Good news for Peter Khill, of Hamilton, Ontario. The Supreme Court will hear his self-defence case.
For those unfamiliar with Peter Khill or the circumstances surrounding this trip the the highest court in the land, here is a brief recap.
February 4, 2016, 3:00am
Millie Benko, Peter Khill’s girlfriend (and now wife) awoke to the sounds of someone banging outside. She woke up Peter, who also heart, woke him to say she heard someone banging outside. He heard two loud bangs and looked out the window. The lights of his truck were on, meaning someone was then or had recently been inside his vehicle.
Mr. Khill’s his military training kicked in when he perceived a threat to himself and his girlfriend. He loaded the shotgun he kept in the bedroom and went to investigate the noises.
He discovered Jonathan Styres, a criminal with a lengthy record, inside his truck.
Khill yelled at the unwelcome intruder to raise his hands. When Styres turned to him instead with something in his hands, Khill shot him twice.
Styres died at the scene.
June 27, 2018
On June 27, 2018, the jury acquitted Peter Khil of second-degree murder.
The usual race-baiting suspects screamed foul, claiming Jonathan Styres was killed because of his race (Indigenous) and not the fact he was a career criminal in the process of stealing yet another vehicle.
At the time of his death, Jonathan Styres was out on bail for stealing vehicles, breaching probation, possession of stolen property and assaulting a police officer. This information was all excluded from Peter Khill’s trial.
Christie Blatchford sat through the entire trial, which gave her a unique perspective on how the judicial process unfolded in this case. Those crying loudest for race-based justice did not, of course, bother to attend the trial.
From her column Race was not a factor in the Peter Khill verdict.
How interesting it always is to cover a criminal trial and to actually be there and thus get the feel of the thing, only to be sternly corrected after the verdict is in by those who never set foot in the courtroom.
Crown appealed the acquittal.
February 26, 2020
On February 26, 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeals overturned Peter Khill’s acquittal and ordered a new trial on the charge of second degree murder.
From R. v. Khill, 2020 ONCA 151.
[1] The respondent, Peter Khill, shot and killed Jonathan Styres. He was charged with second degree murder. At trial, Mr. Khill testified that he shot Mr. Styres in self-defence, believing Mr. Styres was armed and about to shoot him.
[2] There were two issues at trial – did Mr. Khill act in self-defence, and if he did not, did he have the mens rea required for murder?[1] The self-defence claim, if accepted, would lead to an acquittal. The mens rea issue would, at best for Mr. Khill, result in a manslaughter conviction. The jury acquitted, indicating that it had a reasonable doubt on self-defence.
[3] The Crown advances four grounds of appeal. Three allege misdirection in respect of self-defence. The fourth challenges the admissibility of the evidence of Dr. Laurence Miller, an expert called by the defence. The Crown’s oral argument focused on the alleged misdirection.
[4] I would allow the appeal and order a new trial. I agree with the Crown’s submission that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury to consider Mr. Khill’s conduct during the incident leading up to the shooting of Mr. Styres when assessing the reasonableness of that shooting. I do not agree that the trial judge made the other errors advanced by the Crown.
My fervent prayer is for Peter Khill to emerge victorious at the Supreme Court. Time will tell if that prayer is answered favourably.
I don’t think the defense proved that the victim was armed and that he intended to kill the shooter. Further the shooter set the stage for a potentially armed response by arming himself with the shotgun. If he had approached unarmed, the victim if armed could not easily accurately shoot back at Khill without exiting the vehicle and Khill could have easily run into a semi safe location before any shots were fired.. I don’t have any particular sympathy for the victim only that Khill should not have responded in an armed fashion
You must be a Liberal, can’t think of any other reason for such a stupid analysis,you weren’t there no one can understand what fear the accused felt or experienced and the Jury in my opinion made the right decision,as anyone(other than. Liberal). would have made!!!!
apply your insane “logic” to police officers too then. Oh what’s that? They have to be armed at all times? Hypocrite!
Hope and pray Khill is acquitted as well. For people like myself who live in a remote area, a vehicle is an absolute life line for myself and the family. They used to hang horse thieves remember?
Mr Miller you are a foolish and naive man. No matter what the perp was armed with, he was ready to do violence against a law abiding citizen of this once fine country.
Remember when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
It is incoceivable that anyone would think Peter should have gone to save his property unarmed. Vehicle thieves are no different than any other kind of thief. Most would fight, and most carry a weapon of some sort. To think that anyone should approach a thief unarmed is beyond stupid. If the thief was armed with a pistol, shooting out of a vehicle window from close range is extremely easy. Had the thief responded properly when covered by a weapon, he would still be alive. Since he seems to have made a threatening move, Khill appears to have no choice. Was Khill supposed to wait until attacked and perhaps wounded before he could respond? And if people no longer have a right to defend their homes, family and property, then we no longer live in a free country. Oh wait…. we haven’t for some 50 decades now – ever since PET destroyed our rights with his constitution that eliminated them.