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.
Sorry, yes my I didn't see the spell checker corrected my post. I was referring to 'Castle Doctrine...in which case you can shot a trespasser.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Menard
And no questions would have been asked either if he fell while being hauled out of your truck by the scuff of his neck. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by grumpygeezer
I had this talk with someone about things like this, trying to steal a car is not a reason for the death penalty. If the guy genuinely felt that he was about to be killed then he made his decision and others would also have to make theirs but once you touch that trigger you are responsible for those actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by grumpygeezer
Is there evidence the suspect tried to steal the truck?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Khill says that he saw the dashboard light on in his truck but I didn't see any evidence provided for that beyond his statement.
The point is moot though doesn't matter if the truck was being stolen or not, you are not suppose to load up and go confront the suspect.
Well that is the statement yes, I am not in the court to see the evidence and nothing either way has been made public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Thats not how this works. If SCC denies the appeal the case is done and over with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Menard
But thats not what happened, SCC allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
My understanding is that Mr, Khil appealed the SCC to prevent his acquittal from being appealed. If the SCC demies to hear Mr. Khil’s appeal to the Supreme Court then the Crown can go forward and appeal the original conviction.Quote:
Originally Posted by NJohnson
Sorry, but statement "appealed the SCC to prevent his acquittal from being appealed" doesnt make any sense. The case was already appealed at the Court of Appeal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Menard
The Court of Appeal overturned his aquittal. He appealed to the SCC and appeal was allowed with a new trial ordered (although, Im sure thats not what Khill wanted).
If SCC denies the appeal, then a conviction is registered and mr. Khill would be going off to sentencing.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
The SCC did deny Khill's appeal. Khill appealed the lower court decision to overturn his conviction and order a new trial. The SCC ratified the lower court decision. The SCC cannot overturn the acquittal and convict Khill. It can only order a new trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by NJohnson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
I stand corrected. I should have finished reading the article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
However, SCC did not ratify the lower court's decision. At least, that language is not in the article and I havent seen the transcript. And if they did why would they be ordering a new trial??? They just dismissed the appeal and ordered a new trial.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
By denying the Khill appeal the SCC came to the same decision as the Ontario Court of Appeal which was to overturn the conviction and order a new trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by NJohnson
The transcript of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision can be found here. I've quoted the relevant part.
https://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisio...20ONCA0151.htm
The entire decision is a good review of what happened.Quote:
I would allow the appeal and order a new trial. I agree with the Crown’s submission that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury to consider Mr. Khill’s conduct during the incident leading up to the shooting of Mr. Styres when assessing the reasonableness of that shooting. I do not agree that the trial judge made the other errors advanced by the Crown.
[emoji106][emoji106][emoji106]Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
Thanks for clearing that up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
Native in truck that is not his in the middle of the night just outside of Res.........Hmmmm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
He was just trying to help. Sure he was just replacing burnt out bulb in the dash :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 410001661
I don't understand what you mean, could you please elaborate.Quote:
Originally Posted by 410001661
I don't see that any of this thread has anything to do with the outdoors or hunting 101.
You’re right, my mistake, I should have started this thread in the off topic subforum.Quote:
Originally Posted by swampsinger
Well maybe "hunting" down and killing a unarmed man.Quote:
Originally Posted by swampsinger
[emoji36][emoji36][emoji36]Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
Maybe it was a case of the hunted that became the hunted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
He grabbed his shotgun from the bedroom closet, loaded it with two shells and "quietly" approached the truck ... Khill saw someone bent over the passenger seat and yelled, "Hey, hands up," and when the person turned toward him, Khill fired twice, ...
I’ve got it. He didn’t give the suspect any time to put his hands up, before he shot. nor did he give the suspect any chance to shoot at him, if he had a gun. Clearly an open and shut case, he had no way of recognizing if his suspect was armed, so he could not actually know he was shooting in self defence. I’m reminded of the police officer who yell at a bank robber to haul, at which point the bank robber wheeled around and shot the officer in the head. It is really kind of strange how acting in self defence has to work. It appears to completely overlook that a crime was in progress.
