselves safe.
lorne.gunter@sunmedia.ca
Appalling! Where I now reside, the officers would haul away the corpses of the "ex" burglars and wish the home owner good night on their way out. I'm just dumbfounded by the justice system vis a vis self-defense.
We dont have all the facts of the case...so all we can provide is the "court of public opinion."
I think if the man acted responsibly, this will eventually be cleared up. But....as the report says in previous instances it has cost thousands in legal fees in other instances.
I've been told that Canada's NFA offer assistance including legal assistance, paying for lawyers, etc. to fight gun related charges that are unwarranted, frivolous, etc. It isn't a free service if your breaking the law and deserve to be prosecuted...but they will jump on board if you are being unfairly hit under the sometimes ambiguous gun laws Canada...
Hence...my plug for joining the NFA: https://nfa.ca/
https://www.internationalpreppersnetwork.net/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=7738
It is wrong that our legal system today had gotten to the point where they immediately defend the criminal and charge the victim. I know that our laws stipulate that "innocent until proven guilty", but consideration should be given to why these suspects were even on the premises. Yet it often seems that the victim is charged easily enough without their being proven guilty either!
So I will now point out why I think this has become today's approach in law enforcement. The officer was told in my day that we are not judge and jury. We are there to collect the facts and let the court system determine guilt. But for this to happen, the officer needs to press charges to get the ball rolling, so to speak.... and this is why charges are initially pressed as they are today....on both innocent and guilty!
Seems we had more room for officer discretion in the past. By placing someone under arrest, an officer is indeed passing judgement and thus in a sense, predetermining who is likely guilty. At times this was done just to defuse a situation (as in such as a domestic dispute). Yet it doesn't look good when officers attend a scene, charge no one, just to find once they left that the dispute reignites into something worse, lawsuits arise, yada yada...get the point?
I think procedures got this way because good lawyers got good at picking on the attending officer's discretion and placing blame upon them instead. The officers in turn became more aware they have to cover their backsides and thus it has evolved into today's antics where there seems to no longer be a proper balance anymore. We need our court systems to defend the innocent victims more until proven guilty, not the offenders.
- When a homeowner can be sued because a thief gets his head stuck between poorly spaced bars on a window (which in turn makes the thief even richer), there is something wrong....
- when a multiple repeat offender still has to be proven guilty (beyond a shadow of a doubt), there is something wrong....
- when a man has to shell out thousands to defend his innocence while being the victim in the crime, there is something wrong....
When lawyers are measured as great by managing to release numerous criminals who later re-offend, they in turn should be measured by that sort of record too. Seems lawyers and politicians create much of the legislation these days that have twisted our legal system into this screwed up mess. Maybe it's time we reevaluate their tactics instead as a remedy to some of this trouble.
If our system were running right, it should be the politicians who were in fear losing their jobs because anyone can run things the wrong way. Instead we allow them to invoke more laws to give us less freedoms and then they give themselves a raise along the way too.
Maybe no one would notice them missing? Ever watch fried green tomatoes? lol
The prudent see danger and take refuge but the simple keep going and suffer for it...
And im sure he had all his guns seized and is prohibited from possessing any fire arms in the future, Its amazing how the criminals have more rights than the victim....Maybe he shouldn't have called the police.