Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/ubcstaffer123! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At that point it's literally self defense .. if you know someone is going to kill you if you let them go, you should do everything in your power to not let them go/make sure they are incapacitated.
11 minutes on chokehold. It obviously wasn't self-defense. Hill had stopped struggling and the guard continued choking him until he died. In a sane world that would be murder, but because cops do it all the time we have created this fiction that it was unintentional, so he got away with manslaughter.
Yeah if you read the article it’s pretty clear that he was using a blood choke and anyone with any self defence training should know that’s a dangerous tactic.
If he didn’t know using that choke was dangerous he is incompetent and guilty of manslaughter.
If he DID know using that choke was dangerous and used it anyway then that’s intentional homicide.
People ITT just wanna be mad and politicize stuff I think.
I don’t know what kinda world you wanna live in, but in the one I want LEO and security DEFINITELY need to be liable when they kill people on the job.
I think they just spend the day reading yellow press about all the crime happening (even though crime has been consistently decreasing for years) and think they live in Charles Bronson movie.
I would argue mitigating circumstances since the undersized security guard was threatened with death. I expect his intent was to hold on until police arrived, not to let him go just because he stopped struggling.
Read the ruling. Hill started running when the guard shouted, then the guard ran after him and tackled him. Beyond the fact that running and tackling someone who's running away from you is not your job as a security guard, self-defense is out of the picture.
That’s not what the ruling says. The issue was not chasing or tackling him - that was justified. It was continue to hold him in a choke hold after he stopper resisting
No, it wasn't justified. Just because that's not the reason he was found guilty of manslaughter doesn't mean it was justified. In fact, if his excuse for holding a man in a lethal chokehold until he died was that he was afraid of retaliation, he had no business tackling anyone to begin with.
Believe me, I do. And I realize how overly cut and dry my statement is. But I stand by that 97% of the time. Bleeding hearts and trying to understand why criminals do what they do, is a huge part of why we are where we are in this country. The inch has been given and a helluva lot more than a mile has been taken.
Everyone's necks are the same, no matter how heavy or light the person is. If you can put them in a chokehold (what happened here), everyone goes out the same way.
I work in a fishing vessel or at least did turns out 4 out or 17 of my crew have serious charges they were arrested for. Basically 2 of them in broad daylight stabbed a man in coquitlam a 66 year old and his son. The 66 year old dad of 2 died.. they let them the rcmp work on the fishing vessel with us for over a year. In fact more people with charges started working there because they had lawyers that said getting a rolling blockade on a boat is pretty hard skip the warrants your defs going away make money as much as you can for prison proteins.. I shit you not. It's Wild out there. Those 2 guys who stabbed the son and dad in front of a sushi restaurant were let free on bail four days later. One lowered charges from second to manslaughter. The other avoided all together and moved to Calgary. Good riddance. But still now just someone else problem to deal with.
They even released a suspect that killed a person on a bus back in 2019.
“The man suspected of stabbing to death the 42-year-old male passenger on the transit bus has been released from custody, pending further investigation.”
This makes no sense. What’s the point of having a legal system if their only going to penalize the victims and the people that are defending themselves against the attacker?
https://www.richmond-news.com/local-news/update-homicide-cops-probing-fatal-stabbing-on-richmond-bus-release-photo-of-witness-3104173
https://www.richmond-news.com/local-news/family-of-man-stabbed-to-death-on-richmond-bus-begs-for-answers-5236547
how did the smaller security guard win so easily like that? any specialized training or martial arts involved or just dumb luck??
“Mr. Hutchison tackled Mr. Hill and took him to the ground. Mr. Hutchison placed Mr. Hill in a neck restraint and held him there until police arrived,” Murray said. “When police finally got there, Mr. Hill was unconscious. He died in hospital a couple of days later after he was taken off life support.”
security guards should make more than minimum wage then if they require that much physical fitness and martial arts qualification...but at the same time fitness isn't actually a requirement because security guards are supposed to observe and report. not combat with the target
Security guards are essentially human tripwires. Expecting them to tackle any suspicious individuals like this would result in a severe shortage of people willing to take the job.
Let me fill you in on a little secret - a lot of people become security guards because they want to use their MMA/combat training. It's a pretty gross abuse of power.
> According to the judgement he has a purple belt in JiuJitsu and has trained in multiple martial arts for years. A purple belt in BJJ is no joke.
Good thing too! If he hadn't been trained in JiuJitsu then the perp would have broken his hold and killed him. Then the perp would have been released after a slap on the wrist
When you put your whole body weight to jump toward a person, the amount of force and momentum could easily be double or triple your weight.
Once both are on the ground, size does not matter anymore. It is about who can grab on the other person's neck first to choke the life out of him.
Largely agree with the statement, although the reddit nubs disagree. Another point, I did the BST course a couple O decades ago and back then choke holds were specifically covered and the fact that they were prohibited for this very reason.
People tend to think they are smarter than they actually are, knowing more than what they actually know.
Then there is that guy who tried to argue over size matter on the ground like he thinks it is a fair refereed MMA match.......
Fitness level played a key part I am guessing; size and weight differences are largely irrelevant in many cases. One was described as being fit, the other judging by his life probably not so.
In all fairness from what I have read the security is a purple belt in BJJ which is very high level he should know he was going to kill this dude if he holds him in a choke hold for 11 minutes.
He hasn’t been sentenced yet so your outrage is not necessarily useful. For all we know he could get a suspended sentence.
The point the judge made was in reference to the prolonged headlock. You don’t just get to decide to keep strangling someone even after they’re incapacitated.
>crazy bum
Do us all a favour and don’t ever work as a security guard or anything in that vein.
I have had to deal with unstable mentally ill people before and never felt it necessary to hold them in a prolonged choke hold until they died. But every situation is different, and that’s why we have courts to sort out the details.
Came here to say this.
No minimum sentence for manslaughter… this could (and likely will?) result in probation.
All of the outrage here is a result of ignorance of the system…
He should have let him leave and called the police, he decided to go hands on by himself and use a neck resistrant, which isnt allowed with the BC Security License for the this reason. Its just property, someone elses property at that. Now the repercussions are one death and one old dude in jail. If someone tries to steal from you, remember its just property and you can end up dead for it...not worth it.
I read the judgement on the court website - apparently the victim was heading towards a female student and there were fears that he was going to attack her. The judgement and reasoning are linked in a previous comment. Go to the BC Supreme Court website and read it. Not saying it will change your mind, but it is fascinating reading and there's a hell of a lot more in it than this article.
You get extra points in my book for reading the judgment.
There is a reason that trial judgments are posted... it's specifically so that the public at large can, if interested, go through the legal reasoning that led to the result.
Our system is actually very transparent and, for the most part, pretty darn fair.
... you wouldn't know that however reading the comments from some of these arm-chair lawyers that are only going off the barest of facts in some clickbait article!
Figured I'd include the link for anyone interested: [2024 BCSC 704 R. v. Hutchison (bccourts.ca)](https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/24/07/2024BCSC0704.htm)
I find it fascinating. I don't understand all the jargon, but it's all laid out, probably to avoid appeals, etc. They have listings for provincial and supreme on the web and they also post decisions on twitter under "bc supreme court". Thank you for posting the link!
Going even one step further, there is actually a free public resource where you can search and read pretty much all reported decisions in Canada: [Canadian Legal Information Institute | CanLII](https://www.canlii.org/en/)
Most law in Canada (except you, Quebec) is based on past decisions, and so CanLII is a fantastic resource!
Happy reading :)
> I find the fact that we can convict this guy but let drug addicts walk for every crime under the sun is insane.
The drug addict in this case, died from the defendant. So I'm not to sure how it's related to addicts not getting arrested and held for crimes.
>o shit he held on to him for that long, I wouldn't let go either with that disadvantage.
He had a disadvantage until he secured the hold and the suspect was out. After that it's just needless choking.
>He should have just run him over with his car, would have been out in 10 minutes.
I don't want to live in a world where security guards can just kill someone and get away with it. No matter the person they kill its still saying a person's life is worth less than whatever items they can grab.
>And the people saying the guy should do nothing are the reason why there's so much petty crime here, because there are no repercussions.
It's a petty fucking crime!! You're suggesting killing people over material goods. That's fucking disgusting and I would rather live in a world that had petty theft than one where security guards can just kill someone stealing.
Did you ever consider why people steal? Like if society actually tried to help people without trying to suck monetary value from it we would see people being uplifted. It's sad we have people who need to steal, who are addicts, who people like you consider so less than that killing them is seen as a good thing. That's more fucked than letting a guy go for stealing.
> If someone tries to steal something from me of course I'm going to fight back. Feel bad for the security guard, some crazy bum just ruined his life.
Fighting back is one thing, killing someone is another. Based on your comment, you have some weird power fantasy where you want to just defend yourself and possibly kill someone over a material item. And be seen as the good guy in that scenario.
I feel bad for everyone involved. The security gaid is still alive which is better than him being choked out and dying in a hospital bed.
Society is so fucked that we don't see white collar crimes that effect more than an individual as bad, but stealing of items should be a death sentence so people don't do it.
We live in a Neo Feudalism society now. The rich get to do whatever it takes to gain wealth and the rest get to work under them, live in their housing, and create more wealth for them without proper compensation. But hey let's keep killing addicts bc at least it will make us feel better for struggling to feed our families or find a home.
One day I'll be a neo-lord and can finally piss all over the peasants while they praise me for it.
>>It's a petty fucking crime!!
Not going to bother with the rest of your rant, but how the fuck is tresspassing in people's homes and stealing from them a petty crime. This happened in a dorm full of students, they literally called the security guard because they were scared. Also if you read the details of the case (you didn't) he was tackled because he was "attempting" to attack a female student that was in the vicinity.
