https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...sion-1.6209230
My bet is that the Supreme Court denies the appeal which will result in a re-trial and, ultimately, Mr. Khill’s conviction.
Printable View
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...sion-1.6209230
My bet is that the Supreme Court denies the appeal which will result in a re-trial and, ultimately, Mr. Khill’s conviction.
It's more a case for Castle Doctrine than it is for self-defence, at least from what is being reported. But what really happened in the courtroom is not provided. Sounds like he wasn't in an imminent threat , at least by the story we're told, so I'm surprised he was found not guilty.
Killing someone who is stealing your truck may be OK in some states, but not in Canada.
I think your right Sam..
I agree.
As per recent events, the indigenous man is highest up on the victim hierarchy totem pole (no pun intended) and so will likely be exploited by the biased courts and portrayed as a noble hero in search of a warm place to rest. If Mr. Khill had previously displayed any sort of patriotism (whether on social media or in private conversation with friends/family) they will say he suffers from 'white supremacy' or some nonsense along those lines and that we have to do better as a society to break down barriers and be more inclusive, etc. That he has a background in the reserves is not good for his case. It will make our military look racist.
I imagine he will be found guilty of unsafe storage, careless discharge of a firearm and manslaughter?
If your found not guilty or acquitted, you should never return to court on the same case IMO.
I followed this case closely think I new trial will be ordered. I was surprised at his acquittal although not as much as Gerald Stanley's. The ballistics evidence doesn't support Khill's version of events. Going out to "confront and detain" before calling 911 was a mistake and his explanation about his military training "kicking in" is lame.
Race doesn't seem to be part of the equation here. It wouldn't have been any different if he'd gunned down a white guy trying to steal his truck.
There is no evidence to rely upon to say this man fired in self defense. He chose to do his own policing with the loaded shotgun and will now suffer the consequences. His own lawyers do not help his case in the least:
""In the face of the Court of Appeal's interpretation of self-defence, the only reasonable thing to do is call the police, cower in the darkness under our beds and hope help arrives before the criminal invades our home and kills us and our loved ones," they stated."
There was no evidence this was likely to happen and at most this suspect was probably in the vehicle to steal loose change.
Not a very good reason to take a man's life, you can only use sufficient force in this country to overcome the force used against you.
This guy is probably toast.
should have gone out and gave the guy the keys to the truck ... he could probably get more from insurance after ...
sounds like he was going to bed for a while hoping/waiting for this to happen, or for someone to walk too close to his property.
I’m not familiar with the details of the case but, IMO, for the shooting to be justified, there should be evidence that the intruder intended to harm someone. From what little I know of this case, that evidence appears to be lacking or was not reported. My apologies for speculating.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
As Canada doesn’t have “castle doctrine” or “stand your ground” legislation, shooters are guilty of manslaughter or murder unless they can prove they were acting in self defence from the imminent risk of fatal/serious bodily harm.
The bar for self defense in this country is quite low,but,there still needs to be reasonable expectation of grievous injury or death. Some lowlife threatening that is all that's needed to satisfy that requirement. It's not up to the victim to ascertain how the skell plans to do that. They don't even have to brandish a weapon. Having said that,once an attacker has turned to flee,no further threat exists and the use of deadly force can't be used under any circumstances. In this case,it seems Peter Khill did just that. How he was acquitted in the first place was bizarre to say the least and the Crown was bound to launch an appeal. Because of the principle of "double jeopardy',the appeal court may have just let the acquittal stand. In this case it didn't happen. That would have set legal precedent with some very far reaching consequences in case law if they do,especially,if it comes at The Supreme Court level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Menard
Maybe people shouldn`t be taking things that don`t belong to them in the first place. Was the shooting justified? Probably not. He could have simply yelled at the guy to get him outa there while calling the police. He will most likely get some time over this.