47
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
47 points (98.0% liked)
Ontario
3134 readers
90 users here now
A place to discuss all the news and events taking place in the province of Ontario, Canada.
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No porn.
- No Ads / Spamming.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
They ALWAYS get charged. They almost never get convicted. You have the right to self defense.
And apparently you also have the right to get harassed and dragged through the mud in a long and unfair criminal case, even if you get off in the end.
The trial is the punishment.
And you can use reasonable force to defend yourself. It's not a license to beat a guy who's not a physical threat. People get psycho when they think their violence is justified.
The guy doing the crime got lesser charges than the guy defending his house. 🤡
You mean a property crime is considered less serious than potential homicide?? Does the Attorney General know about this?!
Took that personal-like, did ya?
Bootlicker vibes are strong here, my goy
Not true
Don't argue with me. Take your disagreement to Justice Canada.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/rsddp-rlddp/p5.html
Not that I'm (dis)agreeing with anyone here but I'm curious if people actually do get charged most of the time even if it looks blatantly like self defense.
I suppose that'd be very hard to find a source on though and might require some more complex sleuthing. Regardless, I know here in the USA a lot of times people won't even get charged if it looks like self defense.
To be fair to you and the guy you replied to it's kind of a hard thing to actually ferret out.
I think one could definitely argue either way on the merits of charging someone vs not when it comes to a self defense situation.
These are pretty high profile cases and always get reported on. Convictions are rare and only when obvious egregious examples like chasing the crook down the street then assaulting them or shooting them in the back.
Anyone who follows these types of cases knows. Sorry I don't have a lawyer handy to dig up a statistical analysis of Canadian court cases. Google Fu works reasonably well if you are inclined to put in the effort.
Meh it's random shit on the internet, my Google Fu says fuck that noise lol
I get what you're saying though. Suppose you can't just let someone get away with murder.
I think maybe on some level I kind of just feel like it's okay to kill a person breaking into a house regardless of their motivation and actions. Like, idk if I'd say I'm that bloodthirsty or unforgiving but I almost feel it to the level where if you just straight execution style murdered a person breaking into your house that would be a okay. Which, admittedly, is fucked up on my part and I'm not that callous, I know it's a bad take, but something about the violation of personal sanctify and trust just makes me go "eh fuck that person, remove them from our society."
The law in Canada was written so you can't do that under many circumstances. A drunk neighbour who opened the wrong unlocked door and crashed on the wrong couch doesn't deserve to get blasted.
A knife, or similar beweaponed intruder who broke into your home and doesn't leave when they are confronted with residents both deserves to get blasted and the resident will be charged but not convicted.
The key is proportionality to the threat. A drunk mistakenly at the wrong door poses little threat. A 911 call, solid yelling at, and even a push out the door is fine.
The armed intruder who doesn't immediately retreat when confronted takes one step towards you gives a reasonable person a legitimate fear of greivous bodily harm or death and proportional self defense is warranted.
E.g. he had a knife. He adanced towards me. I feared for my life, as most people would under the circumstances and I used the most expiditous means at my disposal to end the imminent threat. (Bat, gun,knife,frozen salmon, table lamp, ming vase, whatever.
If they run, you let them go. It's the police's problem. Easy peasy.
An armed person entering your property at 3am..
Who has time to sort out why is reasonable.
You strike to kill to protect your family. Figure out the rest later.
It is unreasonable being out in that position and FAFO maxim applies.
They aren't even necessarily intending to kill. Shooting center mass in a panicked situation against a moving target has the highest likelihood of landing a hit due to center mass being the largest area. There also happens to be a ton of important organs there. You could try to aim for a leg or arm to be non lethal, but if you miss several shots the intruder could close the distance and harm/kill you.
You can kill someone during self defense and still have it not be intentful murder. Some people take 6 rounds to the chest and can walk away from the hospital, some die to 1 shot. An intruder can break their neck and die after falling during a physical struggle, is it fair to say the defender intended to murder them?
I agree with your analysis, point I was making above that the situation like that person defending themselves with int he residence has any and all mean available to them up to and including killing the perp until the perp retreats.
Concept that victim can clearly sort out degree of force necessary to stop the intruder is naive. which is what the commenter is shilling in this thread.
If the person retreats outside, yeah no shit you can't kill them for funsies... nobody argued that as he seems to think.
okay but this isn't one of your checkout line fantasies where you save the day, this is real life. you need a BIT more than that, such as actually being threatened with a weapon. catching a kid carrying nunchucks and a switchblade in your backyard is not an automatic license to kill. jesus fucking christ you just can't wait, can you. there are places you could enlist.
You are too sheltered/naive to understand how real life situations unfold, clearly.
You're citing a law, I guarantee that thier are innocent self defense people in jail.
A personal guarentee you say? I'd prefer a reference.
You're giving me the same guarantee the government is. You're on the side of .gov saying they don't do anything wrong. I'm not believing a boot licker.
You don't get invited to many parties, do you?
I know you don't. You say a lot of stupid shit that's not well thought out.
An innocent man in prison?? Does the Attorney General know about this??!!
David Milgaard served 23 years in prison as an innocent man. The attorney general is not some all knowing clairvoyant.
Ya, he just doesn't give a fuck. Just like changing the law.