Printable View
This is the second case in the last few months where someone charged with shooting a thief has been found not guilty by a jury. It seems juries are leaning towards the rights of property owners instead of the crooks.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...lton-1.4723854
That's the way it should be.
Hopefully the thieves will get the message that there is some risk involved.
There has always been a risk involved with any criminal activity, but our justice system has always gone after the person that the crime was committed against and made them out to be the " bad guys ".Quote:
Originally Posted by ysyg
As has been said, the tide is turning [ maybe ] and the jury's are hopefully sending a message to the criminal world that enough is enough.
Khill didn't kill Styres because Styres was robbing him. Khill killed Styres because he feared for his life. There is a massive difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by delmer
Apparently a civil law suit is now being launched against Khill.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4303645/p...urder-lawsuit/
I see that. My wife was a defendant in a civil suit. What the family is asking for probably won't be what they get. I am not sure how/if insurance would cover Khill. I wonder if Khill will counter-sue for emotional turmoil (reports are out that he was very distraught after the shooting).Quote:
Originally Posted by delmer
Not likely since the “defendant” is dead. They could name his estate.....but.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
I hope for him and his families sake he liquidated his assets long ago? Surely his lawyer would have cautioned him at some point about the after effects of a "Not guilty" verdict?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
People don’t realize that a civil action can do more damage than a criminal charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmoose
I thought I inferred that. I suppose that I should have stated it. I guess the heat has already started to get to me. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
Criminal charge sure, but I would rather pay any amount of money ,than go to jail , for anything, let alone murder.
Why would you use the word "murder"? He didnt' murder anyone? He was found not guilty of any crime. There was no crime committed?Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Well he was not charged with j-walking. I meant, would you not pay any amount of cash rather than jail time, for anything? So a civil suit, is not remotely close, to the damage jail would cause any defendant. That's all I meant , don't try to cause trouble. LOL.
Ya ok. It's too damn hot to cause trouble today. have a great weekend!Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
That lawsuit will never see the light of day. They're likely looking for an out-of-court payday. This isn't the US where even if someone is found "not guilty",they can still be sued into oblivion. Although strange things happen sometimes,our civil law system is light years different than America's.Quote:
Originally Posted by delmer
The problem with a civil lawsuit is that many times the party being sued is bankrupted, for something that was never their fault to begin with.
For Example.
DRUNK DRIVER hits the light post at the end of the driveway. Driver is killed after the car rolls into the six to ten foot ditch, but the driver's Family sues me because of the light post. A person made a bad decision and got killed, but somehow it is my fault. After I have payed out hundreds of thousands in court and lawyer fees, I win. Sure I won, but no I didn't because now I am divorced, unemployed, in bankruptcy, and living in a welfare apartment because I had to sell my house, my truck and cash in my RRSP.
A good argument could be made that Canada is worse than the US. It doesn't seem as bad because they are a country of 300 million, where as Canada is 36 million. So if theres "one" frivolous and ridiculous civil suit, per 10 million people per year.
The US media gets 30 cases per year to cash in on
The CDn media gets 3
Why is there a good argument that it's worse here?
Because we are left of centre and bleeding hearts.
Last year, the owner of an auto body shop was sued by the mother of a teen who.
Was given alcohol by the mother
Went out looking for fun at 1am with his friend
Broke into the shops yard.
Stole a car from the owners yard, crashed and died.
The owner was found partially liable because he left the keys in the car.
Then theres cases like this.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/driver...lled-1.1793813
Would you rather pay someone 10s, or hundreds of thousands to settle out of court. Or pay lawyers, engineers ( scene reconstruction experts), forensic experts, private investigators, and more 10s or hundreds of thousands
To roll the dice in court.
Re the above , body shop owner not responsible , Supreme Court ruling ;Quote:
Originally Posted by LoR
http://bensonpercival.com/case-summa...ge-sales-v-jj/
That’s recent :).
Good in that they felt it wasn’t foreseeable. Bad in that they reaffirmed our countries bleeding heart default position.
Most people sail through life without one or some of life’s larger curveballs being tossed their way...think it will never happen to them.Quote:
In reaching its conclusion the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Plaintiff’s criminal conduct was irrelevant in analyzing whether a duty of care existed. As found in the Court’s previous judgments, the Court held that a Plaintiff engaging in immoral or illegal conduct is not precluded from successfully claiming against tortfeasors. Such behaviour can, however, form a part of the contributory negligence analysis.
Until it does.