If someone breaks into my house, that’s locked up and secured in the evening, and while I’m asleep starts ransacking my house, scaring or terrorizing my kids and wife, or causing harm, if their face happens to meet the end of a baseball bat, so be it. Reasonable force or not, I’m protecting.

The fact is, if that person wasn’t breaking into my house, there’d be no need for me to introduce a bat to their face, and they wouldn’t be injured.

This protecting perpetrators is nonsense especially when it’s on my own property. They’re the ones doing illegal activities.

I have been as well. Money stolen once, and the second time I was laid out on the floor with a shot-gun to the back of my head while they took my tv and stereo (way back in the 70’s so no computers, etc to take).

Hope that answers your incorrect assumptions, eh.

Damn as an American whose frame of reference is, “if someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night and I shoot them dead it’s likely going to be called justifiable - period” it’s wild to see this.

Like, I’m not saying it’s good that we basically have a mentality of “yo if someone comes into your house you can blast em” as a people … But it’s interesting how divergent the views are.

We really don’t know the details here, and I think that’s key. There are scenarios where charging a homeowner make sense. Like you see an intruder with a knife. You whack them with a bat. And you knock them to the ground. And then you just…keep doing it. The guy is literally on the ground, skull half caved in, just begging you to call a fucking ambulance, completely at your mercy…and you’re still whacking him. Force can easily escalate well past what is needed for any reasonable level of self defense. Just because someone breaks into your home does not give you legal permission to torture them or murder them in cold blood. Maybe the homeowner tied the intruder up and literally tortured him.

A prosecutor knows how unpopular prosecuting a homeowner for attacking a break-in victim would be. It would be an obvious political lightning rod. I’m inclined to believe that if they’re willing to go to all that trouble, the homeowner likely did something that went well beyond what any jury would consider reasonable self defense. This is the kind of case you do not as a prosecutor make unless you can be damn sure you’re getting a conviction.

We just don’t know enough yet. Like, did he cut off his fingers after knocking him out? Did the invader and invaded know each other? I hope more details are shared soon because I imagine most of us are going to side with the invaded here.

Americans also don’t see a problem with cops shooting people for simply running away

I definitely have a problem with that.

You break into a house, threaten the people inside, you get what you deserve. If they break your bones or end your life, THAT is the risk YOU take. Fuck this holding the VICTIM responsible. Not much I like from US law, but stand your ground and castle doctrine really ring true for me after being home invaded, robbed, and beaten by 3 invaders. What did the cops do? fuck all. Next fucker breaks intro my house will be dealing with trauma for the rest of their lives.

edit: Thank you to all who up AND down voted, and engaged in conversation, I appreciate it, and it was cathartic. I won’t be responding to any more of this post as I have said all I will on this. Remember to not get too mad at dissenting opinions and try to have a great day.

fair, many of the people might, but the prevailing culture is one that doesn’t really value human life, especially criminals (even suspected ones).

It definitely does feel like human life is not valued as much as it should be, can certainly agree there.

Especially here in the USA I get the feeling that we’re all just widgets in the grand machination of Capitalism destroying our world. I wish there was more we all could do but the people in power who could help seem intent to burn it all down at this point.

Yeah and to be fair it’s not like Canada is much better, but in cases like this one I don’t find it ridiculous that the appropriate use of force is investigated.

I’m sure this person won’t ultimately end up in jail (the same people in arms over this would also be the first to point out how “lenient” our criminal justice system is…), and if the facts of the matter do show unnecessary force or cruelty (like stabbing an unconscious person) then I feel that it would be justified.

Anyway, I didn’t mean to paint you with a broad brush I know the average American I interact with is more like me than not, but I’m grateful for the slightly higher valuing of human life here

I hear my back door kicked in at 3 in the morning, I put on my glasses and load my pistol. My bedroom door opens, there’s a man with a knife. I fire one round. That round pierces his heart and he dies on the spot. Justifiable force.

