Hot take: anyone who hospitalizes someone else with life threatening injuries should be required to defend that action in court. “I was defending myself” is a valid argument, but one that should be heard by a judge at trial. Nobody should be allowed to skip trial entirely just by claiming self defence.
That’s literally how the law works. Reasonable force means you can hurt them (pretty badly) but once they stop being a threat you have stop hurting them.
Reasonable force means you can hurt them (pretty badly) but once they stop being a threat you have stop hurting them.
So, dead?
It’s almost unreasonable for the courts to believe that someone experiencing a home invasion would be in anything but survival mode, and would have the capacity to simply “calm down” once the threat has been stopped. Because to them, they don’t know if the threat is over, or if someone else is going to bust in to kill them, or if the original attacker will fight back, or if they have a weapon, etc.
Courts should be very lenient towards homeowners deafening their life, family, and property. And if the jackass who decided to commit this crime is still alive, they should have severe consequences laid on them, with additional compensation to the homeowner for the trauma they caused.
In some contexts, yes. However you’ll still likely have to defend charges of manslaughter. You’d have to demonstrate that the actions you took could reasonable be expected to not result in the death of the subject; and that those actions were necessary to prevent receiving grievous bodily injury or death.
and would have the capacity to simply “calm down” once the threat has been stopped.
Lots of people defend themselves without turning their unconscious assailants into pin cushions. You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding how reasonable force is determined. I suggest you read my other comments.
they don’t know if the threat is over,
If you can remove yourself from the situation the threat is over. It’s factually wrong to suggest that people can’t tell when they’ve won a fight.
or if someone else is going to bust in to kill them,
Continuing to inflict damage on an incapacitated assailant logically does nothing to prevent another potential unknown assailant from attacking you.
or if the original attacker will fight back, or if they have a weapon, etc.
Those factors will determine what level of force is reasonable. Unreasonable force generally comes into play after the assailant has been incapacitated.
Courts should be very lenient
You should be thankful you have right to defend yourself at all. Not all countries grant that to their citizens. The logical limitation of that right is that defending yourself does not permit you to “counter-assault” others.
Assault in Canada doesn’t require them to hit you first. It includes threats with the ability to follow through. So you may preemptively strike to end an altercation without being charged for assault. HOWEVER, the average male is 28,000% less effective in combat than they think they are. So it’s generally a poor option for untrained individuals… as shit gets out of hand. Pre-emptively striking to end the fight early only works if you can actully do that.
Damn as an American whose frame of reference is, “if someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night and I shoot them dead it’s likely going to be called justifiable - period” it’s wild to see this.
Like, I’m not saying it’s good that we basically have a mentality of “yo if someone comes into your house you can blast em” as a people … But it’s interesting how divergent the views are.
I hear my back door kicked in at 3 in the morning, I put on my glasses and load my pistol. My bedroom door opens, there’s a man with a knife. I fire one round. That round pierces his heart and he dies on the spot. Justifiable force.
Instead, I fired two or three rounds in quick succession, because one round might miss or fail to stop him. Very likely justifiable force. Like any person wouldn’t pull the trigger a couple times in that scenario, right?
Instead, I fire one round. It hits him in the chest and does serious damage to one lung. He drops the knife, staggers into my living room and collapses. If I shoot him again to finish him in that state, that’s murder.
I recommend against breaking into houses on this continent.
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.
It definitely does feel like human life is not valued as much as it should be, can certainly agree there.
Especially here in the USA I get the feeling that we’re all just widgets in the grand machination of Capitalism destroying our world. I wish there was more we all could do but the people in power who could help seem intent to burn it all down at this point.
Hot take: anyone who hospitalizes someone else with life threatening injuries should be required to defend that action in court. “I was defending myself” is a valid argument, but one that should be heard by a judge at trial. Nobody should be allowed to skip trial entirely just by claiming self defence.
That’s literally how the law works. Reasonable force means you can hurt them (pretty badly) but once they stop being a threat you have stop hurting them.
Nobody gets a free pass.
https://lemmy.ca/comment/18450264
So, dead?
It’s almost unreasonable for the courts to believe that someone experiencing a home invasion would be in anything but survival mode, and would have the capacity to simply “calm down” once the threat has been stopped. Because to them, they don’t know if the threat is over, or if someone else is going to bust in to kill them, or if the original attacker will fight back, or if they have a weapon, etc.
Courts should be very lenient towards homeowners deafening their life, family, and property. And if the jackass who decided to commit this crime is still alive, they should have severe consequences laid on them, with additional compensation to the homeowner for the trauma they caused.
In some contexts, yes. However you’ll still likely have to defend charges of manslaughter. You’d have to demonstrate that the actions you took could reasonable be expected to not result in the death of the subject; and that those actions were necessary to prevent receiving grievous bodily injury or death.
Lots of people defend themselves without turning their unconscious assailants into pin cushions. You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding how reasonable force is determined. I suggest you read my other comments.
If you can remove yourself from the situation the threat is over. It’s factually wrong to suggest that people can’t tell when they’ve won a fight.
Continuing to inflict damage on an incapacitated assailant logically does nothing to prevent another potential unknown assailant from attacking you.
Those factors will determine what level of force is reasonable. Unreasonable force generally comes into play after the assailant has been incapacitated.
You should be thankful you have right to defend yourself at all. Not all countries grant that to their citizens. The logical limitation of that right is that defending yourself does not permit you to “counter-assault” others.
Assault in Canada doesn’t require them to hit you first. It includes threats with the ability to follow through. So you may preemptively strike to end an altercation without being charged for assault. HOWEVER, the average male is 28,000% less effective in combat than they think they are. So it’s generally a poor option for untrained individuals… as shit gets out of hand. Pre-emptively striking to end the fight early only works if you can actully do that.
Damn as an American whose frame of reference is, “if someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night and I shoot them dead it’s likely going to be called justifiable - period” it’s wild to see this.
Like, I’m not saying it’s good that we basically have a mentality of “yo if someone comes into your house you can blast em” as a people … But it’s interesting how divergent the views are.
I hear my back door kicked in at 3 in the morning, I put on my glasses and load my pistol. My bedroom door opens, there’s a man with a knife. I fire one round. That round pierces his heart and he dies on the spot. Justifiable force.
Instead, I fired two or three rounds in quick succession, because one round might miss or fail to stop him. Very likely justifiable force. Like any person wouldn’t pull the trigger a couple times in that scenario, right?
Instead, I fire one round. It hits him in the chest and does serious damage to one lung. He drops the knife, staggers into my living room and collapses. If I shoot him again to finish him in that state, that’s murder.
I recommend against breaking into houses on this continent.
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.
Yea in Canada we’d just prefer if nobody was shot dead. /s
Americans also don’t see a problem with cops shooting people for simply running away
I definitely have a problem with that.
fair, many of the people might, but the prevailing culture is one that doesn’t really value human life, especially criminals (even suspected ones).
It definitely does feel like human life is not valued as much as it should be, can certainly agree there.
Especially here in the USA I get the feeling that we’re all just widgets in the grand machination of Capitalism destroying our world. I wish there was more we all could do but the people in power who could help seem intent to burn it all down at this point.