- cross-posted to:
- canada@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- canada@lemmy.ca
You must log in or # to comment.
We are going to see a lot more of this going forward.
Self defense laws have been slowly eroded over the years outside of crazy shit in the US like Kyle Rittenhouse drama.
The state doesn’t cover if you or your family is murdered, dow with that info what you will.
It is your or your families lives. Nothing big here. You should sort out a reasonable response at 3am
Note how intruder got lesser charges 🤡
Lesson here is don’t call anyone, as your families safety is not important.
Also, don’t talk to the police under any circumstances, even if you think you are the victim. They are not your friends, and they can and will fuck you over. Call a lawyer and keep your mouth shut.
They ALWAYS get charged. They almost never get convicted. You have the right to self defense.
You have the right to self defense.
And you can use reasonable force to defend yourself. It’s not a license to beat a guy who’s not a physical threat. People get psycho when they think their violence is justified.
The guy doing the crime got lesser charges than the guy defending his house. 🤡
You mean a property crime is considered less serious than potential homicide?? Does the Attorney General know about this?!
People get psycho when they think their violence is justified.
Took that personal-like, did ya?
Bootlicker vibes are strong here, my goy
Not true
Don’t argue with me. Take your disagreement to Justice Canada.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/rsddp-rlddp/p5.html
Not that I’m (dis)agreeing with anyone here but I’m curious if people actually do get charged most of the time even if it looks blatantly like self defense.
I suppose that’d be very hard to find a source on though and might require some more complex sleuthing. Regardless, I know here in the USA a lot of times people won’t even get charged if it looks like self defense.
To be fair to you and the guy you replied to it’s kind of a hard thing to actually ferret out.
I think one could definitely argue either way on the merits of charging someone vs not when it comes to a self defense situation.
These are pretty high profile cases and always get reported on. Convictions are rare and only when obvious egregious examples like chasing the crook down the street then assaulting them or shooting them in the back.
Anyone who follows these types of cases knows. Sorry I don’t have a lawyer handy to dig up a statistical analysis of Canadian court cases. Google Fu works reasonably well if you are inclined to put in the effort.
Meh it’s random shit on the internet, my Google Fu says fuck that noise lol
I get what you’re saying though. Suppose you can’t just let someone get away with murder.
I think maybe on some level I kind of just feel like it’s okay to kill a person breaking into a house regardless of their motivation and actions. Like, idk if I’d say I’m that bloodthirsty or unforgiving but I almost feel it to the level where if you just straight execution style murdered a person breaking into your house that would be a okay. Which, admittedly, is fucked up on my part and I’m not that callous, I know it’s a bad take, but something about the violation of personal sanctify and trust just makes me go “eh fuck that person, remove them from our society.”
The law in Canada was written so you can’t do that under many circumstances. A drunk neighbour who opened the wrong unlocked door and crashed on the wrong couch doesn’t deserve to get blasted.
A knife, or similar beweaponed intruder who broke into your home and doesn’t leave when they are confronted with residents both deserves to get blasted and the resident will be charged but not convicted.
The key is proportionality to the threat. A drunk mistakenly at the wrong door poses little threat. A 911 call, solid yelling at, and even a push out the door is fine.
The armed intruder who doesn’t immediately retreat when confronted takes one step towards you gives a reasonable person a legitimate fear of greivous bodily harm or death and proportional self defense is warranted.
E.g. he had a knife. He adanced towards me. I feared for my life, as most people would under the circumstances and I used the most expiditous means at my disposal to end the imminent threat. (Bat, gun,knife,frozen salmon, table lamp, ming vase, whatever.
If they run, you let them go. It’s the police’s problem. Easy peasy.
An armed person entering your property at 3am…
Who has time to sort out why is reasonable.
You strike to kill to protect your family. Figure out the rest later.
It is unreasonable being out in that position and FAFO maxim applies.
They aren’t even necessarily intending to kill. Shooting center mass in a panicked situation against a moving target has the highest likelihood of landing a hit due to center mass being the largest area. There also happens to be a ton of important organs there. You could try to aim for a leg or arm to be non lethal, but if you miss several shots the intruder could close the distance and harm/kill you.
