UPDATE: In a statement provided to CBC News, Kawartha Lakes Police Chief Kirk Robertson "touches on the assault charge" handed out to the home owner, after he was the victim of a home invasion.
-
Simply put, if the invader is immobilized and no longer a threat, but you continue to beat them, it’s not self-defence anymore, it’s vengeance. That’s the law in Canada and I’m okay with that.
So, you must not let the adrenaline flow to help you out, got it. I am not a very large man (was an even smaller kid) compared to the average, I have been victimized many times. When I did win a fight in grade school, I almost chocked the kid out completely, he didn’t get up right away when I did finally come back to myself, after he hit me once I only saw black shapes in a red haze I had no idea what I had done. I got in shit, he who started it got to leave with no punishment. So yeah… sure
-
The courts very much factor in if someone is acting in the moment or if they cognitively chose to do something. That’s like a huge thing. End of the day if someone can’t stop themselves from ground and pounding an unconscious person to death, than they are also a problem. The inability to control yourself or a violent situation are risk factors for anyone who doesn’t train martial arts.
We will agree to disagree
-
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.
Everyone here taking the rage-bait is clearly ignorant of the actual Canadian laws surrounding this.
-
Canadians have a legal right to defend themselves. Something not every country grants their citizens.
-
Several provincial trespass acts permit physical removal of trespassers.
So Canadians are well protected in confronting trespassers, so long as their actions are reasonable, IE conducive to removing the trespasser -or defending yourself.
Our laws work well. A fact that’s evidenced by our relatively peaceful society and the fact that stories like this (double charges) are a rarity.
-
-
We will agree to disagree
I mean sounds to me like you’re conflating your experience with cops to how judges interpret the law; which is simply not true.
It’s not a matter of clashing opinions.
-
So, you must not let the adrenaline flow to help you out, got it. I am not a very large man (was an even smaller kid) compared to the average, I have been victimized many times. When I did win a fight in grade school, I almost chocked the kid out completely, he didn’t get up right away when I did finally come back to myself, after he hit me once I only saw black shapes in a red haze I had no idea what I had done. I got in shit, he who started it got to leave with no punishment. So yeah… sure
I only saw black shapes in a red haze I had no idea what I had done
and you want guns and castle doctrine like in Murica? glad this is not the case
-
I only saw black shapes in a red haze I had no idea what I had done
and you want guns and castle doctrine like in Murica? glad this is not the case
Where did I say guns? If I had a gun I wouldn’t have been in the seeing red space, he woulda had a hole in him, one hole more than factory. I don’t own guns (for obvious reasons) and don’t want one personally, I like our gun laws, I don’t like our legal system as there is no justice for the wronged. If the intruder survives their idiocy then they should be punished. If you break into someone’s house you are a threat to their existence and should be dealt with accordingly, if they leave when confronted then they leave, if not they deserve everything they get until you regain control.
-
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.
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?
-
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
-
Where did I say guns? If I had a gun I wouldn’t have been in the seeing red space, he woulda had a hole in him, one hole more than factory. I don’t own guns (for obvious reasons) and don’t want one personally, I like our gun laws, I don’t like our legal system as there is no justice for the wronged. If the intruder survives their idiocy then they should be punished. If you break into someone’s house you are a threat to their existence and should be dealt with accordingly, if they leave when confronted then they leave, if not they deserve everything they get until you regain control.
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
-
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.
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.
-
Where did I say guns? If I had a gun I wouldn’t have been in the seeing red space, he woulda had a hole in him, one hole more than factory. I don’t own guns (for obvious reasons) and don’t want one personally, I like our gun laws, I don’t like our legal system as there is no justice for the wronged. If the intruder survives their idiocy then they should be punished. If you break into someone’s house you are a threat to their existence and should be dealt with accordingly, if they leave when confronted then they leave, if not they deserve everything they get until you regain control.
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
-
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.
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.
https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-34.html
-
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
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 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
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.
-
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.
-
Hypothetical of the day, if you’re forced into sudden fight or flight situation and you decide to fight can you determine reasonable use of force on the fly without hesitation?
What would you do?
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
-
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.
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.
-
I despise Doug Ford in general, but I agree with him on this issue. Someone fighting for their lives does not have the time or expertise to have to be considering what is an “appropriate” response, and should not be required to. Also ACAB.
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)
-
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.
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’.