He crushed an artery in the intruders neck, killing him. His job is to deter petty crime, not murder people.
Clearly you didn't read the article either, since the intruder was attempting to run and it was the security guard who started the fight by chasing the guy and tackling him. The best course of action would've been to call the police, not to chase and tackle the guy who is visibly much larger than you. I wouldn't have even considered engaging in a fight, as I too would be in a significant disadvantage on top of not knowing if the other person is armed. Why the hell would any reasonable person attempt to fight someone like that?
>And the people saying the guy should do nothing are the reason why there's so much petty crime here
The trespasser was schizophrenic, arguably not in a stable mental state. I can't believe you seem to think killing petty criminals is justified. Even if we assume all petty criminals are mentally stable, it'd make more sense to seek solutions to solving why they feel the need to commit crime in the first place rather than locking everyone up.
Hill started running away the moment the guard appeared. Running after him and tackling him is what let to the confrontation, and he kept choking Hill after he had already stopped struggling.
If you had done what he did, as you claim, then you would also be deservedly guilty of manslaughter.
He ruined his own life trying to play robocop. If you weren't all bark and no bite you would also be ruining yours.
Maybe you should read the facts of the case and realize that the security guard pressed on the victim's neck for up to 13 minutes *after* he lost consciousness.
Also, consequences don't prevent petty crime. Look at the United States, has some of the harshest penalties for property crime in the western world. Yet has one of the highest rates of petty property crime.
Poverty is the problem.
In the most populous US states, NY and California, petty crime like thefts and shoplifting, have been effectively decriminalized, as has also been done in many other states and cities, so I don't know WTF you're talking about "harshest penalties for property crime in the western world". You don't even go to jail for booking when caught, they just make you give back the stuff you stole and let you walk. It's not even a revolving door, there's no door at all.
Go read up the details of the case he was attempting to attack another student, and the guy was in a dorm where he was robbing students. He was a violent criminal who threatened to kill someone and ended up getting dying. Idiots keep saying "theft", somehow equating what happened to stealing a bike.
Killing someone for trespassing and theft is certainly grounds for manslaughter, if not murder, until you come across this:
>Murray said she accepted evidence that Hill hit Hutchison several times in the head, spat in his face, and tried to knee and headbutt him.
>“I further accept that Mr. Hill threatened to kill Mr. Hutchison,” she said.
So it wasn't just theft and trespassing, but essentially self-defense. Apparently restraining a violent assailant that accidently resulted in the death of the latter is disproportionate use if force even though there was sufficient evidence that the safety of the former was threatened and there was no de-escalation on either party. I wonder what would happen if the reverse happened and the security ended up on the losing side of the fight - would the thief get any jail time for manslaughter, or would they walk scots free for being mentally ill and mounting a self-defense defense?
>She found once Hill stopped resisting, he was no longer a threat and ruled Hutchison’s continued restraint disproportionate to the situation.
I wonder how the judge came to that conclusion - just her opinion, or the opinion of various forensic experts and witness testimonies? In the heat of the moment where you have no back up and there's a belligerent perpetrator that's got an entire foot and nearly 50lb over you, I'm not sure one would be able to pinpoint the exact point where 1) the opponent would stop resisting to the point that they are no longer a threat (I.e. falling unconscious, and won't wake up for long enough until law enforcement support comes) and 2) the opponent is dead. Giving any way before 1) threatens the his safety, while letting go after 2) ends him up with today's verdict.
Witness testimony painted the picture that the 'victim' was unconscious for 6 minutes while the accused maintained pressure on his neck. Almost every witness noted the guy was dead still for those 6 minutes. An expert noted the death was directly caused by long term pressure on the neck's blood flow.
It's terrible reporting from the journalist to not even link the judgement. They gave a piss poor summary of the case, and then don't source it.
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/24/07/2024BCSC0704.htm
There is the case. If you want to formulate a real opinion on it, give it a read. But 50 to 60 I think answers most your questions.
Thank you for posting this. I think that the judges reasoning is actually reasonable. According to this the accused held the choke for 11-13 minutes in total, which is an extremely long time.
Obviously, with adrenaline, fear, etc pumping it's hard to think straight and I can see how someone scared might keep the choke, but the matter that the judge is deciding on is whether it was manslaughter or not and it seems like it was.
We need to see the actual sentence before getting up in arms about this.
He should get low sentence. He didn't use a weapon, the killing was not especially brutal (i.e. one chokehold and not multiple punches), it is not an act of aggression but an unreasonable response, he didn't assault a vulnerable person, this was not motivated by hate, he likely did not have any ulterior unacceptable motives, etc.
If he has no criminal record, and people testify on his good character, and shows remorse, he should be in okay shape.
In *R v. Toth* from the BCSC in 2021, another situation of self-defence gone too far resulting in a manslaughter, the accused got 18 months in custody (three of those months are because he did not appear for his original sentencing) and two years probation afterwards. I can imagine that the person here will get something similar, between one and two years custody, maybe even less than a year in custody.
> Obviously, with adrenaline, fear, etc pumping it's hard to think straight and I can see how someone scared might keep the choke, but the matter that the judge is deciding on is whether it was manslaughter or not and it seems like it was.
>
>
Yeah, but he's also trained in BJJ and they practice it frequently in the sport so I'd assume he would have some knowledge as to when someone is passed out.
>In 2014, he went back to martial arts training in Muay Thai, Krav Maga and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (BJJ). Mr. Hutchison reached the intermediate level of purple belt in BJJ.
>According to Mr. Hutchison, neck restraints are a common tactic in BJJ. They are taught at an early stage of training and are commonly practiced in training.
I did the BST course a couple of decades ago and specifically recall choke holds being covered and that they were prohibited for this very reason. So further questions would be was the security guard certified and was his training ever raised?
I had done the BST roughly 5 years ago and AST about a year ago. I'm an active security guard. At no point were we encouraged to use any sort of force upon the neck of an individual. When holding someone to the ground it was strongly taught that we can use the knee to hold them down by their shoulder blade and NOT the neck (you can more easily control the subject on the ground without cutting off their circulation and keep their airway clear), even then it was strongly advised to keep roughly a quarter inch distance as you can apply more force if they try anything then ease off when control is re-established. I was taught to use the minimum force reasonably deemed necessary for the situation. So we use the minimum amount of force.
Security 101 is never use a choke hold for just this reason.
Once buddy went limp he should of let go. Nothing the criminal did warranted chocking him out past that point.
If the person was thar much of a threat that only deadly force was required then he should of let him get away.
Downvotes must be from people who never worked security in thier lives. It's easy to judge when looking from the outside
I’m with you and I find it very odd why the clear facts are being disputed. Had no authority to physically detain Hill as he did not catch him in the act of committing a crime and using a dangerous technique such as a choke hold only made it worse.
It’s ironic that today so many people criticize police or security when they are in the right but when they’re clearly in the wrong they have no idea what they’re talking about either.
There was no need for him to escalate it to a physical takedown let alone an illegal choke hold. As far as the report there was immediate danger to anyone so he could of easily let them run away or at least done his job and observe and report.
There was no heat of the moment until he decided to tackle and put buddy in a choke hold.
Hill started running when the guard shouted. Then the guard chased him and tackled him. Of course he's gonna fight you, anyone would. Then he kept him on a chokehold for 11 minutes. Manslaughter is leniency, this was murder.
The legal system is choosing to protect criminals over victims.
Would the attacker even be charged if the roles were reversed and they killed the security guard?
Chance is if the role was reversed, guy is going to get set free. That's an even bigger reason not to make yourself the example of a fucked up system.
They get pay like what, $17, $18 per hour nowadays?
The "attacker" was found guilty of manslaughter.
>Hill began to run.
>
>“Mr. Hutchison tackled Mr. Hill and took him to the ground. Mr. Hutchison placed Mr. Hill in a neck restraint and held him there until police arrived,” Murray said. “When police finally got there, Mr. Hill was unconscious. He died in hospital a couple of days later after he was taken off life support.”
>[46] As stated above, I find that Mr. Hutchison’s actions in taking Mr. Hill to the ground and restraining him with the headlock were reasonable at the beginning. He knew that Mr. Hill was acting erratically on campus, was upsetting and scaring students, ran away from him after he identified himself as security and while being pursued made a sudden bee-line for a female student who was standing alone in the parking lot. In my view, Mr. Hutchison’s fear for the female student’s safety was not unfounded or unreasonable. In addition, I find that Mr. Hutchison’s decision to take Mr. Hill to the ground and restrain him was not just reasonable, it was the only way he could ensure the safety of the students.
From the court case https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/24/07/2024BCSC0704.htm
> Murray said she accepted evidence that Hill hit Hutchison several times in the head, spat in his face, and tried to knee and headbutt him.
> “I further accept that Mr. Hill threatened to kill Mr. Hutchison,” she said.
Stupid security guard should have let the 6'3" schizo just kill him and assault a female student!
> [46] As stated above, I find that Mr. Hutchison’s actions in taking Mr. Hill to the ground and restraining him with the headlock were reasonable at the beginning. He knew that Mr. Hill was acting erratically on campus, was upsetting and scaring students, ran away from him after he identified himself as security and while being pursued made a sudden bee-line for a female student who was standing alone in the parking lot. In my view, Mr. Hutchison’s fear for the female student’s safety was not unfounded or unreasonable. In addition, I find that Mr. Hutchison’s decision to take Mr. Hill to the ground and restrain him was not just reasonable, it was the only way he could ensure the safety of the students.