You can kill someone during self defense and still have it not be intentful murder. Some people take 6 rounds to the chest and can walk away from the hospital, some die to 1 shot. An intruder can break their neck and die after falling during a physical struggle, is it fair to say the defender intended to murder them?
okay but this isn’t one of your checkout line fantasies where you save the day, this is real life. you need a BIT more than that, such as actually being threatened with a weapon. catching a kid carrying nunchucks and a switchblade in your backyard is not an automatic license to kill. jesus fucking christ you just can’t wait, can you. there are places you could enlist.
and hey, if you don’t think it’s fair that you have to sort out what is reasonable before LITERALLY FUCKING KILLING SOMEONE, then you won’t mind taking the hit and going to prison for keeping your family safe.
You’re citing a law, I guarantee that thier are innocent self defense people in jail.
A personal guarentee you say? I’d prefer a reference.
You’re giving me the same guarantee the government is. You’re on the side of .gov saying they don’t do anything wrong. I’m not believing a boot licker.
You don’t get invited to many parties, do you?
I know you don’t. You say a lot of stupid shit that’s not well thought out.
An innocent man in prison?? Does the Attorney General know about this??!!
David Milgaard served 23 years in prison as an innocent man. The attorney general is not some all knowing clairvoyant.
Ya, he just doesn’t give a fuck. Just like changing the law.
If someone intrudes are you just supposed to let them?
False dichotomy.
Lets say you hear a noise downstairs. You come down and you find your ex girlfriend in the living room. She says, “I’m just here for my phone.” You say, “Get out.” She says, “Fuck off, I know it’s here.” You grab a baseball bat and break her elbow with it. Now you’re going to jail because that was not a reasonable use of force to defend yourself or your property; she was not an imminent threat and you could have just pushed her out or called the police.
Whatever the situation was, the intruder was nearly killed. That PROBABLY was not a necessary use of force. It looks iffy enough that of course a court or at least the crown needs to take a look at it.
🤡
The article specifically states that the intruder was charged with possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. Its likely the victims use of force prevented the weapon being used against the victim.
It’s likely? You go too far. It’s possible but your reading that it’s likely isn’t supported by the text.
Huh? How does the text not support this being likely?
If you think there is enough information in this article to draw that conclusion, you are reading into the text. It doesn’t have the information you would need to get there. All it says is he was given weapons charges. We don’t know why or the nature of the supposed weapon. If he was walking around with the pry bar that he used to open the front door with or whatever, he could easily draw a weapon charge, but that doesn’t mean that by using lethal force, the homeowner “likely” avoided having it used against them. The information we have allows for the possibility that it prevented the intruder’s weapon use; it doesn’t let someone say that did or didn’t happen, just that it’s possible.
We can absolutely conclude what was likely
So if somebody breaks into your home with a weapon, you should just assume they’re just there for a friendly chat or what? What a braindead take. Have a nice funeral.
Your wild emotions are making you read things that aren’t even there. It would be pointless to engage with you until you get yourself sorted out.
And investigations are launched in those incidents to determine things like whether it was actually a deadly weapon or an inhaler that the cops lied about.
I get your example, and you should probably resist killing your ex. Any other rando appearing inside your house should be dealt with.
I don’t think you completely get it. In the example, the home owner doesn’t have to “just let them” roam around their house looking for shit. The home owner can even put hands on the person. But there are limits to what can be done, even to someone who has no business being there. It’s your right to protect yourself and (to the degree that you don’t put human life in danger) your possessions. It’s your right to evict people by force. It’s not your right to punish people who invade your home with a beating once they are not presenting danger or to inflict needless injuries with excessive force.
Reading it again, “resist killing your ex – ‘deal with’ any other rando,” it really sounds like you are advocating to use lethal force. Come out and say it if that’s what you mean.
I am advocating to do what I need to do to neutralize a home intruder. If they happen to end up dead, I don’t want to be blamed for it. Self defense is not an exact science and I think making homeowner considering the wellbeing of the intruder is ridiculous.
If they ACCIDENTALLY end up dead because you punched them too hard, that’s one thing. If you knowingly use lethal force against someone who isn’t an active threat, you deserve what you get.
Armed person within your property at night is the definition of active threat.
Now that’s a disingenuous situation. Let’s say she attacks you with a knife and in that lunge you grab her hand and make her stab herself. You still lose that.
Well, it is a police matter right?
But the best case scenario is 5 min response, and you’re facing a meth addict with a gun. What the heck are you supposed to do, besides defend yourself and family with whatever is at hand? Lunacy.
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
No, it’s fine. You can trust the state’s monopoly on violence. No way that could ever be used against you.
In Canada it is illegal to not offer intruders beer in evenings or coffee in the mornings.
deleted by creator
Wow, that is insane.
