Nunavut man who killed 3 sentenced to life

Sounds like a travesty - if they broke into his home bent on violence, they deserved what they got.

I gotta say WTF??? The 'victims' broke into the mans home'! Finally, they got the 'shitty end of the stick'. No sympathy forthcoming! I sure hope his lawyer does appeal. I would have never believed that he would have been charged, let alone convicted.

This is Canada, defending yourself is not PC - you should let the proper authorities handle it. Make my day laws in the US sometimes go overboard (Ok to shoot somebody leaving your yard in the back) but if somebody, especially a whole group, breaks into your house, I don't think you should have to spend too much time trying to negotiate with them before you should be allowed to blaze away.

I'm a reall proponent of better to be judged by twelve, than to be carried by six! But I really wonder WTF happened in this case. Is there a lot more to the story than we know???

Good point.

The law in Canada states that everyone is entitled to self-defense. Self-Defense is defined as the minimum force required to stop someone from hurting you or others in your protection. Therefore someone breaking into your home is not legal grounds for shooting someone under Canadian Law. In order to prove you had the right to self-defense you have to prove that the person in question had not only the intent to harm but also the ability, such as a weapon or martial arts stance/ aggressive posture.

But under the law as it is written it is very hard to prove without several witnesses.

That is why this man is going to Jail for at least 16 years.

The judge accepted that the intruders were bent on violence - that should be enough justification for shooting them. The judge seemed to expect the shooter to negotiate with the attackers - when there are 4 of them like here, I don't think that's reasonable.

Andy

The judge may have acknowledged that the intruders were bent on violence, however the onus is on the accused to prove that there was a requirement for deadly force. Regardless of the history between these men, the accused would have had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his only option was to shoot and kill, and from reading the story he had other options. Which is why he was found guilty and given jail time.

I think our law cuts it a little too close to the bone with the other options stuff. Funny thing is it doesn't seem to apply to cops. In Vancouver we had two cops empty their revolvers into a guy advancing on them with a knife. I applaud that, but seems to me they also had the option of retreating. Then there was the guy shot who was waving an exacto knife (not advancing on the cops) - they definitely had the option of not shooting at that moment. We had the Montreal cop shoot a kid because he was surrounded by a group - none of whom had weapons or attacked him. I don't have a problem with police shooting somebody who is threatening them, I just think that private citizens, in their own home should be given the same option.