You may recall our story about Tees Alberta Canada farmer Brian Knight [not shown]. To recap via cbc.ca: “In the early morning of March 26, 2009, Knight found three men in his farmyard. He jumped out of bed and gave chase clad in boxer shorts and rubber boots to a man riding Knight’s all-terrain vehicle. Knight rammed the ATV with his car and, when the man abandoned the machine and began running, Knight pulled out a shotgun.” Knight fired off two rounds at the thief. The second nicked the bad guy with buckshot in a classic Three Stooges bit—that Justice Monica Bast did not funny. To say the least . . .

Bast declared Knight’s ballistic solution a vigilante action. She sentenced him to a 90 day jail sentence.

Justice Bast’s decision to disallow a conditional or absolute discharge (no criminal record) to the crime was based upon Knight’s second round of buckshot during the incident. The consequences could be severe for Knight as his petrochemical plant job requires travel to the United States-if he can keep his job.

The incident provoked large scale support for Knight in Canada, despite our reputation as a non-gun culture. Many sympathizers felt that Knight was justified in his use of a shotgun to defend his property.

It’s clear that Knight amplified the situation with his use of the shotgun, but he was also facing three unknown persons in the commission of a crime on his property. I know one of his co-workers very well and my buddy indicated that Knight is a very decent guy that found himself in a violent confrontation on his own property.

I have mixed feelings about the outcome. Knight’s second round was clearly the money shot that cost him his freedom and the court’s interpretation for a sentence has some validity.

But I also respect the fact that a guy who was probably 30 minutes removed from police assistance made a judgment call that was based upon a gut reaction to a crime against him. I can understand that Knight felt threatened enough to take matters into his own hands and felt that a shotgun blast would wound and not kill the lowlife object of his attention.

While there are absolutely no guarantees that any shot fired from any weapon will not be fatal, it appears that Knight had enough weapons knowledge to surmise that his shots would more likely wound and not kill the thief.

It was clearly a heat-of- the-moment act by Knight on a cold Canadian night, but it will haunt him for the rest of his life. There are no winners in this case.

Recommended For You

17 Responses to Farmer Brian Knight’s Canadian Nightmare

  1. Unbelievable. Looks like Canada’s legal system is fubar’d also.

    Maybe the new, unspoken, anti-gun, political/legal strategy is “Sure, you can have all the guns you want, 2A is alive and well… No infringement here…”

    “But you better not ever actually use one of those guns to defend yourself, your family, or your property – or you’ll be looking at doing some prison time.”

  2. I don’t see the outrage.

    Looks to me like a case of assault with a deadly weapon.

    “Many sympathizers felt that Knight was justified in his use of a shotgun to defend his property.”

    Shooting a fleeing man in the back. How was that defending his property? In this case I don’t believe that would even fly in Texas,

    Seems he was angry and wanted a little vigilante justice. People who use firearms for defense dang well know the law before acting impulsively.

    • Umm, so what?

      The guy he was shooting at was a criminal who broke his unwritten contract of decency with the rest of the human race. Folks like him are scum who deserve a butt-load of buckshot.

      I really don’t understand all the hand-wringing over shooting a bad guy in the back. They wouldn’t hesitate to shoot you in the back if given the same opportunity.

      • “The guy he was shooting at was a criminal who broke his unwritten contract of decency”

        “UNWRITTEN CONTRACT”
        I”ll leave that alone.

        “I really don’t understand all the hand-wringing over shooting a bad guy in the back.”

        The “hand-wringing” is by those who seem to support vigilante justice.

        It always seemed to me, those of us who most strongly defend the 2nd, should also be the most strict on our proper use of deadly force.

        • So now an innocent man is being punished for defending his life and his land… where is the justice here? Why is he a “bad guy” all of a sudden?

  3. If Canada, America, and the West ever does have a social-economic-political collapse followed by the absence of the rule of law it is men like this farmer who will bring order out of the chaos that will result.

  4. When someone looks for trouble and finds it, I don’t have any problem with anything that happens to them.

  5. In the heat of “battle,” nobody is going to call lawyer or read a textbook for instructions before shooting. I don’t know what happened that day at Brian Knight’s farm, and neither does the judge. Probably, neither does Brian Knight. Things happen quickly in a bad situation, which is why most people, even cops, are unable to recall how many rounds they’ve fired in a confrontation. Therefore, it isn’t fair for us armchair judges to second-guess what happened. What I do know for sure is that the bad guys won. Again. Always.

    • “In the heat of “battle,” nobody is going to call lawyer or read a textbook for instructions before shooting.”

      I don’t buy that excuse at all.

      There was no “battle”. The trespasser was running away. If one doesn’t have the patience to learn the laws concerning the use of deadly force, or expect to go by the law should not be surprised at the consequences.

      • You weren’t there, so all you know is what you read in the papers, and I’m guessing that the article took a lot longer to read than the action itself. In every after-action report I’ve ever read, police, even SWAT, could not accurately recount the events. Cops who thought they fired three rounds fired seventeen; cops who thought they emptied their magazines fired twice and had a jam. That’s the way it really is.

        If you are ever in a bad spot (and I hope that you won’t), you won’t be taking notes.

        • “You weren’t there, so all you know is what you read in the papers,”

          Correct
          You have other information?

        • Nope, I don’t, so I remain open minded. I haven’t decided whether or not Brian Knight was an idiot or a good guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s kinda obvious that the judge what the thought, since he only sentenced him to 90 days. That’s not a big ticket for shooting someone.

          BTW, what happened to the thieves?

        • “Nope, I don’t, so I remain open minded. ”

          No problem. My mind is open, if you or anyone else has more information, I am eager to hear it.

          “I haven’t decided whether or not Brian Knight was an idiot or a good guy in the wrong place at the wrong time”

          I don’t believe I ever called him an idiot, nor said he is not a good guy.

          Never would I say a person on their own property is in a wrong place at anytime.

          One may find a difficult problem, such as a thief or rabid animal. That I understand.

          It is the reaction to that threat which may be judged, espeically if it results in another person being shot.

  6. I’ve been to Canada several times and it’s a great place to visit, but I’d never want to live there(I also wouldn’t live in commiefornia, or NY or NJ or several other of our commie states). Poor ole Canada is the land where people act like scared lil sheep and their useless police force would rather have you lay down and die without a fight.

    • I lost track of the number of times I’ve been in Canada. What a great place, and what terrific people. It’s too bad that their government has sold them a bill of goods.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *