Drunken teen stumbles into wrong home

[Flubber]

Oh and on the teen killing in calgary. While I can understand I am shocked that anyone can be surprised that if you try to attack someone with jumper cables , they could respond with lethal force.

To me, if you try to mug someone and they kill you . . . Tough Sh*t

[Jon Miller]

It was an attempted murder that was foiled.. nothing wrong with responding violently.

JM

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil


My understanding is the same as yours. As you know, our Constitution is silent on property rights.

I do know that. But you would not need a constitutional right if the Crim code made use of force justifiable for protection of property. Then you could attack the fleeing thief lawfully.I don't see how you need a constitutional right related to property if defence of property is a statutory justification allowed pursuant to the terms of a statutory offense


Also on the Charter I always have wondered how far:

.

.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

could go. Perhaps in a frontier setting, depriving a person of certain property would seriously harm the "security of a person" etc etc but its a real stretch. Almost any far-out scenario I could construct would probably allow lawful action under self-defence. (ie someone stealing your only food or water)--

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Flubber


Thats quite an assumption-- Why would a drunk teenager be confused and tame instead of angry and belligerent??

Well, assuming that he is a drunk teen trying to get back to the house where he is supposed to sleep, and that a place where he is a guest, then it's certainly possible he is both confused and tame. I at least has been both when doing the same as a teenager (no, not entering the wrong house, just been drunk in a strange place).

Our problem is of course that we are BS'ing about something that we don't know the real truth about. One thing I though find suspicious against the home owner is that in the initial statement he doesn't say anything about being attacked before he tried to crush the boys skull. That would be a normal thing to say. To me it seems that he in the beginning was proud of what he said he did including the banging the head into concrete. Afterwards someone may have told him that there where certain risks in that story.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Well, assuming that he is a drunk teen trying to get back to the house where he is supposed to sleep, and that a place where he is a guest, then it's certainly possible he is both confused and tame. I at least has been both when doing the same as a teenager (no, not entering the wrong house, just been drunk in a strange place).

All possible-- but in my house the tamest drunk would likely get brained with a baseball bat if he suddenly stumbled at me in the darkness in my own house. I don't care how you got there or what your real intentions are, if you are an intruder in my house I will assume hostile intent and I won't stop acting on that belief until the intruder is gone or incapacitated.

Originally posted by BlackCat

Our problem is of course that we are BS'ing about something that we don't know the real truth about.

Total agreement. I wasn't there. Maybe the guy lost it and beat a defenceless sleeping teen. Thats a criminal assault-- no question. But until that type of thing becomes clear, I'm siding with the homeowner. I can only imagine how scared I would be if I suddenly saw someone in my house. I don't claim I would think straight-- I would assume danger to my family and fear there were more than one-- In that situation if I had the opportunity I would want to take down the person in front of me as soon as possible and get back to my family.

Originally posted by BlackCat


One thing I though find suspicious against the home owner is that in the initial statement he doesn't say anything about being attacked before he tried to crush the boys skull. That would be a normal thing to say. To me it seems that he in the beginning was proud of what he said he did including the banging the head into concrete. Afterwards someone may have told him that there where certain risks in that story.

The guy might have been blustering/exaggerating what he did or maybe not. In any event it was stupid for him to speak out.

If he had said nothing at all, he would have been in the clear to tell whatever story he wanted later . . . and it would be easy to tell one that could explain pretty much any level of injuries.

Then people that want charges . . . your best witness is a drunken teen. If he says he recalls everything clearly that flies in the face of the idea he couldn't even tell houses apart and was no threat. If he was an incoherent drunk, what exactly can he testify?

The homeowner can spin it anyway he wants and blow off any prior media reports as just blustering.

