"What would be unreasonable," former police officer Dan Jones told CBC News Network, "is as you've got them subdued on the ground, already under control, continuously hitting them, or hurting them, or stabbing them."
Hate to agree with a cop but this is my stance. Any act of physical violence should have a trial, and unless the guy did something like in the quote it should be a quick and not overly onerous one.
Any act of physical violence should have a trial
Any act of physical violence should have an investigation. There are plenty of straightforward cases that don't need to go through the time and expense of a trial.
The most broken thing here is CBC going out of their way to put the spotlight on this idiot doing his performative politics.
Federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said in a social media post, "If someone breaks in, you deserve the right to defend your loved ones and your property — full stop."
I thought they'd stop doing this stuff after the elections.
This sounds broken and stupid, but I think it might be the system working well. I don't think we want stand your ground laws like in Florida.
Self defence is allowed, but only so far as to defend yourself. You can't go maim someone once your outside of danger. Also this doesn't mean the guy is guilty, just charged.
It's pretty nuanced: https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-34.html
Even the post points this out:
"What would be unreasonable," former police officer Dan Jones told CBC News Network, "is as you've got them subdued on the ground, already under control, continuously hitting them, or hurting them, or stabbing them."
Yeah, we can't have a "as long as he's on your property you can do whatever you want to him" situation like we see in some states. Which means there are definitely things you can do to an intruder that should result in you going to jail, and figuring that sort of thing out is what the courts are there for.
Obviously this is a new case and a lot of details are unclear, so I can't speak much to this particular situation. But hypothetically, if some drunk guy came wandering into my house baffled about how "his" furniture was all different and rearranged and I started whacking away at him with a machete then I am clearly the asshole here and should be put away for a very long time.
Likewise if some guy comes in to rob me brandishing a pocket knife, I do the "that's not a knife, this is a knife" routine brandishing my machete, and he backs away saying "woah dude I don't want to actually fight" then I shouldn't start whacking away in that situation either. Let him retreat. Though perhaps if I can make the argument that I couldn't tell if he was retreating or attacking that might work as a defense.
It's complicated. So to the courts it goes.
The UK has similar rules.
There was a case a few years back where a farmer shot 2 teenagers burglarizing his house, with a shotgun. The papers made a stink about it. It turned out that he was only charged for the second. The first was shot in the chest, in his house. The second was shot in the back, while running up his drive. The first was "reasonable self defence", the second was manslaughter.
Yes, you see, in Canada you can fight for your life with deadly force, but you can't fight for your property with deadly force. Canadian society values life over property.
I think I’d acquit if I were on the jury
A home invader with a weapon and a physical confrontation is impossible to judge someone’s mental state and level of fear/adrenalin.
But the devil’s in the details.
Next time I do a home invasion I'm going to bring a gun to protect myself, can't be too careful these days.
Won't they think of the poor home invader's rights?
It's crazy to me that being pro self-defense is a conservative talking point. Im about as left as can be, and yet in my mind being able to defend against home intruders is common sense.
As people have commented on all these posts since the incident appeared, we have no info on the incident.
Could be evidence of assault above and beyond that required for self defense (injuries to the intruders back, for example, from him attempting to run away, or signs of the fight continuing from inside to the exterior). Generally self defense is accepted with a good degree of latitude in Canada/(would love to find any examples of cases where someone defended themselves appropriately yet were convicted) , but obvious attacks that aren't self defense still are assault.
Yes, by breaking into someone's house and threatening (even by their presence) the homeowner/tenant means you should forfeit the normal benefits of society. They are choosing to break societal norms by doing this, and should face the consequences.
Hold up
This guy is attacked by an ARMED intruder in his apartment in the middle of the night, and he's being charged for fighting for his life?
Canada, I love you guys, but this is fucked up
If he was attacked, there's no mention of it in this report of the story. Instead, "there's a lot that we don't know." There's far too little info to draw any conclusions about exactly how fucked up it may or may not be.
What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
💻 Schools / Universities
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
🗣️ Politics
🍁 Social / Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca