Yeah that’s how American children get killed “breaking” back into their homes after sneaking out.

Whatever it takes for me to be able to get away and nothing beyond that. That could be a single punch, it could be a gun shot. All depends on the circumstances at the time. The point is “only what is necessary for me to escape”.

I’m going to play devil’s advocate in my response. I will acknowledge that every case should be evaluated on their own merits, including this one.

In some contexts, yes. However you’ll still likely have to defend charges of manslaughter. You’d have to demonstrate that the actions you took could reasonable be expected to not result in the death of the subject; and that those actions were necessary to prevent receiving grievous bodily injury or death.

To a trained person, this may be possible if they are entering a situation where they have an overview of the situation and know what they are getting into. For example, armed police stopping an unarmed thug.

However, a regular civilian, who has been woken in the middle of the night to an armed invader has no clue what to expect. And then their fight-or-flight response kicks in and they no longer have rational thought.

I think it’s completely reasonable to assume that the homeowner in this case felt that his life was in immediate danger, as the attacker did enter the home with a weapon.

Lots of people defend themselves without turning their unconscious assailants into pin cushions. You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding how reasonable force is determined. I suggest you read my other comments.

And lots more kill them. Like this guy from Milton, who was found to be not guilty after shooting a home invader to death.

If you can remove yourself from the situation the threat is over. It’s factually wrong to suggest that people can’t tell when they’ve won a fight.

It’s a mistake to think that people don’t misjudge the use of excessive or lethal force. Hell, even trained officers are more likely to use lethal force just for having a high heart-rate. And it takes biofeedback training in order for them to reduce (not eliminate) these errors in judgment. (link to study)

Someone broke into someone else’s house in the middle of the night with a weapon (intention to hurt or kill the occupant and/or their family). As quite a few home invasions involve more than one person, how would the homeowner know that someone else isn’t waiting outside, making it a 2 vs 1?

In hindsight, it’s easy to say “the threat was over”, but not so much when you’re in that situation.

Continuing to inflict damage on an incapacitated assailant logically does nothing to prevent another potential unknown assailant from attacking you.

I totally agree, like if someone is running away from you and you shoot them in the back. I’m not aware that this is what happened in this situation.

However… you have to consider the human element: someone was attacked by someone else who intended to cause them harm. Adrenalin, and very likely “sleep inertia” could have also played a role in impairing judgment, making it difficult or even impossible to think logically in a life-or-death situation.

And the reality is, we have trained, armed officers who find it difficult to know when enough force has been applied to an unpredictable situation. I think the courts may be asking too much to think that regular citizens being put in these situations would all of a sudden think and act perfectly.

I agree that’s BS but that’s also more in the USA where everyone has guns. In Canada cops can’t pull that as easily because statistically people aren’t carrying guns here.

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.

They don’t trust you.

The police also indicated that the non-resident individual was charged with offences related to home invasion, is known to police, and had an active arrest warrant out.

Considering that farmer guy got away with shooting the native kid in the face a few years ago, I don’t think these charges will stick if it’s just “stabbing is fine, but he stabbed too much.”

A good defense attorney will turn everything you just said against the prosecution. Everything you said was conjuncture, not supported by facts. That the police charged both men means the facts are undetermined, and they are leaving it up to a court of law to sort through. Break-and-enter is not home invasion. It is a broad catch-all.

If the only evidence the police have is that the ‘home owner said he broke in’, without any physical evidence of a break in, there is not enough to convict the alleged intruder. If the alleged intruder said ‘he was just visiting to chat about say money or a loan or a mutual lover, and the owner let him in, and a fight ensued’ the police would naturally charge both parties and let the courts decide. If he was let in, there was certainly no ‘home invasion’ until he was asked to go. So far, the general public has zero evidence-based facts to go on. Just back and forth accusations, and a very injured person. And the media concentrating on the vague statements of only one participant (actually, it appears they are depending on the statements of a third party who was not even present, but ‘just herd that…’).

A lot of posters here are putting words into the mouth of police that the police never stated. What we do have is the official statement of the police as cited in this article. Everything else is media hype.

Police took the rare step of issuing a statement after they said that news of the arrest “generated significant public interest and emotional responses” as well as “unjust and inaccurate” commentary about the officers involved.

They said investigators examined all information and evidence that was available to them before laying any charges, adding that only a limited amount of information is being released to the public at this time about this incident as to both protect the investigation as well as ensure the right of the accused during their court proceedings.

“The role of the police is to investigate impartially and present findings to the justice system, which ultimately determines the outcome,” the statement notes.

“We encourage you to follow this matter as it proceeds through the justice system.”

Most of the alleged ‘facts’ presented to the public so far are, at best, fabrications of the public imagination. Did Ford even once use the term ‘alleged’, or similar? His statements were made in public, not covered by parliamentary privilege.

He has revealed his rue colors - just like Trump, he wants to be judge, prosecutor, police commander, jury, and executioner. Ford wants to be the only Law that exists.

Good thing I’m not an attorney, solicitor, or barrister, but rather some random on the internet commenting on what information is available to us and referencing a previous case where violence was used by someone claiming defense of their home.

Do you mean you are just some know-nothing highly opinionated blabbermouth who goes on spouting garbage that they have absolutely no knowledge of, just to look important and sound impressive?

Let’s take the kown facts from what the police have said, and develop an alternative narrative, just as likely as the one Ford espoused, by filling in the gaps with just as valid conjecture.

Mary (obviously no real names are used) is being abused by her boyfriend Bob. Mary decides to move out, and Bob is angry. He will not let her take any of her belongings.

Mary enlists the help of her somewhat nefarious acquaintance, Peter, who has had dealings with Bob on the past and they do not like each other.

