WAS THE SHOOTING OF AN UNARMED MAN LEGAL?

At first, when we hear about such a situation, we balk at the legality of such an event. Then we ask ourselves, can there really be situations when such an act is legal?  Consider what occurred one night on February 4^th, 2016,

Peter Khill, aged 28 went out of his house in Hamilton, Ontario Canada late at night with a shotgun in his hands after he saw a man leaning over the passenger side of his truck that was parked in his driveway. Krill yelled, “Hey. Hands up!” The stranger quickly turned around with his hands outstretched, Khill later testified that he thought that the stranger was going to shoot him so he fired two shots at the stranger who immediately died. The stranger didn’t have a gun in his hands. Khill had shot to death and unarmed man who wasn’t at that moment a real threat to Khill.  He was arrested by the police and charge with second degree murder.

Can anyone in a situation that Khill was in be guilty of any crime if he really believed that he was about to be killed even though the perpetrator was totally unarmed? 

The question of whether or not Peter Khill acted in self-defence when he shot and killed Jon Styres was the centre of the jury's considerations (seven men and five women) as they begin deliberating in his second-degree murder trial.

Styres was from from Oshweken, Ontario on the reservation of the Six Nations of the Grand River was age 29 when he was killed. Court heard he was trying to steal Khill's 2001 pickup truck but wasn't carrying a gun when he was killed around 3 a.m. on February 4, 2016.      

I don’t know if Khill left his ignition key in the truck but I have to presume that he isn’t one of those fools who do that stupid thing.   

The judge explained to the jury that it is possible that Khill acted in self-defence if he believed that he was facing danger.

It must be kept in mind that it was dark outside even though there were probably lights from the house giving some light in the area of the truck. However, when someone suddenly thrusts his hands outward toward anyone, there is only a split second to make a decision. If you pause to determine if the person has empty hands, you could get killed if the person has a gun in his hand.  Police officers face that dilemma a great may times and often in pure daylight. If they shoot first and the person dies after being shot by the officer, it is rightly classed as self defence. Should that no apply when the shooter is a civilian?

Why did Styles thrust his empty hands forcibly towards Khill? I think that he presumed that Khill couldn’t see his hands and would presume that Styles had a gun in one of them snd that Khill would run back into his house. As it turned out, Khill made the same presumption that styles had a gun in one of his hands which resulted in Styles being hit in his chest from pellets from two shotgun shells

Khill did have another option. H could have yelled out, “I have called the police. They are on their way to arrest you.”

There is no doubt in my mind that if Styles was thinking right, he would have bolted out of the truck and ran away as fast as he could. If he did this, he would be alive today.

Unfortunately for this rather stupid thief, he chose to turn and face the man who called out to him with both hands outstretched. That stupid act caused him to die with two shots from a shotgun.

The jurors had to consider three questions when it came to the issue of self-defence:

1.      Did Peter Khill believe on reasonable grounds that Styres was using force or threatening to use force against him?

2.     Did Khill shoot Styres to defend himself from a use of force or threat of force from Styres that he reasonably thought was taking place?

3.     Was what Khill did when he shot the thief reasonable considering the circumstances as he knew them or understood them to be?

The judge also told jurors they have three options when it comes to their verdict:

1.      Not guilty of any crime.

2.     Guilty of manslaughter.

3.     Guilty of second degree murder

A verdict of second-degree murder can only be reached if Khill had the state of mind required for murder. The Crown (prosecutor) would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Khill either meant to kill Styres or to cause him bodily harm that he knew was "so serious and dangerous" it was likely to cause the death of Styles.

The judge reminded jurors of testimony from Khill himself who said on the night of the shooting that he loaded his gun and went outside, His goal wasn't to kill whoever was out there, but to defend himself. When asked in follow-up questions whether that meant causing serious bodily harm that could potentially kill someone else, Khill said "Yes."

Khill was honest when he said yes to that question. As a man who served in the reserves, he know what shells can do to a person if they are shot. That answer didn’t  mean that he went out the door of his home to deliberately shoot someone whether or not it was  self defence or something else.

The judge also reiterated that ”it's up to the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Khill's actions were "unlawful" and not self defence  and until that jury makes its ruling, the accused is presumed to be innocent.

The Crown's position was that Khill was not acting in self-defence and that instead of calling the police and staying safe in his home when he realized his truck was being broken into, he "took the law into his own hands."

That argument is nonsense. If Khill did what the Crown suggested and stayed in his house waiting or the police to arrive, Styles could have been many miles away with Khill’s truck by the time the police arrived at his house.

Around 5 p.m. lawyers, family members and media were called back into the courtroom to hear a question raised by the jury.

The 12 jurors asked whether the definition of a reasonable person in the judge's charge was based on everyday nature or limited to the night of the shooting alone.

Judge Glithero explained the definition the court is looking for is whether a reasonable person with the same character and experience as Khill would think firing the shotgun was reasonable within the circumstances he faced.

The judge said, “Mr. Khill can think it's reasonable, but the question is whether, in your view, it's a reasonable reaction through the eyes of someone with Mr. Khill's qualities, keeping in mind his military training but also that he needs to obey the law."

The jurors decided that Khill was not guilty of any crime since his action was done in self defence.

Now we are hearing whining from native Indian sob sisters claiming that what Khill did to one of their own was racist. That is absolute nonsense. Even the judge told the jury that Khill’s action was not racist. How would Khill know what race the thief was in the dark of night? If the thief was Caucasian and that fool did what Styles did, he too would have been shot.

No reasonable person wants to be in the same situation that Khill found himself in but if we have to choose between taking a risk of doing nothing or doing what we think is necessary to save our lives, we should do what is necessary.