The homeowner told police the two men said they were police and claimed they were at the home to serve a warrant.
[The homeowner] became suspicious, because, you know, they have a ring camera too, and the suspects were saying they had a warrant, but it was just two people and they’re masked up and no police cars, no lights or anything like that," said Lt. Khan with HPD.
At some point, police said the men shot at the homeowner through the door, prompting the homeowner to return fire.
The homeowner was not hurt in the gunfire, but the two men were both hit and pronounced dead at the scene.
In Canada, they’d probably arrest the home owner and have the courts sort it out. No joke.
That’s honestly fine. If someone ends up dead, especially if the killer is the only surviving witness, it’s pretty reasonable to have a thorough determination of responsibility and legality.
Yep, but going through those motions is enough to ruin someone’s life because of ruining their employment prospects because of their name being associated with horrific crimes, even if they are entirely innocent.
Arresting someone because a crime may have occurred, without there being evidence to determine such, is not great, especially when there’s video proof that it was self defense. It’d now be up to a jury putting the home owner under a microscope to determine if the homeowner made the correct split-second decisions in a situation so stressful they can’t even imagine what it’s like because they never lived through it.
Criminal charges are not necessary for that and this line of thinking is insane. The victim of a home invasion must now necessarily be charged and re-victimized by the justice system? This practice won’t last.
No one said they should be charged, but they need to be investigated to determine that it was actually a home invasion.
Do you think an investigation could occur on scene, where you have a ring camera, dead individuals who might be able to be identified as not cops, their car, the evidence on the house’s door of bullet holes, etc. and show that the homeowner maybe was justified? Maybe?
do you have any past news stories that approach this type of response from the Canadian government ?
Yeah, I do.
A home-owner was recently attacked by an armed man (who had broken into several homes before, he had a record of doing so, and had been arrested multiple times already) and was arrested and charged because he himself was armed: https://globalnews.ca/news/11345655/ontario-man-charged-with-assaulting-home-intruder-acted-within-his-rights-lawyer/
The crown prosecutor has not dropped charges so far.
The homeowner likely gets off scott free but in Canada we still have to go through the legal motions. The cop on the scene does not have the right to let the homeowner off, the courts do.
Yep, but going through those motions is enough to ruin someone’s life because of ruining their employment prospects because of their name being associated with horrific crimes, even if they are entirely innocent.
Arresting someone because a crime may have occurred, without there being evidence to determine such, is not great, especially when there’s video proof that it was self defense. It’d now be up to a jury putting the home owner under a microscope to determine if the homeowner made the correct split-second decisions in a situation so stressful they can’t even imagine what it’s like because they never lived through it.
I agree that guilt by association may cause problems for the victim but the most reasonable way to proceed is to gather facts and evidence and make decisions based upon that information. I believe that this process is the most effective, even if there is absolute proof that the victim is innocent (assume there was a live stream of the incident for all to see and everyone who saw it was shown that the victim was innocent). We should still jump the hoops and fill out the forms.
I just don’t agree, I don’t see how victimizing someone twice when there’s absolute proof they are innocent is in any way productive or a good thing for society. It’s really shitty and can ruin someones life when they’ve already been through a traumatic event. It’s bordering on being downright evil tbh.
I’m curious how idiotic your cops are there… Do they get to arrest folks just because a crime might have occurred, or do they need evidence of it? Because a ring camera video, AND bullet holes in the door with tell tale markings of traveling inward, towards the homeowner, plus outward, AND the car on the street, AND the masked individuals that are now easily identified as NOT COPS all screams to me that no crime was committed.
Some cops are idiots, most aren’t. About the same everywhere I guess.
Yes, they would likely arrest them anyway because a death (or multiple deaths) took place and let the crown prosecutor and then juries handle it.
Canada has jury trials don’t they? Arrest is means suspicion, doesn’t mean a conviction will happen especially with a sympathetic jury. On the other hand, the US’s rule of law has kinda been falling apart. They could get murdered while in pre-trial detention.
Arrest means the arresting officer has probable cause to believe that a crime occurred. In this case, with two individuals dead outside of a house’s entry, the door having bullet holes that have markings consistent with bullets traveling in directions into the house and out of it, and the ring camera evidence, I’d say it would be ridiculous to have any belief that the homeowner committed a crime.
Yep, but going through those motions is enough to ruin someone’s life because of ruining their employment prospects because of their name being associated with horrific crimes, even if they are entirely innocent.
Arresting someone because a crime may have occurred, without there being evidence to determine such, is not great, especially when there’s video proof that it was self defense. It’d now be up to a jury putting the home owner under a microscope to determine if the homeowner made the correct split-second decisions in a situation so stressful they can’t even imagine what it’s like because they never lived through it.
Exactly, I defended myself against a bully in school and the fucking school admin called the police on me. Fuck everyone involved with that school admin. ACAB.
I was like 17, I was not born in this country.
I was so lucky that my mother naturalized as a US Citizen (edit: because Child Citizenship Act automatically made me a Citizen so I don’t have to do Naturalization myself), because imagine having to explain to the USCIS Natualization officer about the arrest record. Because they ask about all arrests, as in: any that ever happened, including those that did not result in convictions, or even crimes that were sealed expunged, or pardoned. They can see those records so lying is pointless (and they could retroactively revoke any immigration benefits obtained when they find out in the future).
“Innocent until proven guilty” yea right, totally. If you are white and citizen at birth, maybe, cuz otherwise they can fuck over your life, tell you to go to a country you’ve never been in for a decade.
Fuck CCP for ruining my birth country. Fuck USCIS, fuck ICE, fuck conservatives. So many adversaries I have to deal with in this fucked up universe.
Yep, I defended myself against an intellectually disabled bully who bit me randomly, the teachers high fived him, and I got suspended for the day. I was super young at the time, but I still remember it vividly, and now that I’m older I’m lucky that it wasn’t worse and that they didn’t try calling the police on me at the time even though I was only defending myself but it was still a fucked up situation regardless.