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
3137 readers
79 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
The article specifically states that the intruder was charged with possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. Its likely the victims use of force prevented the weapon being used against the victim.
It's likely? You go too far. It's possible but your reading that it's likely isn't supported by the text.
Huh? How does the text not support this being likely?
If you think there is enough information in this article to draw that conclusion, you are reading into the text. It doesn't have the information you would need to get there. All it says is he was given weapons charges. We don't know why or the nature of the supposed weapon. If he was walking around with the pry bar that he used to open the front door with or whatever, he could easily draw a weapon charge, but that doesn't mean that by using lethal force, the homeowner "likely" avoided having it used against them. The information we have allows for the possibility that it prevented the intruder's weapon use; it doesn't let someone say that did or didn't happen, just that it's possible.
We can absolutely conclude what was likely
So if somebody breaks into your home with a weapon, you should just assume they're just there for a friendly chat or what? What a braindead take. Have a nice funeral.
Your wild emotions are making you read things that aren't even there.
And investigations are launched in those incidents to determine things like whether it was actually a deadly weapon or an inhaler that the cops lied about.