Give homeowners the same benefit of the doubt cops get when they kill someone that threatens them. Probably more because they aren’t trained to deal with immediate threats and evaluate the options like a cop would.
Asking some poor bastard whose never had an altercation and that’s scared of being killed or their family being harmed to evaluate a proportional response in seconds is pretty unrealistic. And then making them go through months of legal hassle and cost to prove that what they did in that moment was correct is cruel and unreasonable.
Plenty of people defend themselves without getting charged. Guarantee this guy could have stopped but didn’t. That’s 99% of what constitutes unreasonable force.
Everyone who thinks he was automatically charged for fighting back and winning is misinformed.
Canadians have a legal right to defend themselves. But logically that doesn’t grant you the right to counter-assault or murder others.
The fact that the RCMP are not releasing any details indicates they have a real case against this guy. For all we know he punched him out than laid the boots on his unconscious body.
If it weren’t for the fact the burglar got charge with a weapons offence, I’d be inclined to agree. That bar of “reasonable” should go pretty high when someone’s in your house with a weapon. Now who knows what it was, and maybe the homeowner did beat him after he wasn’t a threat anymore.
I probably wouldn’t go around “guaranteeing” anything. I just hope the definition of reasonable matches the circumstances because there’s a reason people in Canada don’t think you have a right to self-defence, as they’ve recently updated the self-defence laws because of murkiness, and it’s still not clear.
The fact that you think there is a single definition is the root of your fundamental misunderstanding.
(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
(a) the nature of the force or threat;
(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and
(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
Give homeowners the same benefit of the doubt cops get when they kill someone that threatens them. Probably more because they aren’t trained to deal with immediate threats and evaluate the options like a cop would.
Asking some poor bastard whose never had an altercation and that’s scared of being killed or their family being harmed to evaluate a proportional response in seconds is pretty unrealistic. And then making them go through months of legal hassle and cost to prove that what they did in that moment was correct is cruel and unreasonable.
Plenty of people defend themselves without getting charged. Guarantee this guy could have stopped but didn’t. That’s 99% of what constitutes unreasonable force.
Everyone who thinks he was automatically charged for fighting back and winning is misinformed.
Canadians have a legal right to defend themselves. But logically that doesn’t grant you the right to counter-assault or murder others.
The fact that the RCMP are not releasing any details indicates they have a real case against this guy. For all we know he punched him out than laid the boots on his unconscious body.
If it weren’t for the fact the burglar got charge with a weapons offence, I’d be inclined to agree. That bar of “reasonable” should go pretty high when someone’s in your house with a weapon. Now who knows what it was, and maybe the homeowner did beat him after he wasn’t a threat anymore.
I probably wouldn’t go around “guaranteeing” anything. I just hope the definition of reasonable matches the circumstances because there’s a reason people in Canada don’t think you have a right to self-defence, as they’ve recently updated the self-defence laws because of murkiness, and it’s still not clear.
The fact that you think there is a single definition is the root of your fundamental misunderstanding.