You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut
Ok - if that happened to me down here this is what I would have done - get my loaded gun from the night stand next to the bed - grab a flash light - then go outside and put the light on the guy while pointing the gun at him - I would tell him if he moves he's dead - I would then call 911 on my iPhone and wait for the cops to arrive - now if the guy moves like gets out of the truck and comes towards me or I would again tell him I will shoot him - if he keeps coming at me I have no recourse but to shoot - I wouldn't like to do that but at that point my life is in danger and one of us is going to win - now the cops come and want to know what happened - I tell them he guy tried to take my gun and I shot him in self defense - I would probably get a medal for taking a crook off the streets - now if the guy in the truck gets out and starts running away I would just fire a couple rounds into the air over his head - I think he won't be trying to steal my truck again - unless he's really stupid
By the time you did all that Joe, most Canadians would have had to go down 3 flights to the basement, took time to open the safe, the open another cabinet to get some ammo, then back up two flights and try and find a flashlight.
By then all you'd see was your truck taillights rounding the corner HaHa..
Seeing his truck rounding the corner would have been a better outcome for Khill.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
In Canada the law is on the side of the criminal, not the victim. If approached by a criminal, just give him all your assets, run away, and hope he lets you live.
If the gun is in one hand, the flashlight is in the other, how are you going to call 911?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
Right, or you could stand there and ape the Buddhist, and ask him to thank you. That way if stop later by the police, the thief could indicate he did not steal anything. He simply received them as gifts and thank the giver. If then the police question you about the things, you can tell them they were gifts for which you received a thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by taxwizz
Where this becomes tricky is if he takes your firearm and he doesn't have a PAL.
You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut
The flash light is one of those very small Led lights that clips on to the gun - or I can ask the crook to hold the light while I call the copsQuote:
Originally Posted by Cameracutter
Give this a watch Mike youll have a laugh [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
https://youtu.be/QHqB2t-DGb8
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
Can I just say you guys saying you need a shotgun to defend your car is ridiculous.
I can protect my car with a pellet gun if I wanted to. Open my window and give him a few pellets. He'll be long gone. Also. You take a shot at him with your shotgun whiles he's standing next to your truck your still gunna have to get a new truck after that shot hits it [emoji23][emoji23]
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
HaHa..yea he sees the bigger picture !!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowjob
Thanks
Or you could use a thumb print access cabinet, grab your unloaded gun, throw in a magazine and you are ready to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
I don't understand why people think you cannot have guns and ammo together, as long as they are locked up in a cabinet or safe you are fine, you just cannot have anyone unauthorized being able to put the 2 together.
Only a small amount of people keep their guns in their bedrooms. Most everyone keeps them on a lower level in a separate room.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Point is; MOST Canadians do not have guns readily available for easy access in the middle of the night when noise wakes them up.
Most Canadians don't own guns so most would not have one readily available. As for those of us who do was there a survey taken of gun owners on where "most" of us store them?Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
I think Most Canadian "Gun owners" was understood in the context of the thread.....unless you're an antagonist looking to pick an argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
How about you prove my statement wrong...
It's your statement therefore the onus is on you to prove it not on a person who challenges your observation to disprove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
So how did you arrive at your conclusion on where most gun owners store their firearms?
Who says..you don't agree, prove my statement wrong. ??Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
Not going to play your game....your reputation on here precedes you.
You made the statement but can't substantiate it. Therefore it has no credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Most yes, but most Americans also do not keep loaded handguns in their night stand either, I would hope that all would stop doing that but I guess we need a pile more 4 and 5 year olds to kill their little siblings before it will make sense to keep the loaded magazine outside of the handgun but for some it takes too long to put in the mag and rack the slide.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
I have no kids in the house so keeping a loaded gun in the night stand next to the bed is no safety issue - living in the country and having the nearest State Police station 40 minutes away makes it necessary to be prepared to take care of myself - the question I have is - with all those storage laws you have in Canada how does anyone really know how you are keeping your guns and ammo - surely if you ever had to use a gun you would not tell the cops that you had the gun illegally stored -
If you have children in the house then it is a different ball game - you would have to be more careful where you have the gun so they can never get to it -