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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.