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
I don't think you completely get it. In the example, the home owner doesn't have to "just let them" roam around their house looking for shit. The home owner can even put hands on the person. But there are limits to what can be done, even to someone who has no business being there. It's your right to protect yourself and (to the degree that you don't put human life in danger) your possessions. It's your right to evict people by force. It's not your right to punish people who invade your home with a beating once they are not presenting danger or to inflict needless injuries with excessive force.
Reading it again, "resist killing your ex -- 'deal with' any other rando," it really sounds like you are advocating to use lethal force. Come out and say it if that's what you mean.
I am advocating to do what I need to do to neutralize a home intruder. If they happen to end up dead, I don’t want to be blamed for it. Self defense is not an exact science and I think making homeowner considering the wellbeing of the intruder is ridiculous.
If they ACCIDENTALLY end up dead because you punched them too hard, that's one thing. If you knowingly use lethal force against someone who isn't an active threat, you deserve what you get.
Armed person within your property at night is the definition of active threat.