As I wrote in August, 2011, a homeowner was charged with aggravated assault for stabbing a burglar.
Well, I am happy to report that sanity has prevailed and our court system has affirmed our right to self-defence (emphasis added):
“A homeowner committed to trial on charges of aggravated assault for stabbing an intruder is now a free man.
A relieved Moses Mahilal Mail, 29, had charges withdrawn against him in court Thursday morning after the Crown said they no longer have a “reasonable prospect of conviction.”
His lawyer said he’d feared they were heading to trial.
“This decision reaffirms that people have the right to defend themselves in their own homes especially against unwanted intruders,” said Daniel Brown.”
“On July 31, 2011, he and girlfriend Sarah Walsh arrived home at 3 a.m. to find an unknown pair of men’s shoes at the bottom of the stairs. They called police and then, armed with a kitchen knife, the slight and lanky Mahilal crept upstairs and discovered a man in the bedroom of Walsh’s sleeping mother.
In the ensuing confrontation with Kino Johnson, a strapping 6-foot-4, 200 pound known thief, Mahilal had to stab him three times before he finally fled the upscale house near Keele St. and Eglinton Ave. W.
Johnson, 33, pleaded guilty in June to break and enter and is serving 20 months in jail.”
Yesterday was good day for Canadian justice!
What is it with Ontario prosecutors? And STILL they're going after Ian Thomson for having the nerve to defend himself and his home from a late-night molotov cocktail attack. Something is very, very wrong in the Ontario legal system. Heads need to roll, and charges of malicious prosecution need to be laid.
Posted by: Relayer | October 26, 2012 at 11:35 AM
It is good to see.
This from the UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/26/burglars-accept-risk-shot-judge
Posted by: Pissedoff | October 26, 2012 at 12:44 PM
It's an absolute travesty that charges were laid in the first place. The Crown's admission that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction is not a vindication of the right to defend oneself, it just means they didn't think a judge, or a judge and jury, would convict the accused if it went to trial. This doesn't negate the fact that we still need a "castle doctrine" in this country.
Posted by: Scott M | October 26, 2012 at 01:08 PM