Guess the state!

[theweaselking]

Robbers break into home of senior citizen, wound his son. He shoots and kills one of them. Police arrive, investigate, decide this is clearly self-defense, clear him of all wrongdoing, and then confiscate his life's savings. $400,000, which was in his safe because he doesn't trust banks, which the robbers didn't get but the FBI did.

Comments

[kafziel.livejournal.com]

The only thing this country is more retarded about than drugs is fuckin'.

[dscotton.livejournal.com]

These are getting trickier, the phrase "senior citizen" made me sure it was Florida!

[stormfeather.livejournal.com]

That, and the fact that it wasn't clearly bible-thumpin' or putting wimmin in their rightful place... damn!

[itlandm.livejournal.com]

Couldn't this have happened pretty much anywhere? You stash drugs at home, byebye go your human rights.

[mrbankies.livejournal.com]

I believe so, since it was the FBI that siezed the money.

[aimisdirty.livejournal.com]

That's okay: In Canada, you would be charged with murder for defending yourself using lethal force (even in situations where the Criminal Code authorizes it), and sentenced to more jail time than a gansta wannabe just because they had a rough childhood.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

That's news to me; is there a case you can cite on this?

[aimisdirty.livejournal.com]

Honestly? Read the news.

There is a high profile case right now (Calgary), where the victim of a violent home invasion is being treated like a criminal by the authorities involved. I hope that it turns out well for him.

A few years ago, a 14 year old shot a violent home invader with a (legal) .22 rifle. The family wound up destroyed by legal fees, even though it was as legit a shooting as you can get.

In the real world here in Canada, you're pretty well fucked if you use a firearm or edged weapon to defend yourself - even if the situation permits you to use lethal force. It just "isn't Canadian to use firearms for self defense", which is why we have storage laws which try and prevent that from happening.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

... you would be charged with murder for defending yourself using lethal force (even in situations where the Criminal Code authorizes it), and sentenced to more jail time than ...

This specifically is what is news to me, not that people get put through the wringer when they hurt or kill someone. Is there a case, as in "R. vs. _______" that you can point me at that sets legal precedent?

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

I concur. I have (sadly) friends who had to resort to lethal force to repel a home invasion, and who are also looking north for a change. They wouldn't go there on vacation if they knew about this.

Citations? News links?

[torrain.livejournal.com]

For the Calgary thing, you can get links here. (FWIW, the stories currently refer to the police investigating the circumstances before deciding if they're going to lay charges, which I kind of take as a given since somebody is dead. Have bugged aimisdirty for more details.)

Still looking for the 14-year-old thing. (It's really pretty hard going, not in terms of research but in terms of how many stories I'm finding about children getting killed.)

[zenten.livejournal.com]

How long was the 14 year old in jail for?

[torrain.livejournal.com]

> There is a high profile case right now (Calgary), where the victim
> of a violent home invasion is being treated like a criminal by the
> authorities involved. I hope that it turns out well for him.

? The latest thing I can find says the police will decide if they're going to lay charges against Mr. Olineck after they investigate the death, and that they've laid charges against one of the invaders and Olineck's ex-girlfriend.

Honestly, I am not seeing "checking to see if the killing was legally justified" to be the same thing as "treating him as a criminal".

(Mind you, I could be looking up the wrong home invasion entirely, or missing a reference, which I would be happy to get my hands on if you have it.)

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Reverse onus is about the worst thing ever invented for achieving justice, especially in this case, where the prosecution has such a huge financial incentive not to return the money.

[sanityimpaired.livejournal.com]

I can understand the FBI deciding to investigate. There's a big pile of money in the same place as illegal drugs. Hell, even just a big pile of money is probable cause to look into it further.

Of course, probable cause is nothing like "We just take it without having to prove anything, ever." That's abhorrent and ridiculous.