Wifey-- probably saw nothing at the time but could probably paint a good picture of being frightened perhaps in a darkened confused melee-- ON any conversations after with homeowner she probably is not compellable as a witness

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Flubber


All possible-- but in my house the tamest drunk would likely get brained with a baseball bat if he suddenly stumbled at me in the darkness in my own house. I don't care how you got there or what your real intentions are, if you are an intruder in my house I will assume hostile intent and I won't stop acting on that belief until the intruder is gone or incapacitated.

Yeah, that is if you are looking for an intruder, but this guy was looking for their cat. Going down the cellar, the first sensible thing to do would be to turn on the light. Being an former subject of a cat, I know it's much safer to do that than stumble around in the dark .

And then again, we are BS'ing, because we dion't know if their installations is so stupid that he had to go down before he could turn on the light.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by BlackCat




And then again, we are BS'ing, because we dion't know if their installations is so stupid that he had to go down before he could turn on the light.

Well since we are BSing-- I know in my house if I am coming from a dark room I might not flick on the main lights and dazzle myself-- We have enough night lights, streetlight stuff etc to see your way. It would actually be quite odd for me to turn on a big light ( i never do if going for a 3 am glass of water)

So I don't read too much into turning on a light or not


Circumstances circumstances-- and if he was looking for his cat he was probably doubly surprised to find an intruder and any reflexive reaction is all the more "reasonable"

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Flubber
Circumstances circumstances-- and if he was looking for his cat he was probably doubly surprised to find an intruder and any reflexive reaction is all the more "reasonable"

And probably cultural circumstances. Chemical Ollies earlier statement wasn't a joke. While the normal reaction of a US or canadian may be to hit hard with the baseball bat, a scandinav probably would do what he describes, and most of the times it would be sufficient - when not, well, you use the violence needed.

[aneeshm]

WTF? This is assault, plain and simple. Sure, the kid was wrong in going into the house, but smashing his head into the concrete? And bragging about it later?

[Asher]

Perhaps that's what really rubs me wrong about this. Not only did he hit the kid's head so hard his ears starting bleeding, he was quite literally bragging about it after. If I gave him the benefit of the doubt before, he lost it right then.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Sava said it. In Texas, I would have shot him if I had to do so.

If you "had to"?

The kid was obviously in no condition to do anything other than maybe piss himself.

Who the **** beats somebody who's already half passed-out?

I would have drug him outside and turned the hose on him.

[Sirotnikov]

Do we have any evidence that the kid was indeed incapacitated and tame?

For all we know, the kid could have broke into the home with the intention of robbing the house.


The whole "I accidentally stumbled in, while looking for a party" defense seems a bit awkward to me.

We don't know for a fact there was any party nearby.

It seems awfully odd that a teenager, even a drunk one, would continue to mistake a dark, unlit, foreign house for "a party" for a long enough time, that he wanders inside the house, and hides in the basement.

That requires a lot of time, and a whole series of odd decisions.

Going into a place you expect to be familiar, then suddenly finding it dark, vacant and unfamiliar would seem very odd for me, even when excessively drunk.

I would try to leave. Not head for the basement of said dark, unfamiliar house.

[Flubber]

I assume the police had some evidence of a nearby party. Otherwise they would have refuted his story outright. THis does not mean the kid did not have a bad intent or that the rest of his story is true but I'm willing to accept that he was there mistakenly as he claims, for the sake of the discussion.


And it may be cultural. here people lock their doors and have alarm systems. An intruder is generally thought to be hostile and likely dangerous

[Asher]

I assume the police had some evidence of a nearby party.

The police had broken up a party next door shortly before for noise complaints. That's why the kid left the party, came back to what he thought was the party house later (and was clearly not )

It seems awfully odd that a teenager, even a drunk one, would continue to mistake a dark, unlit, foreign house for "a party" for a long enough time, that he wanders inside the house, and hides in the basement.

The party house was just recently broken up by police. That is, it was dispersed. Doesn't seem odd to me that he went looking for where a couple people went to.

[DinoDoc]

Hopefully this experience teaches him a lesson. I have little sympathy for people who get drunk to this extent. He brought it on himself.