Another Pathetic Example of Our Justice System at Work

[RyleyW]

Well the Canadian Justice system is trying to prosecute yet another man simply for protecting his family.

Article available here: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/RC...733/story.html

Anyone who agrees that nobody should have to suffer for protecting their family please show your support here: Honest Joe

[kenkell1]

nice first post and the link to the story doesn't work.

[RyleyW]

link fixed*

[kenkell1]

I am 100% in protecting my home and family BUT ... Reasonable force is a term associated with defending one's person or property from a violent attack, theft, or other type of unlawful aggression. It may be used as a defense in a criminal trial or to defend oneself in a suit alleging tortious conduct. If one uses excessive force, or more than the force necessary for such protection, he or she may be considered to have forfeited the right to defense which in fact this guy did do and therefore I wont sign the petition

[RyleyW]

In reality during what occurred that night he had every right to fear for the safety of his family. He struck the criminal the first time (while yelling for him to stop) after he had just rammed Joseph Singleton's car and was continuing to drive the vehicle in the direction of Joseph's wife when he hit him the second time (both times with the flat portion of the hatchet). So I know at least that if I was in that situation and a crazed criminal was ramming a vehicle towards my wife that I would not hesitate to use whatever force I had available to stop him. You say that he used excessive force but in reality he swung exactly enough times to convince the criminal to abandon his plans of using the vehicle to escape (and endangering Joseph's wife at the same time) after the second impact the criminal was still in well enough shape to exit the vehicle and run away. With this said I believe Joseph acted more calmly than most would seeing that he: only swung the hatchet a second time after the criminal continued towards his wife, and he only swung the flat portion deliberately to inflict less damage. With this clarified information I ask that you please go back and re-read this article, and possibly rethink your position.

[kenkell1]

Tell me what's wrong with this statement? ..."The man searched his house and found no one inside, but he did find a man in his 20s trying to escape in the blocked car."

How does he know he is escaping? escaping from what? Maybe he was looking for his lost dog? Maybe the guy was trying to take off in a hurry because he saw a guy comming at him with a machete.I assume his WIFE was still in the vehicle which really she would have been pretty safe, correct?
It is going to be very hard for his lawyer to say otherwise and using a weapon on someone that has NO weapon is excessive force regardless of what happened.

Now I am glad the guy got smoked by a machete but the law is the law and the only thing in his favour is the fact he has No criminal record and will most likely receive a condition discharge.

[RyleyW]

He assumed that he was trying to escape because he had already rammed Joseph's car in an attempt to exit the driveway. Now correct me if I'm wrong but typically people looking for lost dogs do not deliberately ram other people's vehicles. No his wife was not in the vehicle, she had exited it and was phoning the police (and was at risk of being hit by the criminal's erratic driving). In this circumstance in which the criminal is driving a vehicle with an utter disregard for the innocent person blocking his path he is using the vehicle as a weapon. It is also apparent that Joseph had no way of knowing what the criminal inside the vehicle may have in his possession, for all he knew he could have had any number of weapons.

It was also very apparent after he looked in his home that people had gone through it and ransacked it

and it was a hatchet (the flat portion was used), not a machete!

[kenkell1]

sorry I meant to say hatchet and flat portion or not...IF someone was comming at me with a Hatchet I would be trying to get out of there as well...regardless.
The owner of the home had NO way of knowing if the dude in the car really was a bad guy...in legal terms anyway. It's going to be an interesting case though.

[RyleyW]

Originally Posted by kenkell1

sorry I meant to say hatchet and flat portion or not...IF someone was comming at me with a Hatchet I would be trying to get out of there as well...regardless.
The owner of the home had NO way of knowing if the dude in the car really was a bad guy...in legal terms anyway. It's going to be an interesting case though.

The criminal had already rammed the vehicle with the woman standing on the other side of it before he saw the hatchet so I think that his guilt was undeniable by that point. Therefor I think it would be fair to assume that he was guilty of the damage done to the property (and that the force used by the accused was well within reason, considering the criminal was continuing to endanger his wife).