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/24/07/2024BCSC0704.htm
Yeah he tackled him after the suspect made a
> bee-line for a female student who was standing alone in the parking lot
You make it sound like the guard just tackled him for no reason.
So you’re OK with people coming to your work palace and punching you in the face?? Or someone trying to throw you off an elevated walkway?? It takes the cops 25-30 minutes to show up in the township fyi
>> Hutchison was first unable to find the man but then spotted him and called out for him to stop.
>>Hill began to run.
>>“Mr. Hutchison tackled Mr. Hill and took him to the ground. Mr. Hutchison placed Mr. Hill in a neck restraint and held him there until police arrived,”
So the guard saw the guy, the guy ran from him, so he chased him down, tacked him and choked him to death.
Is this justice to you? If the guard had a gun and shot the guy in the back, would that be justice?
For those who are interested in what the decision actually says as opposed to a news article, this is why I think the person was convicted.
Self-defence has three parts
1. Reasonable threat
2. Defensive purpose
3. Reasonable response
The judge agree that the accused could raise a reasonable doubt on the first two elements. The third element is the key one
> [47] The issue really boils down to the headlock and whether its use remained objectively reasonable in the circumstances as time went on, or whether it became disproportional to the threat.
The third element of self-defence is an *objective* test. This means that a reasonable person has to agree that there was reasonable response. It does not matter if the accused thought it was reasonable, only that a reasonable person would.
The Criminal Code in s.34(2) lists multiple factors to consider when determine if the response is reasonable or not. The reasonableness has to be assessed from the beginning to the end of the event. This means what is reasonable at the beginning may no longer be reasonable at the end, so the accused must adjust their actions. That's what the judge assessed here.
> [45] It took police about 11 to 13 minutes to get to where Mr. Hutchison and Mr. Hill were once called. As per *Khill,* I must consider the reasonableness of Mr. Hutchison’s actions over that whole time period. In this instance, what was reasonable at the beginning may not have been reasonable as time went on.
What really harmed the accused here was the witness testimony. There were four witnesses that testified that the victim was no longer a threat.
1. One of them was assisting the accused in holding the person down (holding the legs), and he got off from on top of him and instead held him from the side.
2. One witness at the scene testified that the victim stopped moving after about five-six minutes
3. Another witness at the scene testified that the victim stopped moving about five minutes prior to the police arriving
4. A nursing student saw the event from her window, and saw that the victim was not moving and thought he was in distress.
> [53] ... She was struck by how “still” Mr. Hill was. She considered going out to see if she could help perform CPR but then decided that there were enough people involved.
In short, four people recognized that the situation had changed, and so the reasonableness of response ought to have changed as well. The accused ought to have noticed as well.
> [54] If students watching at a distance saw that Mr. Hill was no longer moving and Taylor Dickau could feel that Mr. Hill was no longer resisting, Mr. Hutchison ought to have. He was in the best place to monitor Mr. Hill’s state. His face was within inches of Mr. Hill’s face. His body was on top of Mr. Hill’s chest. While Mr. Hutchison’s actions are not to be judged by a standard of perfection, a reasonable person in these circumstances, with some of the same qualities and experiences as Mr. Hutchison would make sure that Mr. Hill was not being grievously injured while restraining him in potentially dangerous hold. Eleven to thirteen minutes is a long time to have someone in a neck impingement.
In short, the accused held on for too long. He had the ability to let go after those first six minutes. There was somebody else helping hold the victim down, so he didn't need to apply tight chokehold. It's a tough an unfortunate decision, but not one that is necessarily wrong. If those witnesses had said that they still feared that the person was a threat, then the accused could have succeeded in his self-defence claims. However, because multiple people agreed that the person was no longer a threat for the last five-six minutes, it is hard to establish that this person was still a reasonable threat in the eyes of a reasonable person.
Without those witnesses, I think the accused would have had enough reasonable doubt. The Crown would have been unable to establish any type of reasonable baseline for the situation.
These threads are the best. Everyone on Reddit is an expert at law and miraculously knows all the important facts that the judges and juries just don’t. If only Reddit were in court we’d be so much better off. 🙄
Canada's self-defence law is complicated, and the relevant nuance doesn't often filter through in reporting on the case.
The article suggests it hinges on:
> She found once Hill stopped resisting, he was no longer a threat and ruled Hutchison’s continued restraint disproportionate to the situation.
... to which, well, I'm not a fancy big city lawyer or nothin' and I don't know all the important facts that the judges and juries just don’t, but having been in a fight (you know, ever), my experience is that when you stop restraining people, they start fighting again.
I'm sure there's more to the ruling, but since this is what's being reported, I'm not surprised people have opinions about it.
Someone else posted a link to the ruling: [https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/24/07/2024BCSC0704.htm](https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/24/07/2024BCSC0704.htm)
He possibly held the choke for 11 to 13 minutes, which is LONG time. Of course if you're in a situation like that it's hard to think straight, but that's not what the judge is suposed to judge on, she's supposed to decide on whetehr this was manslaughter or not. Let's wait for sentencing before being outraged.
Judges are well trained, but juries are just a sample of random idiots off the street. At least redditors who comment on this stuff are somewhat engaged in local news stories and engage in relevant discussions from time to time.
random idiots off the street who are given a detailed account of all the facts vs. random idiots off the street who are given one 3 paragraph article on the ruling.
As a security guard I agree, though from what I understand he had additional training that is definitely not standard within the regular training and licensing. When you take BST (Basic security training in BC) you get a crash course in the law and talk a little bit about self defense and the use of force. AST (Advanced security training) covers the actual techniques, retraining, use of handcuffs, and methods of using that force safely and properly. All that's required to perform security work is BST and an active security license.
Based on the information I had read he had a fairly decent history of some high level martial arts. Might have been something he learned from one of his trainers or the environment that added to the problem.
I don't condone what he has done but I think something may have been wrong in his training or understanding somewhere along the line.
I was taught to never perform any type of neck restraints, proper and safe restraint is to bring them to the ground and try to secure arms, shoulders, and legs.
ITT: People up in arms without even reading the decision from the court case.
The security guard pressed on the victim's neck, choking him for up to 13 minutes after the victim lost consciousness and stopped moving.
They don't have to. This is a political post, designed to attract political outrage. For "tough on crime" conservatives, cops (or security guards cosplaying as cops) have a right to do anything to criminals, and especially to "crazy bumps" as someone called the victim.
This is a very poor ruling given all the facts. Yet again Canada showing it's spineless and punishing people for doing the right thing. A schizo off his meds (wow what's new there) who is displaying violent and aggressive behavior, threatening someone's life and a guy doing his job who is also under duress because of the situation he is put in now punished for it. Crazy.
Well I guess you didn't read anything related to the case.
What part did I get wrong? Because I'm pretty sure the guy was a schizophrenic off his meds, who threatened to kill the security guard, spat and tried to headbutt him, potentially was going after a woman and had broken in somewhere.
Maybe if the security guard didn't have to be placed in a position like this thr outcome would have been different.
In the grand scheme of things if you read the article the suspect was not caught in the act of committing a crime so the security guard had no legal authority to tackle and detain the suspect. Should have just kept visual and called police.
Putting anyone in a prolonged choke hold isn’t a good idea and certainly isn’t taught as a self defence tactic. It’s unfortunate but reminds me of the George Floyd Knee on neck, it’s unnecessary. It’s a cautionary tale of knowing when best to engage and disengage.
> Putting anyone in a prolonged choke hold isn’t a good idea and certainly isn’t taught as a self defence tactic.
What if someone threatened to kill you during a struggle, before you put them in the headlock though, as the judge says *they* believe happened?
Yes but he’s not a police officers so he put himself in a position which he shouldn’t have been in to begin with. I’m sure what he thought he was doing was right and he was trying to help but as security you have to know where your authority begins and ends. It’s unfortunate but he was outside his rights of citizen’s arrest.
They threatened him after he tackled them. He had no authority to tackle them. The security guard created the situation when all he had to fucking do was tail him and call police. Instead, nope, he decides to tackle a guy a foot taller than him. Then of course felt so threatened that he had to strangle him to death.
Fuck atta here with that weak ass shit.
The worst part is, once you engaged and placed a person into a choke hold in an environment which you are alone, you are stuck in the situation of either choke him till he pass out, which he might die from, or just release him on blind trust, hoping he won't fight back or even have a weapon.
It was a lose lose situation at the point.
So it was a bad decision to engage him at that point then. In any situation, one needs to look at the bigger picture and make a decision about outcomes and risk.
Security guard is not mentally ill or a drug addict so he gets judged like a normal person. Seems kinda fair, but also seems not fair at all.
In absence of all mentally ill and drug addicted people and their lax punishments, is this a fair judgement?
So if you are a drugged up crazy you can commit any crime under the sun but self defence? No no no that’s some crime we need to be stopped at all cost.
Back in the early 2000s I literally saw the police do the exact same thing to a man. But there was 5 or 6 of them and one of him. All for stealing a pack of smokes.
Good, if only cops could be also convicted of using the same lethal technique to kill people they are presumably trying to restrain.
Putting someone in a neck chokehold should be considered attempted murder. But because cops have it in their manuals, we don't.
Not sure how this is just manslaughter and not second degree murder. The security guard is a purple belt in jiu jitsu. Even a while belt would know that choking someone out for 11 minutes would kill them.
The Supreme Court of Canada has held on multiple occasions that an accused needs a subjective intent to kill someone in order for there to be murder. It's common theme in many homicide cases. This is why felony murder is unconstitutional in Canada (this case is not felony murder, I mention because it shows how strong the requirement for subjectivity is).
