Self defender gets charged

bigpoppa

bigpoppa

Well-known member
Unfortunately that's the way it is in this country. They Side with the criminal.
Move to the country we have a saying here " shoot , shovel and shut up"
 
If the thief didn't have a gun, or even confront him, it's not self defense.

"couple of metres distance... He maintained his four years of training as an army reservist had kicked in when he grabbed a shotgun and went outside to confront Styres in 2016."

This thief wasn't a threat, esp from meters away and having no gun to start, this army fellow went out looking for confrontation and way to use his skills.
 
someone was rummaging through his car in the driveway
guy went outside with a shotgun and killed him

how TF is this self defense?

in Canada we have the right to defend ourselves or others from personal harm
we do not have any right to use lethal force to protect property
 
I'm with jc. We need more information. If the guy/gal is stealing it from my driveway, I'm not going to go off the deep end. If they're in my house with my wife and children on the other hand, I can't predict what I'd do.
 
ScorpionT16 said:
If the thief didn't have a gun, or even confront him, it's not self defense.

"couple of metres distance... He maintained his four years of training as an army reservist had kicked in when he grabbed a shotgun and went outside to confront Styres in 2016."

This thief wasn't a threat, esp from meters away and having no gun to start, this army fellow went out looking for confrontation and way to use his skills.
Click to expand...

yeah poor decision but I still think you should be allowed to shoot people within reason.
even if he had a gun the guy would still be charged and likely convicted
 
F3800RC said:
yeah poor decision but I still think you should be allowed to shoot people within reason.
even if he had a gun the guy would still be charged and likely convicted
Click to expand...

We don't have all the pieces to the puzzle, however he could have warned the thief or fired a shot in the air, being a shotgun, I feel he probably damaged his own car in that shooting.

In Kenya we had robberies outside our house often, one night there was a shooting outside, my dad ran out, started all the alarms on our cars to wake the neighborhood up and scare the thieves, one of the neighbors came out and shot a gun in the air, then near the thieves foot, they all fled. My dad had a gun never used it, even when our cars got broken into, once found the truck on stilts, all tires stolen. Put new tires, next week, all gone again.

You don't know who these thieves are affiliated with, kill one, and you could have alot of attention and people after you and your family. We just used insurance and went our ways.
 
Yes the article doesnt specify the circumstances around the self defense
 
in Canada, when you see someone outside your house
messing with your car or whatever

your rights and obligations are to lock the doors and call the cops
after that maybe grab your registered firearm in case they try to come in
after that point you are in a much stronger standing to protect yourself

I'm good with sensible criminal law like this
otherwise you end up with Stand Your Ground and other vigilantism
 
Based on the depiction of the events in the cp24 article (which we all know can be unreliable), it sounds like the shooter should be found guilty based on precedents in our justice system.

The bleeping truck was 15 years old, what's wrong with people? This applies to both the guy trying to steal it and the guy that executed someone for trying to steal his truck. This also applies to the people continuing to fight injustices against the indigenous people in Canada. Frig me, he was a dirtbag breaking into vehicles in the middle of the night thirty minutes away from his house. This wasn't a dumb drunk kid jumping on a car while walking home. He set out that night to break the law. He didn't deserve to die, but his indigenousness does nothing to excuse his behaviour.


www.cp24.com

Toronto, Canada & Global Breaking News – CP24

Most recent News News business news stories and video from CP24
www.cp24.com www.cp24.com

Khill had argued at trial that his four years of training as an army reservist had kicked in when he instinctively grabbed a loaded Remington shotgun in his bedroom and went barefoot outside into the frigid darkness wearing a T-shirt and boxers to confront Styres.

Within seconds of spotting Styres leaning into his 15-year-old pickup truck, Khill yelled “hands up” and opened fire twice from just a few metres away, hitting him squarely in the chest. Styres, 29, who had no gun but may have had a screwdriver, died almost immediately.

Only then did Khill's girlfriend call 911 to the semi-rural property on the edge of Hamilton.

“We will continue to fight this injustice and fight for fair trials for Indigenous people in Canada,” Hooper said.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: J_F
all kinds of insignificant BS on this one

claims that the shooter got off
'cause he was white and the other guy a native

not that it matters
but the shooter is not what racists would classify as a white dude

and I seriously doubt the shooter determined in the few seconds prior to shooting
that the thief was native

a reservist that reacted to his training without thinking
what a load of utter BS

there's millions of veterans with legal fire arms
that don't go about shooting people on instinct
 
First question: Why did Khill have a LOADED shotgun in his bedroom?

Does that sound to you that maybe he had some preconceived notions?
 
IMO the racism factor is immaterial. In Canada one is to retreat to a safe place and only then use minimal force for protection. Stepping outside of his safe place made him guilty in my books. Grabbed a loaded shotgun or grabbed and loaded a shotgun?

Really, kill someone over an old pickup truck???? This isn't the USA.
 
My father-in-law(rip) woke up in the middle of the night because he heard his own bulldozer running up the road :| 3 (as it turned out armed) men had just stole his tools and hot wired his dozer to pull their escape vehicle out of the ditch. I'm pretty sure he drew down on them with his deer rifle and not his shotgun.
 
I followed this case pretty closely.
I'm all for self defence... but this in this case.. I think he should be convicted.
I don't believe Peter left the house with the intention to shoot the guy.. I think things when wrong when Peter crept up behind Jon and called out to him... That spooked Jon and he turned to see who was behind him... Peter reacted to Jon's movement.. probably nervous.
I don't believe the military training reasoning.. at all.

I don't think people are claiming Peter is racist or that is incident happened because of it.. The racism claims are about the trial, jury and outcome. The same sort of racism questions that came up during and after the Gerard Stanley trial...
 
raginduck said:
I followed this case pretty closely.
I'm all for self defence... but this in this case.. I think he should be convicted.
I don't believe Peter left the house with the intention to shoot the guy.. I think things when wrong when Peter crept up behind Jon and called out to him... That spooked Jon and he turned to see who was behind him... Peter reacted to Jon's movement.. probably nervous.
I don't believe the military training reasoning.. at all.

I don't think people are claiming Peter is racist or that is incident happened because of it.. The racism claims are about the trial, jury and outcome. The same sort of racism questions that came up during and after the Gerard Stanley trial...
Click to expand...
If people were concerned about the ancestry of the victim affecting the outcome in court (which sadly may be a reasonable concern), wouldn't the best path forward be a trial where that information is never brought up in court? The victims name to me has no associated race. Which side brought it up in court and why? Something along the lines of "the victim, John Styres was breaking into vehicles in the early hours of Feb 4, 2016 at a location approximately a 30 minute drive from his house. He had in his possession a screwdriver but nothing else that could be considered a weapon." Good enough background, now move on to the events and actions of that night.

If the defense brings up his race as an attempt to justify the shooting, screw him, your team screwed up, rot in jail for a while while the justice system tries to find the best way forward (which should include the defense having to volunteer the time required for a retrial as they caused it). If the prosecution brings up race to try to play the continuous victimization of first-nation peoples, screw them too, almost the same outcome as the defense screwup. He was a dirtbag, trying to make tomorrow suck for other people, what happened hundreds of years ago does not excuse his behaviour, nor justify the shooting.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom