Chris Bishop has murder convictions overturned after shooting intruders

We need really clear self defence laws in Canada,

and not slanted toward the criminals.

Kudos to Mr. Bishop. That's five who no longer terrorize the community!

Good that they ordered a new trial. Shooting people in the back that are running away should not be allowed. Shooting people in your home, whether in the back or not should. But he should never have been charged with murder, but manslaughter. And should get a light sentence for the 2 he shot in the back, since he didn't go looking for trouble. Like house arrest or something.

The fact that he shot a couple in the back outside his house is pretty close to grounds for murder IMO. They were fleeing and not a threat to him, so his reason to use deadly force was gone. He definitely needs something far stiffer than house arrest for that. I'm not a lawyer, but manslaughter might be a better fit.

Conversely, he shouldn't be guilty of murdering anyone who died from wounds they received during the home invasion.

Nah, I'd go easy on him. They came to his house with weapons to attack him. He did retreat until they actually broke in. He would be afraid and amped up. I could certainly see myself shooting them in the back, not for revenge but just in the heat of the moment. The action needs to be condemned, so he should be found guilty of manslaughter.

My favorite example: a woman in Vanderhoof stabbed her lover in the groin because he was cheating on her, then watched him bleed out before calling help. She claimed she didn't mean to kill him and was given 2 years house arrest because the judge said she wouldn't do it again. I think in light of sentences like that, Bishop certainly doesn't deserve a stiffer one.

This might have more to do with the original judge suppressing information during the about the invader's previous behaviours and crimes in the community. From outside it looks like the judge came down unfairly on the side of the prosecution, who would have had a vested interest in making the invaders look like saints and placed all the badness onto the shooter.

Never understood that "victim's behaviour/background has nothing to do with the crime being judged" nonsense. Known criminals invading a home to attack someone should be relevant to any trial where their own actions are directly responsible for them getting shot.

Certainly any crime that relates to the offense. Ie if they were Wall St bankers, that crime is not relevant to a home invasion. Previous conviction for GBH (to use the British term) is. But, that would certainly result in some innocent criminals going to jail, because knowing this would sure as fuck bias me.

People who back this kind of thought process are the same ones who want people punished more for "hate" crimes because of what the accused might be thinking. Sorry folks, you can't have it both ways.

People who back this kind of thought process are the same ones who want people punished more for "hate" crimes because of what the accused might be thinking. Sorry folks, you can't have it both ways.

Logic fail. The question is about what he jury is thinking.

People who back this kind of thought process are the same ones who want people punished more for "hate" crimes because of what the accused might be thinking. Sorry folks, you can't have it both ways.

Logic fail. The question is about what he jury is thinking.

Sorry, but once again you're wrong.

This is different from some sleaze of a defense lawyer saying a girl deserves to get gang-raped if she was wearing too tight of a t-shirt. If a known criminal gets shot and killed during the commission of a crime then damn straight his previous criminal record is relevant, and any jury out there should be informed about it.

I'm a jerk this way on this sort of thing. If I was on that original jury there's no way Bishop would have been convicted. Five on one, in the middle of the night, with weapons involved, and assholes that didn't run until their intended victim showed them that he had a better weapon than they did. Sorry scalp-hunting prosecutor and shitty judge, you can take your technical arguments and legal minutiae and cram it deep where it belongs. I'm deliberately dead-locking this fucking trial with a not guilty vote.

You're right. I misread Thanos' post. Whole different kettle of fish. I think is a case of self defense, the background of the "victim" is very much relevant. In fact, I've never heard is wasn't. That's why I misread the post - I thought only the accused's record wasn't on the table during the determination of guilt phase.

Shooting the wounded guy laying on the ground and killing him then shooting fleeing people outside his home, regardless of their history, is wrong and he should be charged with something that nets jail time.

Shoot them as they walk in the front door, awesome, be my guest. But this was not the case here.

That said I'm not shedding any tears for the guys who got shot either.

Agreed. The incidents outside the home were done when the threat had ended and the suspects were fleeing. The use of proportional force went from appropriate in the home to excessive outside the home. Anyone killed during that part of the incident should be considered a victim of murder and charges should be levelled.