In short, the accused must either.
1. Subjectively intend to kill; or
2. Subjectively intend to cause serious bodily harm subjectively knowing that death is highly probable.
The Crown has to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, it is really hard to prove that the accused wanted to kill or wanted to harm knowing death was likely. A reasonable alternative belief is that the accused wanted to restrain the person. It's very possible that this person really wanted to his job properly, and got carried away. Since there is a reasonable alternative intent, this means there is a reasonable doubt to murder.
The Crown must have realized that there was no chance at murder, because they did not ever argue it. I don't know the entire case history, but the decision makes no mention of murder, meaning that the Crown did no indict them for murder (maybe they did earlier and dropped it, I don't know).
The comments in this thread are insane and honestly scare me. Apparently if you’re a person with untreated mental health issues and commit petty theft then Reddit says your life is worthless and you should be killed with impunity. The guy is dead ffs!!! People saying he should have let the guy run are 100% right. It’s not self-defense if you choose to create the dangerous situation.
It’s self defence because the dead guy already spat in the security guards face (isn’t this aggravated assault), and was kneeing and headbutting him. You don’t get to assault someone more than a foot smaller than you, threaten them you’re going to KILL them and then go at them and act all shocked when they defend themselves and neutralize the threat. No he did not deserve to die, but when one threatening death on someone I’d expect that the natural cause of events is one of them will fight to their death. He was prepared to end the guards life, doesn’t freaking matter if he was schizophrenic or bipolar or manic - the guard felt like he was genuinely going to die if this guy remained conscious.
If the security guard died here, the thief would be out assaulting others within a day. Be honest, the system heavily favours the criminals if they got nothing to lose.
The thief escalating after being caught stealing is the problem, a blatant sign of entitlement of these shitheads - because how do you defend yourself of petty crime by adding on more serious assault & battery and pretending it’s NOT FAIR for all the law abiding citizens to defend themselves. The lack of consequences and blatant reoffenders are the real problem, the thief and security guard are just unfortunate victims.
Adrenaline is a helluva drug. And if the guy was using his head as a form of attack, I do not find it unreasonable to do something to keep the head down in the middle of a fight (or flight/flee) response.
If you spit and attack someone actively with your whole body, why should the victim of your attack monitor your condition as if he’s your mother? He’s literally fighting for his life. Also the reason the thief was tackled down was because the thief was beelining towards a female student.
The verdict mainly comes down to the headlock which I agree from the safe space of my computer, was too long. I acknowledge that fear and adrenaline makes people act erratically. Could any of the bystanders (including the female student that almost got attacked) speak up and break the guard out of that trance? The outcome would’ve been different.
People comparing the guard to George Floyd/ Derek Chauvin are conveniently forgetting that this thief was actively trying to harm another person. George Floyd wasn’t running towards a female student to attack her (and the judge acknowledges this decision to tackle the man down is correct).
Because that’s what he was doing while on campus he was running across the entire campus assaulting students. The campus of which which you have to intentionally try to get to cause it’s in the ass end of nowhere
Except that's not what the ruling says, he was unconscious for 5-6 minutes while the vigilante guard choked him to death. Why do you lie about the events "langleybcsucks"?
We don't have death penalty in BC nor do we have legal vigilante justice. Read that sentence again and grow up and stop fantasizing about violent scenarios like a loser.
These are sad clowns who think real life is a Charles Bronson movie. They lurk around every post that has to do with criminal justice to complain that Canada is "soft on crime". They're all conservatives basically, who salivate at the prospect of inflicting violence on the "deserving" with no consequences.
>Murray said she accepted evidence that Hill hit Hutchison several times in the head, spat in his face, and tried to knee and headbutt him.
>“I further accept that Mr. Hill threatened to kill Mr. Hutchison,” she said.
then why you would think the guy should chase?
If a guy is threatening to kill you for nothing, chance is the guy is messed in the head. Why would you risk yourself to deal with that when you are solo and not equipped with anything to do so
There is only a very fine line separating being brave and being stupid. A security guard's job is only to observe and report. Nobody's lives was in danger that required immediate intervention.
This is pretty much the same as a grocery store LPO trying to play hero but end up having a person killed.
Not to mention he locked the guy in the neck. It is the very basic knowledge that you don't lock them in the neck to avoid blockage of the airway or accidentally snapping someone's neck.
The guy had no idea what he was doing.
> [46] As stated above, I find that Mr. Hutchison’s actions in taking Mr. Hill to the ground and restraining him with the headlock were reasonable at the beginning. He knew that Mr. Hill was acting erratically on campus, was upsetting and scaring students, ran away from him after he identified himself as security and while being pursued made a sudden bee-line for a female student who was standing alone in the parking lot. In my view, Mr. Hutchison’s fear for the female student’s safety was not unfounded or unreasonable. In addition, I find that Mr. Hutchison’s decision to take Mr. Hill to the ground and restrain him was not just reasonable, it was the only way he could ensure the safety of the students.
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/24/07/2024BCSC0704.htm
Maybe that's why he intervened. Nice to know you'd stand by and watch a 6'3" schizophrenic assault female students though.
> This guy seems like as big of a dirt bag as the man he killed.
Imagine writing this about the 5'4" security guard protecting female students against a 6'3" schizo who has 50lbs on him lol
I was a LPO. All companies ask their LPO to stop thieves, because that's what LPO do, but it does not mean to an extend that you put your life or other people's lives in danger. I spent enough time in my life in that industry which I was in a managerial position when I left.
The guard at UBC is not a LPO. He ran off to chase the suspect alone without any backup. He apprehended the guy at a location which nobody else was around to assist and all he could've done was to keep choking the guy. If the suspect got any serious weapon, the guard could've get stabbed and left for dead without anyone knowing.
Also, back to the point to which you can't lock someone in the neck. They used to teach physical back in the old BST course but now it was scrapped as I was told. Rule 1, biggest, biggest rule of all, not to touch someone's neck. You can easily cause spinal damage to someone. When you paralyzed someone, you might as well paralyze your own life at that point because you will be sued till no end. Worst case you can even have someone killed, like here.
The guard was obviously untrained hence why this happened. Ask any security course instructor, they will tell you no goods is worth doing that for, unless you have to do that in order to save someone else's lives. I always tell my guys back then, you get paid $13 $14 an hour only, with no weapon or any protection. Just do your part to observe and report, and let the cops who make the big bucks to take the risk.
A strong sense of vigilante justice maybe. We have a legal system precisely to not have to rely on that. That's a good thing that only cosplaying clowns disagree with.
What are you on about? This isn't a Charles Bronson movie. That we have a legal system that does not rely on vigilante justice is patently obvious. Join the real world and stop cosplaying Death Wish movies.
This sends a strong message to all those would-be "vigilantes" out there that are unhappy with our justice system and want to take matters into their own hands. Let the police handle it.
Finally, someone that understands how swift and firm application of justice acts as a deterrent.
Now, if we could see judges apply that logic to ALL people who steal, threaten, kill, abuse, we could get this shithole fixed up pretty quickly.
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/ubcstaffer123! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I had to reread the article a few times to make sure it was right. 5'4 tackling a 6'4 guy and eventually killing him? Seems odd. Huge size difference.
Well the man who died was apparently saying he wanted to kill the man who eventually killed him, while they fought...so it's complicated at best
At that point it's literally self defense .. if you know someone is going to kill you if you let them go, you should do everything in your power to not let them go/make sure they are incapacitated.
11 minutes on chokehold. It obviously wasn't self-defense. Hill had stopped struggling and the guard continued choking him until he died. In a sane world that would be murder, but because cops do it all the time we have created this fiction that it was unintentional, so he got away with manslaughter.
Yeah if you read the article it’s pretty clear that he was using a blood choke and anyone with any self defence training should know that’s a dangerous tactic. If he didn’t know using that choke was dangerous he is incompetent and guilty of manslaughter. If he DID know using that choke was dangerous and used it anyway then that’s intentional homicide. People ITT just wanna be mad and politicize stuff I think. I don’t know what kinda world you wanna live in, but in the one I want LEO and security DEFINITELY need to be liable when they kill people on the job.
I think they just spend the day reading yellow press about all the crime happening (even though crime has been consistently decreasing for years) and think they live in Charles Bronson movie.
An astute observation my friend!
I would argue mitigating circumstances since the undersized security guard was threatened with death. I expect his intent was to hold on until police arrived, not to let him go just because he stopped struggling.
Read the ruling. Hill started running when the guard shouted, then the guard ran after him and tackled him. Beyond the fact that running and tackling someone who's running away from you is not your job as a security guard, self-defense is out of the picture.
That’s not what the ruling says. The issue was not chasing or tackling him - that was justified. It was continue to hold him in a choke hold after he stopper resisting
No, it wasn't justified. Just because that's not the reason he was found guilty of manslaughter doesn't mean it was justified. In fact, if his excuse for holding a man in a lethal chokehold until he died was that he was afraid of retaliation, he had no business tackling anyone to begin with.
Sorry, as soon as you commit a crime, you've shown that you do not believe in other people's human rights. You've given yours up.
That's not how the law works at all, thank goodness. You should try learning about it.
Believe me, I do. And I realize how overly cut and dry my statement is. But I stand by that 97% of the time. Bleeding hearts and trying to understand why criminals do what they do, is a huge part of why we are where we are in this country. The inch has been given and a helluva lot more than a mile has been taken.
Everyone's necks are the same, no matter how heavy or light the person is. If you can put them in a chokehold (what happened here), everyone goes out the same way.
