So…someone else doing something bad, means you get a pass to do something even worse?

“He tried to steal from me, so I get to murder him”?

Does that really make sense to you?

You break into a house, you have nefarious intentions. You made a choice to cause physical harm, you pay the price. The victim didn’t choose to be broken into, with a weapon to be used against them. The victim doesn’t know if that weapon is for intimidation or action.

See, this is the problem, victim is held responsible then bleeding hearts feel bad for the aggressor when he gets what’s coming to them. In the moment, you don’t have hours to reflect on your actions and adrenaline is one HELL of a drug but yes, keep protecting the aggressors, when they do serve a small amount of time the bleeding hearts try to get them released even when the victims fear their release

I’m physically unable to control myself and don’t see anything wrong with that.

Sounds like you should work on that before you end up hurting someone

If it weren’t for the fact the burglar got charge with a weapons offence, I’d be inclined to agree. That bar of “reasonable” should go pretty high when someone’s in your house with a weapon. Now who knows what it was, and maybe the homeowner did beat him after he wasn’t a threat anymore.

I probably wouldn’t go around “guaranteeing” anything. I just hope the definition of reasonable matches the circumstances because there’s a reason people in Canada don’t think you have a right to self-defence, as they’ve recently updated the self-defence laws because of murkiness, and it’s still not clear.

If I had a gun I wouldn’t have been in the seeing red space, he woulda had a hole in him

this is the kind of asshole that shoots kids on halloween for kncking on the wrong door

The fact that you think there is a single definition is the root of your fundamental misunderstanding.

(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

the person’s role in the incident;

(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

Criminal Code

Federal laws of Canada

(lois-laws.justice.gc.ca)

Ok, gotta answer this…

No, I am the kind of asshole that gives kids the good candies and chocolates on Halloween and asks them whats up the rest of the year, cause you know, ringing my door bell or knocking is not a threat ffs

You break into a house, you have nefarious intentions. You made a choice to cause physical harm

You tie a man up, and beat him to death…then, you also have “nefarious intentions”. If you didn’t intend to do any harm, then you wouldn’t.

You stop being a victim when you choose to keep going, after the point where it stops being necessary. If that’s simply because you lack any kind of self-control…then it’s manslaughter. But if you knew what you were doing, and did it anyway…then it’s murder.

It’s not fucking hard, dude. It doesn’t matter how much you think they “deserve” to die. Murder is still murder.

The guy you’re replying to appears to have some PTSD from being burgled and assaulted. I don’t think they’re really arguing here so much as emoting.

I found this interview by CBC to have a good amount of detail, see around 8:00 for your question

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7gbMJCW2xY

Reasonable force doesn’t mean planning it out perfectly in a stressful situation. It means doing what a reasonable person would do in your shoes.

• someone comes at you with a knife and it looks like they’ll hurt you -> deadly force is more warranted
• someone is standing back while holding a wrench and telling you not to come closer -> deadly force is not as warranted

Like the video describes, there’s still lots to this case that we don’t know and to me it doesn’t seem like this is setting any new precedent

just you’d need a license to have that gun

There is no legal way to have a gun and ammunition that accessible in Canada. In the time it would take you to retrieve both and then load a legally stored gun your home invader could have had a coffee.

Also keeping some other weapon nearby, like a bat by the door, constitutes some kind of premeditation to using it as a weapon.

Self defence laws in Canada are extremely restrictive given the increase in car jacking and home invasions to steal cars.

The part I disagree with is that he’s making political statements before more details are released to the public for us to judge what happened, and that he’s misrepresenting what the law is. You don’t need to carefully consider appropriateness and pick the perfect action. The ‘reasonable’ refers to doing what a reasonable person would do in your situation, and not a significant escalation past that.

This interview with a former crown prosecutor dives into it in more depth (around 4:00 minutes in)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7gbMJCW2xY

Fair point. You’re probably right.

Does a store owner get to cut off the hand of a person who just steals a single candy from a bulk food bin?

The law is clear - in Canada, the courts determine the punishment, not the individual citizen. That is what ‘Common Law’ is all about - one common law for all, uniformly and consistently applied.

It appears that the general public has gotten ‘punishment’ confused with ‘defending property’.

There is no legal way to have a gun and ammunition that accessible in Canada.

Have you met an RPAL carrier? “Better tried by 12 than carried by 6” is kind of their mantra. I can think of 3 off the top of my head that I know 100% have loaded guns stashed in their residence (no kids).

Also keeping some other weapon nearby, like a bat by the door, constitutes some kind of premeditation to using it as a weapon.

My baseball bat is always in the hallway with my baseball and glove. How you articulate your actions matters. If you incriminate yourself by saying you carry a tool for self defense that’s on you. That’s why lawyers constantly tell you to never talk to the police. What you say can and will be used against you. They are not your friend just because you perceive yourself to be the victim.

Self defence laws in Canada are extremely restrictive given the increase in car jacking and home invasions to steal cars.

Self =! cars and property. Your right to defend yourself or others doesn’t give you the right to assault someone taking your ps5. Can you see how extending self defense rights to property would be a very slippery slope?

until you “lose” it and then tragedy ensues

Have you met an RPAL carrier? “Better tried by 12 than carried by 6” is kind of their mantra. I can think of 3 off the top of my head that I know 100% have loaded guns stashed in their residence (no kids).

I have, they keep their firearm and ammo locked up, they never transport their firearm anywhere but to and from the range and they never load or discharge it anywhere but at the range.

Having to make the decision between jail time or death is a failure on the part of Canada. The police can kill you because they felt “their life or the lives of other officers were in danger,” a person in their home should be held to the same standard.

Can you see how extending self defense rights to property would be a very slippery slope?

For sure but I was talking about the increase in criminals attacking people directly, in their vehicle or home, in order to get that vehicle. You have no option to backoff when you are part one of their two part plan.

If someone breaks into your house and starts cramming your home theater into a sack then no, you should not be free to kill them but you should be able to threaten or use violence to remove them from your home. The police will not come in time, if at all. Telling people that they have to just sit there and watch the thousands of hours they burn at work get taken from them without recourse is insane.

“I feared for my life and the lives of my fellow officers.”

Why are individuals held to stricter rules? It should not be legal to shoot someone who is stealing your lawn gnomes but an armed thief inside your house is a thread of unknown magnitude.

The term ‘home invasion’ was never mentioned in any article. Stop making up your own ‘facts; and then treating them as truth, making up your facts’ to suit the position you want to proselytize.

Thankfully, this is Canada and we have a history of not taking the law into our own hands. It is, in our country, still up to the court and a judge to determine guilt and administer judgement and punishment.