Instead, I fired two or three rounds in quick succession, because one round might miss or fail to stop him. Very likely justifiable force. Like any person wouldn’t pull the trigger a couple times in that scenario, right?

Instead, I fire one round. It hits him in the chest and does serious damage to one lung. He drops the knife, staggers into my living room and collapses. If I shoot him again to finish him in that state, that’s murder.

I recommend against breaking into houses on this continent.

Yea in Canada we’d just prefer if nobody was shot dead. /s

I agree that they deserve what they get, but there needs to be some restriction to defense so that someone who has no intent on confrontation doesn’t get their fucking head blown off or smashed in.

You shouldn’t be able to just intentionally kill someone because they’re in your home, but if they don’t leave immediately, you should be able to royally fuck them up beyond belief until they decide to bail. If they’ve got a weapon and they don’t leave within 5 seconds of you catching them in the house, that’s a different story.

At that point it should be safe to argue that you were in mortal danger and exacted equal punishment to the invader that they intended to inflict on you. If they don’t leave immediately after being caught, they make a conscious choice to remain in the face of danger. The problem I see is that if someone carrying a weapon in your home is beaten and let go, there’s a chance they hold a grudge against you and come back to exact vengeance.

You shouldn’t have to move and abandon your home just because some fucking degenerate is butthurt about having their ass beat. If they leave without a fight, let them leave. If they stay while you’ve got a bat or a golf club in your hand, you should have full license to revoke their right to personal safety. This is just my opinion.

I love my wife more than anything and the thought of someone even threatening her by breaching into our home while she’s there would make it very difficult to remain sane in the moment. I think it would be foolish to treat that as anything other than a mortal threat.

If I shoot him again to finish him in that state, that’s murder.

That’s how our laws work to, just you’d need a license to have that gun. You can beat someone’s ass in self defense but if you lay the boots in after they’re out cold that’s its own crime.

Guarantee that’s the situation here. The fact that the RCMP are withholding details indicates they have a serious case against the guy.

Hey, we elected Trump, I also think the average American blows hard. But I was born here and live here and can’t just up and leave in my current circumstances so I just try to do my best to get by.

It’s a trying time right now around the world and we’re not making it easier for the average person.

I have been assaulted and defended myself multiple times in Canada. It’s not how you’re describing it where you have some duty of care for the person you’re actively defending yourself from. Your right to defend yourself logically does not include the right to counter-assault or murder others. Guarantee this guy could have stopped but didn’t. That’s 99% of the time what constitutes unreasonable force.

Plenty of people hospitalize their assailants and don’t get charged. This story is rage-bait.

Exactly. Canadian laws are design to incentivize de-escalating the level of violence. Unlike American laws which incentivize jumping straight to lethal force.

Give homeowners the same benefit of the doubt

Plenty of people defend themselves without getting charged. Guarantee this guy could have stopped but didn’t. That’s 99% of what constitutes unreasonable force.

Everyone who thinks he was automatically charged for fighting back and winning is misinformed.

Canadians have a legal right to defend themselves. But logically that doesn’t grant you the right to counter-assault or murder others.

The fact that the RCMP are not releasing any details indicates they have a real case against this guy. For all we know he punched him out than laid the boots on his unconscious body.

Yes, hindsight is 20/20. When you are calm you can realize you went too far. In the moment, you are more concerned with survival, the Adrenalin is flowing and if there is no way to escape ie; physically running is not an option, the fight gets overwhelming. Like I said, break into my house and I will defend myself, if it costs you the use of limbs, brain function, or life, that is a choice YOU made breaking into the house. When I was younger I tried the CORRECT thing, assault, loss of more than I could afford to lose as I liked eating at least enough to live, the cops were totally useless and did nothing, several times. Now I am at the stage of, get the thief to leave but there are very useful objects all over the house, can you say trauma???, and I will NOT be a fucking victim again.