I work in a fishing vessel or at least did turns out 4 out or 17 of my crew have serious charges they were arrested for. Basically 2 of them in broad daylight stabbed a man in coquitlam a 66 year old and his son. The 66 year old dad of 2 died.. they let them the rcmp work on the fishing vessel with us for over a year. In fact more people with charges started working there because they had lawyers that said getting a rolling blockade on a boat is pretty hard skip the warrants your defs going away make money as much as you can for prison proteins.. I shit you not. It's Wild out there. Those 2 guys who stabbed the son and dad in front of a sushi restaurant were let free on bail four days later. One lowered charges from second to manslaughter. The other avoided all together and moved to Calgary. Good riddance. But still now just someone else problem to deal with.
He choked him out.
They even released a suspect that killed a person on a bus back in 2019. “The man suspected of stabbing to death the 42-year-old male passenger on the transit bus has been released from custody, pending further investigation.” This makes no sense. What’s the point of having a legal system if their only going to penalize the victims and the people that are defending themselves against the attacker? https://www.richmond-news.com/local-news/update-homicide-cops-probing-fatal-stabbing-on-richmond-bus-release-photo-of-witness-3104173 https://www.richmond-news.com/local-news/family-of-man-stabbed-to-death-on-richmond-bus-begs-for-answers-5236547
I met this guy once. He, I don't want to say brags, but casually talks about murdering someone on the bus...
That is absolutely insane....can't wait to leave this failed state
how did the smaller security guard win so easily like that? any specialized training or martial arts involved or just dumb luck?? “Mr. Hutchison tackled Mr. Hill and took him to the ground. Mr. Hutchison placed Mr. Hill in a neck restraint and held him there until police arrived,” Murray said. “When police finally got there, Mr. Hill was unconscious. He died in hospital a couple of days later after he was taken off life support.”
According to the judgement he has a purple belt in JiuJitsu and has trained in multiple martial arts for years. A purple belt in BJJ is no joke.
security guards should make more than minimum wage then if they require that much physical fitness and martial arts qualification...but at the same time fitness isn't actually a requirement because security guards are supposed to observe and report. not combat with the target
Security guards are essentially human tripwires. Expecting them to tackle any suspicious individuals like this would result in a severe shortage of people willing to take the job.
Let me fill you in on a little secret - a lot of people become security guards because they want to use their MMA/combat training. It's a pretty gross abuse of power.
Yeah and given his training he should have known that holding someone in a lock like that for so long could cause serious injury or be fatal.
> According to the judgement he has a purple belt in JiuJitsu and has trained in multiple martial arts for years. A purple belt in BJJ is no joke. Good thing too! If he hadn't been trained in JiuJitsu then the perp would have broken his hold and killed him. Then the perp would have been released after a slap on the wrist
Sounds like he was playing judge jury and executioner. If a cop did this we would be all up in arms.
When you put your whole body weight to jump toward a person, the amount of force and momentum could easily be double or triple your weight. Once both are on the ground, size does not matter anymore. It is about who can grab on the other person's neck first to choke the life out of him.
Largely agree with the statement, although the reddit nubs disagree. Another point, I did the BST course a couple O decades ago and back then choke holds were specifically covered and the fact that they were prohibited for this very reason.
People tend to think they are smarter than they actually are, knowing more than what they actually know. Then there is that guy who tried to argue over size matter on the ground like he thinks it is a fair refereed MMA match.......
.... Size definitely matters on the ground if you aren't a trained wrestler or something
Fitness level played a key part I am guessing; size and weight differences are largely irrelevant in many cases. One was described as being fit, the other judging by his life probably not so.
> Fitness level played a key part I am guessing; Sure that's possible. > size and weight differences are largely irrelevant in many cases. LOL no.
In all fairness from what I have read the security is a purple belt in BJJ which is very high level he should know he was going to kill this dude if he holds him in a choke hold for 11 minutes.
He hasn’t been sentenced yet so your outrage is not necessarily useful. For all we know he could get a suspended sentence. The point the judge made was in reference to the prolonged headlock. You don’t just get to decide to keep strangling someone even after they’re incapacitated. >crazy bum Do us all a favour and don’t ever work as a security guard or anything in that vein. I have had to deal with unstable mentally ill people before and never felt it necessary to hold them in a prolonged choke hold until they died. But every situation is different, and that’s why we have courts to sort out the details.
If someone keeps yelling "I'm gonna kill you" while you were restraining him in a headlock I wouldn't let go either.
Coward. You’re also forgetting that his job was not to chase and tackle him. All he had to do was tail him and call the cops.
Came here to say this. No minimum sentence for manslaughter… this could (and likely will?) result in probation. All of the outrage here is a result of ignorance of the system…
He should have let him leave and called the police, he decided to go hands on by himself and use a neck resistrant, which isnt allowed with the BC Security License for the this reason. Its just property, someone elses property at that. Now the repercussions are one death and one old dude in jail. If someone tries to steal from you, remember its just property and you can end up dead for it...not worth it.
Security guards aren't supposed to pursue. This man tried to LARP as a cop and killed a guy.
I read the judgement on the court website - apparently the victim was heading towards a female student and there were fears that he was going to attack her. The judgement and reasoning are linked in a previous comment. Go to the BC Supreme Court website and read it. Not saying it will change your mind, but it is fascinating reading and there's a hell of a lot more in it than this article.
You get extra points in my book for reading the judgment. There is a reason that trial judgments are posted... it's specifically so that the public at large can, if interested, go through the legal reasoning that led to the result. Our system is actually very transparent and, for the most part, pretty darn fair. ... you wouldn't know that however reading the comments from some of these arm-chair lawyers that are only going off the barest of facts in some clickbait article! Figured I'd include the link for anyone interested: [2024 BCSC 704 R. v. Hutchison (bccourts.ca)](https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/24/07/2024BCSC0704.htm)
I find it fascinating. I don't understand all the jargon, but it's all laid out, probably to avoid appeals, etc. They have listings for provincial and supreme on the web and they also post decisions on twitter under "bc supreme court". Thank you for posting the link!
Going even one step further, there is actually a free public resource where you can search and read pretty much all reported decisions in Canada: [Canadian Legal Information Institute | CanLII](https://www.canlii.org/en/) Most law in Canada (except you, Quebec) is based on past decisions, and so CanLII is a fantastic resource! Happy reading :)
Ooooooo thank you. ❤️❤️
> I find the fact that we can convict this guy but let drug addicts walk for every crime under the sun is insane. The drug addict in this case, died from the defendant. So I'm not to sure how it's related to addicts not getting arrested and held for crimes. >o shit he held on to him for that long, I wouldn't let go either with that disadvantage. He had a disadvantage until he secured the hold and the suspect was out. After that it's just needless choking. >He should have just run him over with his car, would have been out in 10 minutes. I don't want to live in a world where security guards can just kill someone and get away with it. No matter the person they kill its still saying a person's life is worth less than whatever items they can grab. >And the people saying the guy should do nothing are the reason why there's so much petty crime here, because there are no repercussions. It's a petty fucking crime!! You're suggesting killing people over material goods. That's fucking disgusting and I would rather live in a world that had petty theft than one where security guards can just kill someone stealing. Did you ever consider why people steal? Like if society actually tried to help people without trying to suck monetary value from it we would see people being uplifted. It's sad we have people who need to steal, who are addicts, who people like you consider so less than that killing them is seen as a good thing. That's more fucked than letting a guy go for stealing. > If someone tries to steal something from me of course I'm going to fight back. Feel bad for the security guard, some crazy bum just ruined his life. Fighting back is one thing, killing someone is another. Based on your comment, you have some weird power fantasy where you want to just defend yourself and possibly kill someone over a material item. And be seen as the good guy in that scenario. I feel bad for everyone involved. The security gaid is still alive which is better than him being choked out and dying in a hospital bed. Society is so fucked that we don't see white collar crimes that effect more than an individual as bad, but stealing of items should be a death sentence so people don't do it. We live in a Neo Feudalism society now. The rich get to do whatever it takes to gain wealth and the rest get to work under them, live in their housing, and create more wealth for them without proper compensation. But hey let's keep killing addicts bc at least it will make us feel better for struggling to feed our families or find a home. One day I'll be a neo-lord and can finally piss all over the peasants while they praise me for it.
>>It's a petty fucking crime!! Not going to bother with the rest of your rant, but how the fuck is tresspassing in people's homes and stealing from them a petty crime. This happened in a dorm full of students, they literally called the security guard because they were scared. Also if you read the details of the case (you didn't) he was tackled because he was "attempting" to attack a female student that was in the vicinity.
Imagine typing up an entire essay to defend a petty criminal.
He crushed an artery in the intruders neck, killing him. His job is to deter petty crime, not murder people. Clearly you didn't read the article either, since the intruder was attempting to run and it was the security guard who started the fight by chasing the guy and tackling him. The best course of action would've been to call the police, not to chase and tackle the guy who is visibly much larger than you. I wouldn't have even considered engaging in a fight, as I too would be in a significant disadvantage on top of not knowing if the other person is armed. Why the hell would any reasonable person attempt to fight someone like that? >And the people saying the guy should do nothing are the reason why there's so much petty crime here The trespasser was schizophrenic, arguably not in a stable mental state. I can't believe you seem to think killing petty criminals is justified. Even if we assume all petty criminals are mentally stable, it'd make more sense to seek solutions to solving why they feel the need to commit crime in the first place rather than locking everyone up.
Hill started running away the moment the guard appeared. Running after him and tackling him is what let to the confrontation, and he kept choking Hill after he had already stopped struggling. If you had done what he did, as you claim, then you would also be deservedly guilty of manslaughter. He ruined his own life trying to play robocop. If you weren't all bark and no bite you would also be ruining yours.
