TVA has investigated the death of a young man named Zouhair Boumahdi, killed in June in one of those linear parks beside Notre‑Dame East. The allegation is that Boumahdi was trying to extort money from the homeless whose encampment is located there – and that he had done it at least once before.
Boumahdi is alleged to have pointed a gun at three men there, who – expecting trouble – had made “armes artisanales” for defense. All three men – considerably older than Boumahdi, who’d just turned 18 – are claiming that they acted in self‑defense.
If Boumahdi had a gun and they had pointed sticks, they might have a case.
Ian 15:18 on 2025-12-06 Permalink
Seems like a pretty clearcut case of FAFO
MarcG 18:17 on 2025-12-06 Permalink
Expressions about about kicking someone when they’re down and trying to get blood from a stone come to mind.
bob 22:59 on 2025-12-06 Permalink
From what the article says they went beyond what is permitted by Canadian law of you want to claim self defense.
Ian 10:40 on 2025-12-07 Permalink
Hey now, if cops can claim they were afraid when they shoot some homeless person armed with a screwdriver, if some homeless guys kill a shitbag that’s trying to shake them down with a gun it only seems fair.
Kate 12:12 on 2025-12-07 Permalink
I think it will turn on whether the three defenders used an unnecessary degree of force.
But if the report is correct, the men were aged 46, 58 and 64 – and the homeless are often more worn down for their age than a housed person.
Being threatened by a much younger man with a gun could be even more terrifying for them than it would be for us. We would call the police under such circumstances, but how do homeless guys, with no street address and possibly no phones, or no regular way to keep them charged, make an appeal to the authorities, who probably would be in no rush to save three tent‑dwellers?
I hope the court keeps all this in mind.
Ian 13:32 on 2025-12-07 Permalink
One would hope this example will also give aspiring young shakedown artists pause for thought
Tim 20:57 on 2025-12-07 Permalink
Did Kate or Ian even read the article? The guy was laying on the ground helpless when one of the attackers hit him in the head with a metal baseball bat. A group of 4 good Samaritans tried to intervene and one was badly beaten for their efforts. @bob is right.
Thanks Ian for teaching me a new acronym.
Ian 22:18 on 2025-12-07 Permalink
You’re welcome, and yes. Is it self defense to continue to fuck up this shitbag after he’s been immobilzed? Some might say yes, given that he might come back. Consider that we are talking the kind of person that thnk robbing people at gunpoint is a thing. Consider this as equivalent to a home invasion, how would the courts (or public perception) look at that as a self defense issue, especially if the same person had done this once before to the same home? Your dismissive and condescending tone is unwarranted.
As to the “good samaritans” I say nosy parkers. Mind your own onions.
Tim 00:31 on 2025-12-08 Permalink
There was nothing that I wrote that was condescending or dismissive. You just do not agree. Ease up.
Ian 07:26 on 2025-12-08 Permalink
If you meant nothing by “Did Kate of Ian even read the article?” I should caution you that this is not normally how to communicate a neutral and civil tone in a discussion. It’s not a matter of agreement, you may as well have come right out and siad we don’t know what we are talking about. If that’s not what you ment,well, ease up.
Joey 10:59 on 2025-12-08 Permalink
@Ian FYI you are getting pretty close to advocating for homicide, pal…
Kate 12:43 on 2025-12-08 Permalink
I did read the piece. I can see the incident from several angles. I don’t condone the level of violence but I do see how those three men may have felt they had no other recourse but to defend themselves. Also, since the young man was likely a gang member, they may have wanted to send a message to other potential attackers.
And of course, we don’t know the mental status of any of those men. Again, not saying that being intoxicated or having untreated mental illness is exactly an excuse, but it may be a factor.
CE 20:00 on 2025-12-08 Permalink
There’s definitely a limit to how much force can be used in self defence. You can’t kill someone because they’re threatening you unless it’s the last resort. If you’ve managed to incapacitate the person threatening you, you can’t go on bludgeoning them as some sort of payback.
Ian 22:11 on 2025-12-08 Permalink
Well you can’t come around shaking down homeless people at gunpoint, yet here we are.
This guy represented a clear and recurrent threat. If this was a repeat home invasion artist targettting a nice middle class family, we probably wouldn’t even have heard about it past the “and he was killed in self-defense”.
And agian, let’s not even mention all the times police have brazenly killed homeless people they perceived as a threat for “brandishing” a screwdriver or whatever.
CE 23:44 on 2025-12-08 Permalink
I just want to put it out there that in the last few months, the media has covered at least two instances in Canada about (non homeless) people getting into trouble with the law for using excessive force while defending themselves.
One
Two
People should be allowed to defend themselves of course but there need to be limits on how much force can be used. Otherwise everyone becomes judge, jury, and executioner whenever they feel or are threatened by someone else.