A Hatchet Job

 

I was shocked some time ago when I read of a homeowner who had been been charged for clobbering a home invader with the "blunt end of a hatchet." Two charges actually: "assault with a weapon" and "assault causing bodily harm." Give me grace, I thought to myself, they give the benefit of the doubt to the crook but the shaft to the homeowner. Wanting to confirm the story's validity, I searched the web to see which state produced such a strange course of events.

To my horror, I discovered it was the "state" of Alberta—Taber, Alberta, no less.

Now I will be the first to admit that I may have missed some of the details, but I don't think I missed the main ones. They go something like this: Late last May, Mr. X (also known as Joe Singleton) had his home broken into by Mr. A and Mr. B. In the process of defending his family, Mr. X clubs one of the invaders. Or something close to that.

To be sure, there are a lot of things we haven't been told, or at least I haven't heard. Maybe there was a drug score to settle. Maybe there was a spat between their respective kids at school that day. Maybe Mr. X was simply trying to "scare" the burglars. Maybe..., well, you get the picture.

I must quickly add that there's bound to be more details. I have the utmost confidence in the RCMP, and I can't see them taking this to court and wasting their time, money, and reputation over this. Or Mr. Singleton's, either, for that matter. I will be interested to read all the facts someday, and see that there was in fact much more to the case than they're telling us. There must be.

On the surface, though, it appears literally that the villain here has more rights than the victim. If there was unnecessary and excessive force used, the police might have a case for some minor infraction. Cops themselves can be guilty of excessive force; they get carried away in the heat of the arrest, when the emotions are high, and the result is that there's an extra kick here and a extra punch there.

That explains it, but it doesn't condone it.

Meanwhile, back to the Joe Singleton case in Taber. The question begs: What would I do? or What would you do? I am neither a violent man nor a tough man, by any stretch; but if any member of my family was being violated, I would have to step in and do the right thing. The "right thing," in the context of a home invasion, would be to defend house and home at any cost. Many heroes have done so at the cost of their personal life.

The blindfolded lady, symbolizing that justice is blind (or better stated, possesses no early bias), is apropos here. "Innocent until proven guilty," a major plank in the judicial platform, is likewise appropriate here. But ironically, Singleton appears to be guilty until proven innocent already. That's why I am confused, and I am not the only one. Time and distance preclude me from dropping in on the courthouse to hear how this case unfolds.

If I didn't know better, I would see this case as material for a John Grisham novel. In fact, his only non-fiction piece of work, "The Innocent Man," deals with a young man man who is wrongly accused of rape and murder. While those charges are far, far more severe than Singleton's, the comparison is not lost. Both were charged quickly with crimes that, in the former case, were never committed, or in the latter case, amount to an over-reaction.

I don't know Mr. Singleton or his family. But what I do know, I like. After all, any man who will stand up for his family is a hero. It may end up being a hatchet job in more ways than one.