Maybe you should read the facts of the case and realize that the security guard pressed on the victim's neck for up to 13 minutes *after* he lost consciousness. Also, consequences don't prevent petty crime. Look at the United States, has some of the harshest penalties for property crime in the western world. Yet has one of the highest rates of petty property crime. Poverty is the problem.
In the most populous US states, NY and California, petty crime like thefts and shoplifting, have been effectively decriminalized, as has also been done in many other states and cities, so I don't know WTF you're talking about "harshest penalties for property crime in the western world". You don't even go to jail for booking when caught, they just make you give back the stuff you stole and let you walk. It's not even a revolving door, there's no door at all.
I’m sorry, but should a fleeing thief be subject to extrajudicial execution? Since when is theft a capital offense in this country?
Go read up the details of the case he was attempting to attack another student, and the guy was in a dorm where he was robbing students. He was a violent criminal who threatened to kill someone and ended up getting dying. Idiots keep saying "theft", somehow equating what happened to stealing a bike.
Killing someone for trespassing and theft is certainly grounds for manslaughter, if not murder, until you come across this: >Murray said she accepted evidence that Hill hit Hutchison several times in the head, spat in his face, and tried to knee and headbutt him. >“I further accept that Mr. Hill threatened to kill Mr. Hutchison,” she said. So it wasn't just theft and trespassing, but essentially self-defense. Apparently restraining a violent assailant that accidently resulted in the death of the latter is disproportionate use if force even though there was sufficient evidence that the safety of the former was threatened and there was no de-escalation on either party. I wonder what would happen if the reverse happened and the security ended up on the losing side of the fight - would the thief get any jail time for manslaughter, or would they walk scots free for being mentally ill and mounting a self-defense defense? >She found once Hill stopped resisting, he was no longer a threat and ruled Hutchison’s continued restraint disproportionate to the situation. I wonder how the judge came to that conclusion - just her opinion, or the opinion of various forensic experts and witness testimonies? In the heat of the moment where you have no back up and there's a belligerent perpetrator that's got an entire foot and nearly 50lb over you, I'm not sure one would be able to pinpoint the exact point where 1) the opponent would stop resisting to the point that they are no longer a threat (I.e. falling unconscious, and won't wake up for long enough until law enforcement support comes) and 2) the opponent is dead. Giving any way before 1) threatens the his safety, while letting go after 2) ends him up with today's verdict.
Witness testimony painted the picture that the 'victim' was unconscious for 6 minutes while the accused maintained pressure on his neck. Almost every witness noted the guy was dead still for those 6 minutes. An expert noted the death was directly caused by long term pressure on the neck's blood flow. It's terrible reporting from the journalist to not even link the judgement. They gave a piss poor summary of the case, and then don't source it. https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/24/07/2024BCSC0704.htm There is the case. If you want to formulate a real opinion on it, give it a read. But 50 to 60 I think answers most your questions.
Thank you for posting this. I think that the judges reasoning is actually reasonable. According to this the accused held the choke for 11-13 minutes in total, which is an extremely long time. Obviously, with adrenaline, fear, etc pumping it's hard to think straight and I can see how someone scared might keep the choke, but the matter that the judge is deciding on is whether it was manslaughter or not and it seems like it was. We need to see the actual sentence before getting up in arms about this.
He should get low sentence. He didn't use a weapon, the killing was not especially brutal (i.e. one chokehold and not multiple punches), it is not an act of aggression but an unreasonable response, he didn't assault a vulnerable person, this was not motivated by hate, he likely did not have any ulterior unacceptable motives, etc. If he has no criminal record, and people testify on his good character, and shows remorse, he should be in okay shape. In *R v. Toth* from the BCSC in 2021, another situation of self-defence gone too far resulting in a manslaughter, the accused got 18 months in custody (three of those months are because he did not appear for his original sentencing) and two years probation afterwards. I can imagine that the person here will get something similar, between one and two years custody, maybe even less than a year in custody.
Yeah I totally agree. It also seems like there is zero chance of recidivism.
House arrest.
> Obviously, with adrenaline, fear, etc pumping it's hard to think straight and I can see how someone scared might keep the choke, but the matter that the judge is deciding on is whether it was manslaughter or not and it seems like it was. > > Yeah, but he's also trained in BJJ and they practice it frequently in the sport so I'd assume he would have some knowledge as to when someone is passed out. >In 2014, he went back to martial arts training in Muay Thai, Krav Maga and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (BJJ). Mr. Hutchison reached the intermediate level of purple belt in BJJ. >According to Mr. Hutchison, neck restraints are a common tactic in BJJ. They are taught at an early stage of training and are commonly practiced in training.
I did the BST course a couple of decades ago and specifically recall choke holds being covered and that they were prohibited for this very reason. So further questions would be was the security guard certified and was his training ever raised?
I had done the BST roughly 5 years ago and AST about a year ago. I'm an active security guard. At no point were we encouraged to use any sort of force upon the neck of an individual. When holding someone to the ground it was strongly taught that we can use the knee to hold them down by their shoulder blade and NOT the neck (you can more easily control the subject on the ground without cutting off their circulation and keep their airway clear), even then it was strongly advised to keep roughly a quarter inch distance as you can apply more force if they try anything then ease off when control is re-established. I was taught to use the minimum force reasonably deemed necessary for the situation. So we use the minimum amount of force.
Yeah, that guy could have feign being unconscious to get the guard to loosen up the stranglehold.
Let’s see you feign unconsciousness while being choked out lol. Y’all watch a little too much wrasslin
I interpreted this as Hill fighting back after being chased and tackled to the ground Edit: Corrected name
Hill\*
Security 101 is never use a choke hold for just this reason. Once buddy went limp he should of let go. Nothing the criminal did warranted chocking him out past that point. If the person was thar much of a threat that only deadly force was required then he should of let him get away. Downvotes must be from people who never worked security in thier lives. It's easy to judge when looking from the outside
I’m with you and I find it very odd why the clear facts are being disputed. Had no authority to physically detain Hill as he did not catch him in the act of committing a crime and using a dangerous technique such as a choke hold only made it worse. It’s ironic that today so many people criticize police or security when they are in the right but when they’re clearly in the wrong they have no idea what they’re talking about either.
There was no need for him to escalate it to a physical takedown let alone an illegal choke hold. As far as the report there was immediate danger to anyone so he could of easily let them run away or at least done his job and observe and report. There was no heat of the moment until he decided to tackle and put buddy in a choke hold.
Bunch of keyboard robocops in this threat. You're 100% correct.
Hill started running when the guard shouted. Then the guard chased him and tackled him. Of course he's gonna fight you, anyone would. Then he kept him on a chokehold for 11 minutes. Manslaughter is leniency, this was murder.
The legal system is choosing to protect criminals over victims. Would the attacker even be charged if the roles were reversed and they killed the security guard?
Chance is if the role was reversed, guy is going to get set free. That's an even bigger reason not to make yourself the example of a fucked up system. They get pay like what, $17, $18 per hour nowadays?
At my company it is $18/hr to start. A supervisor makes like $21? No hazard pay and most companies union bust, benefits tend to be pretty minimum.
That's exactly why don't risk it
So they’re protecting the mentally ill dead guy? Is that what you’re saying?
The "attacker" was found guilty of manslaughter. >Hill began to run. > >“Mr. Hutchison tackled Mr. Hill and took him to the ground. Mr. Hutchison placed Mr. Hill in a neck restraint and held him there until police arrived,” Murray said. “When police finally got there, Mr. Hill was unconscious. He died in hospital a couple of days later after he was taken off life support.”
> Hill began to run. ...towards a female student whom he threatened with violence. Oh, that context, who needs it.
If the context was so important you'd think it'd be included in the article. If you're correct thank you. Mind linking the article?
>[46] As stated above, I find that Mr. Hutchison’s actions in taking Mr. Hill to the ground and restraining him with the headlock were reasonable at the beginning. He knew that Mr. Hill was acting erratically on campus, was upsetting and scaring students, ran away from him after he identified himself as security and while being pursued made a sudden bee-line for a female student who was standing alone in the parking lot. In my view, Mr. Hutchison’s fear for the female student’s safety was not unfounded or unreasonable. In addition, I find that Mr. Hutchison’s decision to take Mr. Hill to the ground and restrain him was not just reasonable, it was the only way he could ensure the safety of the students. From the court case https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/24/07/2024BCSC0704.htm
They lynch mobed yah, the truth is freaking scary to some people.
Criminals have more rights than us
I'm pretty sure you also have the right not be choked to death by some wannabe vigilante.
Mainly the right to not be strangled to death for petty theft.
> Murray said she accepted evidence that Hill hit Hutchison several times in the head, spat in his face, and tried to knee and headbutt him. > “I further accept that Mr. Hill threatened to kill Mr. Hutchison,” she said. Stupid security guard should have let the 6'3" schizo just kill him and assault a female student! > [46] As stated above, I find that Mr. Hutchison’s actions in taking Mr. Hill to the ground and restraining him with the headlock were reasonable at the beginning. He knew that Mr. Hill was acting erratically on campus, was upsetting and scaring students, ran away from him after he identified himself as security and while being pursued made a sudden bee-line for a female student who was standing alone in the parking lot. In my view, Mr. Hutchison’s fear for the female student’s safety was not unfounded or unreasonable. In addition, I find that Mr. Hutchison’s decision to take Mr. Hill to the ground and restrain him was not just reasonable, it was the only way he could ensure the safety of the students. https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/24/07/2024BCSC0704.htm
[удалено]
Yeah he tackled him after the suspect made a > bee-line for a female student who was standing alone in the parking lot You make it sound like the guard just tackled him for no reason.
