"The lawyer representing convicted murderer Chris Bishop hopes an appeal launched by his client will be heard by the Nunavut Court of Appeal as early as this spring.
...
The appeal will centre around Bishop's attempts to defend himself during a home invasion on the night of Jan. 6, 2007, James Morton told Nunatsiaq News.
Three years after one of the territory's deadliest crimes, Morton said the history of those who invaded Bishop's home that night in 2007 is still largely unknown.
"This was a violent home invasion – no one disputes that," Morton said. "Five people kicked in my client's door [and] they were certainly there to assault him – possibly to kill him. He had a gun and shot [at them], obviously defending himself. As a result, he killed three and wounded two.
"The real question is – was it reasonable?""
NunatsiaqOnline 2012-01-09: NEWS:
http://bit.ly/x6jg5q
8 comments:
What is reasonable is the wrong question.... Was it excessive is the real question.
The reasonable persons test is a fallacious construct that should not be applied in circumstance of intense "fight or flight" considerations.
Is it time for a new test?
I would say everyone has a right to defend themself.
Fascinating case with multiple implications....Native rights and social justice.
This may become a hot potatoe as I'm not confident as to where Liberal values stop short at....this level of violence during an act of self defence has an american feel to it or a canadian conservative ring...
Much applause for taking on a case with such social impact....heck get it right and I may vote liberal again
No pressure, though! ;)
What is reasonable is the wrong question.... Was it excessive is the real question.
The reasonable persons test is a fallacious construct that should not be applied in circumstance of intense "fight or flight" considerations.
Is it time for a new test?
I would say everyone has a right to defend themself.
Fascinating case with multiple implications....Native rights and social justice.
This may become a hot potatoe as I'm not confident as to where Liberal values stop short at....this level of violence during an act of self defence has an american feel to it or a canadian conservative ring...
Much applause for taking on a case with such social impact....heck get it right and I may vote liberal again
No pressure, though! ;)
Here's the thing that bothers me about this one: He shot all five of them. Either he's one hell of a shot or there is something more to the story.
It is undisputed that the five violently invaded his home. Your client is armed (under our gun laws that is very hard to do legally) and defends his home as is his right. After he shot the first, or second, or third you'd think the rest would retreat under such a formidable defence. How did he manage to shoot all five?
It makes a difference. If the five burst in all together and he blasted all of them with a shotgun maybe that explains how he got all give.
Ok, I just read the articles on his original trial. Reasonable? I think he has a reasonable case for a retrial.
He obviously broke some laws regarding ownership of an unregistered gun, except that Nunavut has some kind of exemption, right? He had a prohibited 30 round magazine. He retreated to his bedroom and waited for the home invaders. (That is pretty similar to a recent Oklahoma case involving an 18 year old woman defending herself and her baby.)
Where he goes off the rails a bit is shooting at the fleeing attackers and pumping a couple of extra rounds into one of the downed attackers for good measure.
Self-defence? Yes, to the charges of murder. He should get convicted on some lesser charges, I would think.
"The real question is – was it reasonable?""
IT'S UP TO THE GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE IF SOMEONE COMMITTED A CRIME BY USING SELF DEFENSE IN THEIR OWN HOME?
IF YOU ARE HIS CLIENT WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE CASE ON YOUR BLOG?
He's not actually talking about it. He has posted a news article and asked for comments. I doubt very much he will respond to any for the reasons you imply.
"He has posted a news article and asked for comments."
Comments about what?
Post a Comment