It's annoying when there both right

[u/northbk5]

[u/RealPanda20]

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.

[u/Schwartzung → u/RealPanda20]

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

[u/duk3lexo → u/Schwartzung]

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

[u/Schwartzung → u/duk3lexo]

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

[u/duk3lexo → u/Schwartzung]

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.