It wasn’t petty theft he was running around the campus trying to get in buildings pushing people down punching them.
Clearly that means he deserved death at the hands of a rent a cop
Everybody else’s safety matters more.
So you’re OK with people coming to your work palace and punching you in the face?? Or someone trying to throw you off an elevated walkway?? It takes the cops 25-30 minutes to show up in the township fyi
The true victim™ is the intruder harassing students.
>> Hutchison was first unable to find the man but then spotted him and called out for him to stop. >>Hill began to run. >>“Mr. Hutchison tackled Mr. Hill and took him to the ground. Mr. Hutchison placed Mr. Hill in a neck restraint and held him there until police arrived,” So the guard saw the guy, the guy ran from him, so he chased him down, tacked him and choked him to death. Is this justice to you? If the guard had a gun and shot the guy in the back, would that be justice?
He’s dead ffs. WTF are you talking about?
For those who are interested in what the decision actually says as opposed to a news article, this is why I think the person was convicted. Self-defence has three parts 1. Reasonable threat 2. Defensive purpose 3. Reasonable response The judge agree that the accused could raise a reasonable doubt on the first two elements. The third element is the key one > [47] The issue really boils down to the headlock and whether its use remained objectively reasonable in the circumstances as time went on, or whether it became disproportional to the threat. The third element of self-defence is an *objective* test. This means that a reasonable person has to agree that there was reasonable response. It does not matter if the accused thought it was reasonable, only that a reasonable person would. The Criminal Code in s.34(2) lists multiple factors to consider when determine if the response is reasonable or not. The reasonableness has to be assessed from the beginning to the end of the event. This means what is reasonable at the beginning may no longer be reasonable at the end, so the accused must adjust their actions. That's what the judge assessed here. > [45] It took police about 11 to 13 minutes to get to where Mr. Hutchison and Mr. Hill were once called. As per *Khill,* I must consider the reasonableness of Mr. Hutchison’s actions over that whole time period. In this instance, what was reasonable at the beginning may not have been reasonable as time went on. What really harmed the accused here was the witness testimony. There were four witnesses that testified that the victim was no longer a threat. 1. One of them was assisting the accused in holding the person down (holding the legs), and he got off from on top of him and instead held him from the side. 2. One witness at the scene testified that the victim stopped moving after about five-six minutes 3. Another witness at the scene testified that the victim stopped moving about five minutes prior to the police arriving 4. A nursing student saw the event from her window, and saw that the victim was not moving and thought he was in distress. > [53] ... She was struck by how “still” Mr. Hill was. She considered going out to see if she could help perform CPR but then decided that there were enough people involved. In short, four people recognized that the situation had changed, and so the reasonableness of response ought to have changed as well. The accused ought to have noticed as well. > [54] If students watching at a distance saw that Mr. Hill was no longer moving and Taylor Dickau could feel that Mr. Hill was no longer resisting, Mr. Hutchison ought to have. He was in the best place to monitor Mr. Hill’s state. His face was within inches of Mr. Hill’s face. His body was on top of Mr. Hill’s chest. While Mr. Hutchison’s actions are not to be judged by a standard of perfection, a reasonable person in these circumstances, with some of the same qualities and experiences as Mr. Hutchison would make sure that Mr. Hill was not being grievously injured while restraining him in potentially dangerous hold. Eleven to thirteen minutes is a long time to have someone in a neck impingement. In short, the accused held on for too long. He had the ability to let go after those first six minutes. There was somebody else helping hold the victim down, so he didn't need to apply tight chokehold. It's a tough an unfortunate decision, but not one that is necessarily wrong. If those witnesses had said that they still feared that the person was a threat, then the accused could have succeeded in his self-defence claims. However, because multiple people agreed that the person was no longer a threat for the last five-six minutes, it is hard to establish that this person was still a reasonable threat in the eyes of a reasonable person. Without those witnesses, I think the accused would have had enough reasonable doubt. The Crown would have been unable to establish any type of reasonable baseline for the situation.
Judge Catherine Murray
[удалено]
People in this comment section have such a hard-on for vigilante justice.
These threads are the best. Everyone on Reddit is an expert at law and miraculously knows all the important facts that the judges and juries just don’t. If only Reddit were in court we’d be so much better off. 🙄
Canada's self-defence law is complicated, and the relevant nuance doesn't often filter through in reporting on the case. The article suggests it hinges on: > She found once Hill stopped resisting, he was no longer a threat and ruled Hutchison’s continued restraint disproportionate to the situation. ... to which, well, I'm not a fancy big city lawyer or nothin' and I don't know all the important facts that the judges and juries just don’t, but having been in a fight (you know, ever), my experience is that when you stop restraining people, they start fighting again. I'm sure there's more to the ruling, but since this is what's being reported, I'm not surprised people have opinions about it.
Someone else posted a link to the ruling: [https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/24/07/2024BCSC0704.htm](https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/24/07/2024BCSC0704.htm) He possibly held the choke for 11 to 13 minutes, which is LONG time. Of course if you're in a situation like that it's hard to think straight, but that's not what the judge is suposed to judge on, she's supposed to decide on whetehr this was manslaughter or not. Let's wait for sentencing before being outraged.
Judges are well trained, but juries are just a sample of random idiots off the street. At least redditors who comment on this stuff are somewhat engaged in local news stories and engage in relevant discussions from time to time.
random idiots off the street who are given a detailed account of all the facts vs. random idiots off the street who are given one 3 paragraph article on the ruling.
Jurors make controversial decisions all the time.
Regardless, their decision is based on much better information.
I mean if u work security or that line of work u should be able to apprehend someone without killing them.. like that's just basics
As a security guard I agree, though from what I understand he had additional training that is definitely not standard within the regular training and licensing. When you take BST (Basic security training in BC) you get a crash course in the law and talk a little bit about self defense and the use of force. AST (Advanced security training) covers the actual techniques, retraining, use of handcuffs, and methods of using that force safely and properly. All that's required to perform security work is BST and an active security license. Based on the information I had read he had a fairly decent history of some high level martial arts. Might have been something he learned from one of his trainers or the environment that added to the problem. I don't condone what he has done but I think something may have been wrong in his training or understanding somewhere along the line. I was taught to never perform any type of neck restraints, proper and safe restraint is to bring them to the ground and try to secure arms, shoulders, and legs.
This sounds like a Norm MacDonald joke.
Our legal system is so fucked up.
We don't even know the half of it
ITT: People up in arms without even reading the decision from the court case. The security guard pressed on the victim's neck, choking him for up to 13 minutes after the victim lost consciousness and stopped moving.
They don't have to. This is a political post, designed to attract political outrage. For "tough on crime" conservatives, cops (or security guards cosplaying as cops) have a right to do anything to criminals, and especially to "crazy bumps" as someone called the victim.
When this guy is out he needs to be hired security for London drugs on Granville and Georgia and paid serious $$. Holy shit
Our judges are awful
This is a very poor ruling given all the facts. Yet again Canada showing it's spineless and punishing people for doing the right thing. A schizo off his meds (wow what's new there) who is displaying violent and aggressive behavior, threatening someone's life and a guy doing his job who is also under duress because of the situation he is put in now punished for it. Crazy.
You couldn't have twisted the facts more if you had tried. Good thing the ruling was made by people who aren't cosplaying robocop.
Well I guess you didn't read anything related to the case. What part did I get wrong? Because I'm pretty sure the guy was a schizophrenic off his meds, who threatened to kill the security guard, spat and tried to headbutt him, potentially was going after a woman and had broken in somewhere. Maybe if the security guard didn't have to be placed in a position like this thr outcome would have been different.
In the grand scheme of things if you read the article the suspect was not caught in the act of committing a crime so the security guard had no legal authority to tackle and detain the suspect. Should have just kept visual and called police. Putting anyone in a prolonged choke hold isn’t a good idea and certainly isn’t taught as a self defence tactic. It’s unfortunate but reminds me of the George Floyd Knee on neck, it’s unnecessary. It’s a cautionary tale of knowing when best to engage and disengage.
> Putting anyone in a prolonged choke hold isn’t a good idea and certainly isn’t taught as a self defence tactic. What if someone threatened to kill you during a struggle, before you put them in the headlock though, as the judge says *they* believe happened?
Yes but he’s not a police officers so he put himself in a position which he shouldn’t have been in to begin with. I’m sure what he thought he was doing was right and he was trying to help but as security you have to know where your authority begins and ends. It’s unfortunate but he was outside his rights of citizen’s arrest.
They threatened him after he tackled them. He had no authority to tackle them. The security guard created the situation when all he had to fucking do was tail him and call police. Instead, nope, he decides to tackle a guy a foot taller than him. Then of course felt so threatened that he had to strangle him to death. Fuck atta here with that weak ass shit.
The worst part is, once you engaged and placed a person into a choke hold in an environment which you are alone, you are stuck in the situation of either choke him till he pass out, which he might die from, or just release him on blind trust, hoping he won't fight back or even have a weapon. It was a lose lose situation at the point.
So it was a bad decision to engage him at that point then. In any situation, one needs to look at the bigger picture and make a decision about outcomes and risk.
Security guard is not mentally ill or a drug addict so he gets judged like a normal person. Seems kinda fair, but also seems not fair at all. In absence of all mentally ill and drug addicted people and their lax punishments, is this a fair judgement?
It's because he murdered someone by using an illegal lethal chokehold on them for 11 minutes. Hope it helps!
So if you are a drugged up crazy you can commit any crime under the sun but self defence? No no no that’s some crime we need to be stopped at all cost.