So Peter, at Mary’s behest, goes to Bob’s place to collect Mary’s rightfully owned possessions, using force if becessary, because after all they do Belong to Mary. (Bailiffs do this all the time, it is a grey area of law - >Bailiffs and assistant bailiffs generally cannot use force or the threat of force when carrying out their duties. Under the Repair and Storage Liens Act, if the bailiff is acting under a writ of seizure, they may use reasonable force to enter land and premises in some circumstances If so, then other rules may apply. Bailiffs and assistant bailiffs must leave if you tell them to. If they don’t leave, you may wish to contact your local police and inform them that the bailiff or assistant bailiff does not have your consent. In these cases, the repossession or seizure is not deemed “peaceful”. Afterwards, you can also file a complaint with the ministry. https://www.ontario.ca/page/your-rights-when-dealing-bailiff). Bob lets Peter in, reluctantly, but objects to what Peter is taking (ownership is in dispute). A fight breaks out. Peter has taken tools to disassemble some of Mary’s belongings, which can also be classified as break-and-enter or dangerous weapons (a screwdriver). Bob decides to teach both Peter AND Mary exactly who is the boss. So Bob gets the worst of it, neighbors call in the police, Bob gets taken to the hospital, and Peter claims ‘self-defense’. The police, having knowledge of all of them, decide to charge everybody and let the detectives, attorneys, forensics, and the Judge to sort everything out.This is a mix of family, civil and criminal law and the boundaries are blurred…

So Peter not only has regularly beaten the crap out of Mary, he has beaten the crap out of Peter, and somehow he is the victim?

I would submit that this is not actually an uncommon occurrence, that the police, attorneys, and courts deal with regularly. Except that someone ended up in the hospital, perhaps the most innocent Samaritan of all…

Suddenly, the media tables are turned. Who does the media side with? Does Peter now have the unmitigated right to defend his home with any amount of force necessary against this battered spouse’s representative ‘invading’ her own home to get her belongings back?

If the only evidence the police have is that the ‘home owner said he broke in’, without any physical evidence of a break in, there is not enough to convict the alleged intruder. If the alleged intruder said ‘he was just visiting to chat about say money or a loan or a mutual lover, and the owner let him in, and a fight ensued’ the police would naturally charge both parties and let the courts decide. If he was let in, there was certainly no ‘home invasion’ until he was asked to go.

For sure, and I agree with all that.

However, the police already charged the guy with break & enter, as well as a weapon charge and one or two other charges. Sounds like they had enough evidence, and only the B&E has to stick for this to be a home invasion. The weapon’s charge doesn’t help the guy, as it shows some intent to harm the homeowner.

I have learned very little about this because it’s extremely obvious we are learning a politically spun version of the story to drum up a hysteria. Not interested in being involved in that.

It is also completely true and well-known that in Canada you do not have unlimited rights to take a life as soon as someone crosses an imaginary border, as you might in the States. I think that’s fine, and the fantasy of “defending yourself” is an American invention of hyperindividualism. The very same that has been absolutely ripping apart their society at the seams. Not really interested in following in their footsteps there.

why are we defending thief and robbers again?

I think that’s fine, and the fantasy of “defending yourself” is an American invention of hyperindividualism

You’ll find that all this thinking quickly disappears when you find a man ravaging your closets at 4am

People don’t steal for no reason. It is usually desperation, a last resort. If we remove the pressure causing people to feel that stealing is their only option, people won’t steal. I fundamentally believe in providing people their basic needs (food, clothing, shelter) because it makes these problems irrelevant. Ex-cons will tell you themselves that they felt they had absolutely no other option to keep themselves or their family alive. Give them the other option.

As for your fear bait, I’m more scared of dying via car because it’s FAR more statistically likely than your invented scenario.

People don’t steal for no reason. It is usually desperation, a last resort. If we remove the pressure causing people to feel that stealing is their only option, people won’t steal. I fundamentally believe in providing people their basic needs (food, clothing, shelter) because it makes these problems irrelevant.

While i wholeheartedly agree on supporting people both economically and with basic needs, i call bullshit on this one

try to explain that food, clothing and help is available to the guy high on weed, meth and/or heroin stealing your money to get another hit

If you need to resort theft because you actually need food go stealing at Walmart’s, not my house

As for your fear bait, I’m more scared of dying via car because it’s FAR more statistically likely than your invented scenario.

Ok? Feel free to be scared of whatever you want, the chance someone breaks into your house is still there, no matter how low (not that low, especially in some neighborhoods), and i’m not about to treat intruders gently. They chose to steal, they chose to steal from houses, and they chose my house. I had no choice in this, nor should i face the consequences of someone’s else actions which i could not control in any way

The police charged both allegedly known characters, probably realizing that the stories each one were giving them were probably minimally related to the true facts, and decided to leave everything up to defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, and juries to sort out. Police just are not paid enough, nor are there enough of them, nor is it even in their pay grade, to sort out scenarios like this. The absolute worst thing they could do is to ‘assume the facts not in evidence’ and make their charges based on these ‘assumed facts’, and missing the true crime. They charged him with ‘break and enter’ simply because some of the evidence available could imply that a ‘break and enter’ did happen, but it does not mean there actually was a ‘break and enter’ until a judge determines there was.

It is very common for police to lay charges that seem to fit the available evidence, but withdraw the charges when more evidence becomes available.

If I have a screwdriver in my hand, during some altercation, even if there was a legitimate reason for having it, I could be charged with having a dangerous weapon. The act of possessing the screwdriver itself itself says nothing about ‘intent to harm’, it is how that screwdriver was handled and used that determines the charge. In this case, that ‘intent’ could easily just have been inferred by hearsay evidence, and would not stand up in court.