SELF-DEFENSE CASE STUDY FROM BACK HOME

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/vincent-bunn-dakota-pratt-sentencing-1.5165442 

https://www.newser.com/story/276229/fatal-stabbing-of-intruder-took-self-defense-too-far-judge.html 

A good friend posted on this one in haste and without getting the latest on the case, and I get that. I’ve made some mistakes on posting over the years as well without proper research or while on-the-fly. I wasn’t going to address this one again but, since it’s from home and there seems to be an infinite number of comments on “how you can’t even defend your own home anymore from an armed intruder, what the fuck is the world coming to!” floating around, I’m feeling the need. Being that most foreigners that I see commenting on this do not seem to understand Canadian law nor have they done due diligence on what exactly transpired here to eliminate the self-defense aspect. People feed hyperbole and personal narrative to push SD programs or feed the fire on civilians losing all their rights but each case should be broken down of its own volition prior to such statements.
1. This was originally 100% a case of self-defense and the “home-occupier” had every right to fight back with full-force, yes. HOWEVER, when judges, lawyers, and juries hear phrases like “chased him throughout the house and out onto the deck” (as was stated in Newser's article above), “kicked him in the head numerous times after the fatal-stab was accomplished”, and “stabbed him 13 times” after he ceased being a threat (he was trying to escape, remember)….the law tends to frown upon that sort of thing. (and they don’t give a shit if you’re jacked on adrenaline, which is very likely mitigated by the fact you were under-the-influence while jacked.

2. There was personal history. The deceased was admittedly allowed in the house, according to the house owner, the home-occupier’s own mother-in-law. Both parties were under the influence of alcohol (a huge problem on Canadian First Nations/aboriginal reserves), both had prior history with each other, there was jealousy surrounding a previous relationship. Personal. Deeply-personal, and coupled with the alcohol, a very, very likely contributor to the overkill that transpired and clearly personal response to an ongoing fight that needn’t have continued. Through the main floor. Into the hallways. Onto the deck outside.
3. Always, always remember that judges, juries, lawyers are NOT part of your peer group and not your allies. They are normal, average, suburban civilians who do not (nor can they be expected to) relate in any way to the possibly-necessary stopping-power of stabbing someone 13 times, including a final one into the heart for the kill. Factored in with #1, 2, 3 & 4…we have an extremely high recipe for failure on a would-be self-defense case.

4. Pratt’s “only prior conviction was for an assault” so, regardless of justifications and reasoning, he did have precedence, as would have been factored into any forthcoming legal cases. Likewise, the deceased’s family stating how wonderful and funny and outgoing the victim was and how the courts only showed his “bad side” when he broke into a house and stabbed a sleeping-victim in the head….is somewhat moot in this context, I’d say. (I guess he should’ve been given a free hall-pass because he had a good sense-of-humor?) 

5. Always, always remember that judges, juries, lawyers are NOT part of your peer group and not your allies. They are normal, average, suburban civilians who do not (nor can they be expected to) relate in any way to the possibly-necessary stopping-power of stabbing someone 13 times, including a final one into the heart for the kill. Factored in with #1, 2, 3 & 4…we have an extremely high recipe for failure on a would-be self-defense case. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

2 thoughts on “SELF-DEFENSE CASE STUDY FROM BACK HOME”

  1. It begins with what you tell the Cops. I never told them anything, even when i was perfecrly in the right, i let my lawyer do that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.