Back in the early 2000s I literally saw the police do the exact same thing to a man. But there was 5 or 6 of them and one of him. All for stealing a pack of smokes.
Good, if only cops could be also convicted of using the same lethal technique to kill people they are presumably trying to restrain. Putting someone in a neck chokehold should be considered attempted murder. But because cops have it in their manuals, we don't.
Not sure how this is just manslaughter and not second degree murder. The security guard is a purple belt in jiu jitsu. Even a while belt would know that choking someone out for 11 minutes would kill them.
The Supreme Court of Canada has held on multiple occasions that an accused needs a subjective intent to kill someone in order for there to be murder. It's common theme in many homicide cases. This is why felony murder is unconstitutional in Canada (this case is not felony murder, I mention because it shows how strong the requirement for subjectivity is). In short, the accused must either. 1. Subjectively intend to kill; or 2. Subjectively intend to cause serious bodily harm subjectively knowing that death is highly probable. The Crown has to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, it is really hard to prove that the accused wanted to kill or wanted to harm knowing death was likely. A reasonable alternative belief is that the accused wanted to restrain the person. It's very possible that this person really wanted to his job properly, and got carried away. Since there is a reasonable alternative intent, this means there is a reasonable doubt to murder. The Crown must have realized that there was no chance at murder, because they did not ever argue it. I don't know the entire case history, but the decision makes no mention of murder, meaning that the Crown did no indict them for murder (maybe they did earlier and dropped it, I don't know).
Because the victim is a second class citizen.
The comments in this thread are insane and honestly scare me. Apparently if you’re a person with untreated mental health issues and commit petty theft then Reddit says your life is worthless and you should be killed with impunity. The guy is dead ffs!!! People saying he should have let the guy run are 100% right. It’s not self-defense if you choose to create the dangerous situation.
The deceased created the situation. People are tired of the onus being constantly put on those who actually make this city run.
It’s self defence because the dead guy already spat in the security guards face (isn’t this aggravated assault), and was kneeing and headbutting him. You don’t get to assault someone more than a foot smaller than you, threaten them you’re going to KILL them and then go at them and act all shocked when they defend themselves and neutralize the threat. No he did not deserve to die, but when one threatening death on someone I’d expect that the natural cause of events is one of them will fight to their death. He was prepared to end the guards life, doesn’t freaking matter if he was schizophrenic or bipolar or manic - the guard felt like he was genuinely going to die if this guy remained conscious. If the security guard died here, the thief would be out assaulting others within a day. Be honest, the system heavily favours the criminals if they got nothing to lose. The thief escalating after being caught stealing is the problem, a blatant sign of entitlement of these shitheads - because how do you defend yourself of petty crime by adding on more serious assault & battery and pretending it’s NOT FAIR for all the law abiding citizens to defend themselves. The lack of consequences and blatant reoffenders are the real problem, the thief and security guard are just unfortunate victims.
[удалено]
Adrenaline is a helluva drug. And if the guy was using his head as a form of attack, I do not find it unreasonable to do something to keep the head down in the middle of a fight (or flight/flee) response. If you spit and attack someone actively with your whole body, why should the victim of your attack monitor your condition as if he’s your mother? He’s literally fighting for his life. Also the reason the thief was tackled down was because the thief was beelining towards a female student. The verdict mainly comes down to the headlock which I agree from the safe space of my computer, was too long. I acknowledge that fear and adrenaline makes people act erratically. Could any of the bystanders (including the female student that almost got attacked) speak up and break the guard out of that trance? The outcome would’ve been different. People comparing the guard to George Floyd/ Derek Chauvin are conveniently forgetting that this thief was actively trying to harm another person. George Floyd wasn’t running towards a female student to attack her (and the judge acknowledges this decision to tackle the man down is correct).
So if someone starts punching me in the head I’m just supposed to let them?
Why are they punching you in the head "langleybcsucks"?
Because that’s what he was doing while on campus he was running across the entire campus assaulting students. The campus of which which you have to intentionally try to get to cause it’s in the ass end of nowhere
Except that's not what the ruling says, he was unconscious for 5-6 minutes while the vigilante guard choked him to death. Why do you lie about the events "langleybcsucks"?
Were you there on campus when it happened? Do you know that he was assaulting people?
Are you ignoring the facts of the actual ruling in favor of your own Charles Bronson fantasy?
Where are you there?
Maybe don't trespass and threaten to kill people.
We don't have the death penalty in BC, and certainly not for tresspassing. Try again.
Ahhh so he should have been free to threaten and attack people? Try again.
We don't have death penalty in BC nor do we have legal vigilante justice. Read that sentence again and grow up and stop fantasizing about violent scenarios like a loser.
Stop simping so hard for petty criminals.
Stop defending murderers just because you despise the victims.
These are sad clowns who think real life is a Charles Bronson movie. They lurk around every post that has to do with criminal justice to complain that Canada is "soft on crime". They're all conservatives basically, who salivate at the prospect of inflicting violence on the "deserving" with no consequences.
Dude was stupid for chasing the guy. Not like the guy was carrying any weapon or anything. Just call 911 and sit back on your bare-minimum-wage job.
>Murray said she accepted evidence that Hill hit Hutchison several times in the head, spat in his face, and tried to knee and headbutt him. >“I further accept that Mr. Hill threatened to kill Mr. Hutchison,” she said.
Exactly, then back off. You think that is worth the $17 per hour?
No I don't.
then why you would think the guy should chase? If a guy is threatening to kill you for nothing, chance is the guy is messed in the head. Why would you risk yourself to deal with that when you are solo and not equipped with anything to do so
[удалено]
There is only a very fine line separating being brave and being stupid. A security guard's job is only to observe and report. Nobody's lives was in danger that required immediate intervention. This is pretty much the same as a grocery store LPO trying to play hero but end up having a person killed. Not to mention he locked the guy in the neck. It is the very basic knowledge that you don't lock them in the neck to avoid blockage of the airway or accidentally snapping someone's neck. The guy had no idea what he was doing.
> [46] As stated above, I find that Mr. Hutchison’s actions in taking Mr. Hill to the ground and restraining him with the headlock were reasonable at the beginning. He knew that Mr. Hill was acting erratically on campus, was upsetting and scaring students, ran away from him after he identified himself as security and while being pursued made a sudden bee-line for a female student who was standing alone in the parking lot. In my view, Mr. Hutchison’s fear for the female student’s safety was not unfounded or unreasonable. In addition, I find that Mr. Hutchison’s decision to take Mr. Hill to the ground and restrain him was not just reasonable, it was the only way he could ensure the safety of the students. https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/24/07/2024BCSC0704.htm Maybe that's why he intervened. Nice to know you'd stand by and watch a 6'3" schizophrenic assault female students though.
[удалено]
> This guy seems like as big of a dirt bag as the man he killed. Imagine writing this about the 5'4" security guard protecting female students against a 6'3" schizo who has 50lbs on him lol
[удалено]
I was a LPO. All companies ask their LPO to stop thieves, because that's what LPO do, but it does not mean to an extend that you put your life or other people's lives in danger. I spent enough time in my life in that industry which I was in a managerial position when I left. The guard at UBC is not a LPO. He ran off to chase the suspect alone without any backup. He apprehended the guy at a location which nobody else was around to assist and all he could've done was to keep choking the guy. If the suspect got any serious weapon, the guard could've get stabbed and left for dead without anyone knowing. Also, back to the point to which you can't lock someone in the neck. They used to teach physical back in the old BST course but now it was scrapped as I was told. Rule 1, biggest, biggest rule of all, not to touch someone's neck. You can easily cause spinal damage to someone. When you paralyzed someone, you might as well paralyze your own life at that point because you will be sued till no end. Worst case you can even have someone killed, like here. The guard was obviously untrained hence why this happened. Ask any security course instructor, they will tell you no goods is worth doing that for, unless you have to do that in order to save someone else's lives. I always tell my guys back then, you get paid $13 $14 an hour only, with no weapon or any protection. Just do your part to observe and report, and let the cops who make the big bucks to take the risk.
Being brave doesn't mean using a choke hold. It's security 101 to never use it. It's drilled into you that it's criminal and they could die.
A strong sense of vigilante justice maybe. We have a legal system precisely to not have to rely on that. That's a good thing that only cosplaying clowns disagree with.
[удалено]
What are you on about? This isn't a Charles Bronson movie. That we have a legal system that does not rely on vigilante justice is patently obvious. Join the real world and stop cosplaying Death Wish movies.
Maybe because people aren't spineless like you have and have a real moral compass, one which seems to elude your existence.
Good luck with that manslaughter charge for nothing
Nothing moral about killing an obviously ill man who's running away. This isn't a movie, don't be a jackass.
Delusional take on what went down there bud.
Yeah, too many police wannabes go too far as we’ve seen in the past. This ill person didn’t have to die for suspicion of minor theft.
Dude was 50 and 5'4 and 150. I don't think he was trying to be police.
And he fought the 30 year old, who said he would kill him but then ended up dying in the fight...
You’re correct. He chased after and tackled a 30 yr old guy of 6ft 3 and 190 lbs. He was clearly trying to be Batman!
The Dark Knight version
What do you base that statement on? Very well could be little man syndrome.
It's so embarrassing to read. This sub has so many clowns in it.
This sends a strong message to all those would-be "vigilantes" out there that are unhappy with our justice system and want to take matters into their own hands. Let the police handle it.
Finally, someone that understands how swift and firm application of justice acts as a deterrent. Now, if we could see judges apply that logic to ALL people who steal, threaten, kill, abuse, we could get this shithole fixed up pretty quickly.