Hmmm. The article indicates a broken window, and further ‘medical and forensic evidence’. If the broken window was the point of access, it might indicate that a lot of the cuts sustained by the alleged intruder could be traced to the broken glass. That fact would change the entire scenario. It then becomes ‘much ado about nothing’.
There is a very big difference between ‘defending yourself’ and ‘deciding to take the law into your own hand and dishing out your own brand of justice and punishment’.
Doing the first is your right, doing the second is vigilante justice and almost always turns the country into ‘rule by organized crime’. Mexico is a good example of what happens when the ‘right to defend’ leads to ‘the right to impose your will regardless of the law’.
Are you saying that if someone breaks into your home with apparent intent to cause harm that you can’t defend your person with whatever means necessary? I think that if someone breaks in brandishing a weapon that it should be open season.
This isn’t a case of a homeowner beating up a drunk that accidentally broke into a house thinking it was their own and fell asleep on the couch.
"Open season’ has a tendency to develop into open warfare against anyone you do not like. Unrestricted ‘self defense’ is wide open to abuse, like it is in America.
Alright, so if someone breaks in to your home with a crossbow, what is the limit on your self defense?
This case makes it clear. Once the authorities determine through an investigation all of the facts, and what actually happened, and collect all the facts, they will determine if the level of self-defense was appropriate.
I’m not sure I can agree. Why did they not simply wait to get the facts before filing charges?
This guy has had to deal with the fallout of being charged/arraigned/etc. and probably had to retain a barrister. The news said that they dropped the charges due to a conviction being practically impossible. Reading the details, it sounds like there was a strong defense for the resident to claim that most of the cuts were from the home invader cutting himself up on the window he broke in through…
So the charges were not dropped because it’s ok to defend yourself, the charges were dropped because they can’t prove that this guy sliced up the home invader.
This case doesn’t do anything to show where the line is.
And yet the public gets in an outrage when known criminals get put back on the street and then re-offend, some in heinous crimes. Given his background and the number of convictions, I am sure he has his solicitor on speed dial. He was previously charged with attacking people with a baseball bat, and you want the police to believe him? Just ignore the blood, and let him go? Exactly how were the police to believe that the ‘victim’ was legitimately an intruder, and not someone the knife-wielder actually invited into his home, they got into an argument, and this guy took a knife to him? Police are not mind readers, and they are used to people lying to them. No way are they going to believe either side. Charge them, get them off the street, and let the system run its course.
Where. Is. The. Line?
That is entirely up to the courts, and the judge, to decide. This is Canada, where the Rule of Law and the decisions of the court still mean something.
But really, why be concerned about it? The chances of any Canadian ever coming close to the lie are in the vicinity of winning the lottery - one in tens of millions odds.
Can you elaborate on how that is the case in Mexico?
The Mexican cartel that thought they had a right to defend themselves by using a rocket against a police helicopter.
Unhinged to compare self-defence causing bodily harm to a literal terrorist organization.
My point was to demonstrate the end result of the unrestricted right to defend by any means possible. What exactly does ‘intruder’ mean? It goes both ways. If it applies to a law-abiding citizen, it applies to everyone, criminals included.
Intruder as in someone who breaks into a residence. Trespassing is not enough according to Canadian law. And Canadian law already punishes excessive force (there was a conviction regarding a case in recent years where the victim had chased the intruder and thus became a criminal themselves). So you’re literally just fear mongering
My point exactly. We do NOT have the unrestricted right to defend by any means possible, specifically to AVOID the situation I described.
Ugh! No if that’s your basis then no!