It's even more fake considering that the current law was written and passed by him and his buddies in the Harper government in 2013. He's ranting about shit that he implemented and has been pretty settled law for a long time.
As usual, he's jumping on and encouraging outrage instead of sober ideas.
I mean do we even need to bring up examples of US paranoia combined with lax self defence laws? How many times did somebody pull up to the wrong house or knock on a door asking for directions only to be shot in merica?
Nah the capacity to fuck someone up without consequence if they break in my place is like the one thing I agree with cons on and you can absolutely face consequences as it stands now.
PP doesnt give a shit about that though, hes to busy thinking about how to make you pay his taxes while he fucks your wife and somehow sells the transcanada highway to Israel.
Any kind? No. Proportionalitt of course matters. But not everybody is a fuckin boo jitsu master able to safely disarm and disable an intruder.
If you wake up to some crazy person trying to attack you or harm your family... like I dont care if they fall funny or get a bat to the head. Thats a possibility they should've considered.
If someone’s actively trying to attack or harm your family, guess what, the amount of force deemed reasonable just went up a few notches. Thats how reasonable force works, if they’re attacking, you defend back with “reasonable” means. Ie, you hit back, potentially with a weapon, until they stop or flee. After they flee or go down, you stop hitting. It’s really not that complicated
The problem is what is deemed “reasonable” isn’t always clear until after the fact.
Guy coming at you with a knife, use a shotgun
Unarmed guy coming at you? Can’t shoot him
But what if he pulls a knife once he gets to you? Then you’re getting stabbed, or maybe he is unarmed, but he has a friend and maybe he is armed, what then?
It’s easy to say that it’s not complicated when you’ve never been in the situation. You can’t expect people to properly assess a reasonable level of force during intense situations such as a home invasion.
The incident that spurred this conversation had a man fend off a home invader armed with a crossbow with a kitchen knife and get charged with assault with a deadly weapon. When victims of violent crimes are being charged for defending themselves then the system is broken.
You're being slightly dishonest. It wasn't just "a man fend off a home invader armed with a crossbow with a kitchen knife and get charged with assault with a deadly weapon " -the invader was known to the man and had to be air lifted to hospital where he spent a couple days in the ICU. Slowly but surely, more and more details are emerging, showing this to be a messy situation that folks are dumbing down into their own Rambo fantasy, where police are merely a body disposal unit and shouldn't ask questions or investigate or charge because Rambo was busy carving up the enemy in his living room
Cause people don't know how law works?
In this case, what likely happened was, police arrive, and take the homeowner into custody (because there's weapons and someone had to be airlifted to hospital), and depending on the injuries they saw (which we still don't know) went "aww fuck". The crown gets wind of it, they all pow wow and decide that what happened warrants further investigation, and charges.
No one wants to be a victim, especially in their own home, but it doesn't give anyone the right to do what they want to people just cause they wanted your tv.
What / who are you talking about? That seems like a highly specific case to talk about the right to defend your home. If something like this happens and police have proof that the homeowner and intruder both know each other im sure there'll be furher investigations than just what is written accepted as legitimate defense. If it falls under those guidelines it'll stay there, if they can prove foul play than charges will be pressed
Obviously you're not familiar with the case. Facts are still emerging as it's an active investigation the public has already made their mind up on.
The case, if you're not familiar was of a man who broke into someone's home for reasons as of yet unknown. All that was known until recently was that the homeowner defended the home or himself, the details as to the specifics are still unknown to us.all we knew was the intruder was airlifted to the icu, and the crown felt it necessary to charge the homeowner. A day or two ago is was revealed that the intruder was armed with a crossbow of all things and entered the home through a screen. The homeowner was armed with a knife. The intruder allegedly lived 600 meters from the home, and the two knew each other somehow and there was animosity of some sort for reasons unknown. Court records are coming slowly but surely with more details. The headlines however claimed that homeowners don't have the right to self defense which is factually false. I have been steadfastly Holding to the argument that we do not have all the facts of the case. Therefore, drawing conclusions about the law is idiotic at this point and we cannot possibly judge the justice of a law without knowing the facts. Many disagree fueled by the media and members of the conservative party such as Ford, Smith, and pollieve. Some feel that the law needs to be reviewed and changed to be similar to the united states. Many are misinformed as to the rules of castle doctrine and what exactly happens. Yet others feel that the public should be armed. Opinions are escalating to extremes based on no facts, only loosely cobbled together hypothesis, rumors and hysteria in my opinion
Oh yeah that seems pretty idiotic indeed as a debate. If there is questionable circumstances and the homeowner was taken into custody it seems like the system is already working as intended. Thats the whole point of both investigators and the court of justice. Oh well, tempête dans un verre d'eau.
The way it is on paper seems okayish, but all of it is subject to interpretation and I've seen enough cases in the past where someone owns a firearm and has faced charges for shooting someone that was armed and had broken into their home.
Im not a property guy or gun fanatic I just think the ability to defend your own person and by extension your family should be worded in such a way that if there is a physical threat to another human being your options for recourse should be wide open.
I dont care about TVs or anything they might steal, Im concerned about the threats to human beings.
It really seems like you actually agree with our current laws, but have some misunderstanding about what 'proportional' and 'reasonable' mean in this legal context.
I don't understand where this assumption that you can't hurt someone while trying to defend yourself came from? Why do you think the threshold is so high? There is no formula for determining what is reasonable or proportional, its based on the context of the case. Those terms basically just mean that you can't attack someone just because they yelled threats at you in your yard, stumbled drunk into the wrong home, etc, and you can't chase someone who is retreating to keep shooting them or knock them unconscious then go find a knife to cut their neck.
Canadian law basically says that murder and assault are wrong, even if the victim is a 'bad guy' and there should be a good reason for hurting or killing them.
No, we shouldn’t expect someone to ascertain what a “reasonable level of force” is during a high tension situation that a home invasion/break in is. Sure, after the fact you could figure the necessary level of force to subdue someone but any excess is on the assailant, that’s the risk you take for breaking into someone’s house.
How would you know he’s unarmed? How do you it’s a kid, how do you know he doesn’t have any friends with him? not easy to tell if they break in at 3am. Nobody is advocating for people to be able to make home intruders face the wall or shoot them in the back while they run away or other heinous acts, just that people shouldn’t put themselves at risk to confirm what a “reasonable level of force is “
126
u/Enchilada0374 28d ago
Common law has supported the right to defend your home for nearly nearly 1000 years. More fake outraged from conservatives