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’.
I’ve not seen any reporting to that effect. You’re welcome to provide a source.
Correct. If an altercation is not necessary, and you chose to make one happen anyway, you are the aggressor.
It’s literally in the title: “Assault charges dropped against Ontario man who confronted [emphasis mine] home intruder”
My point of view is that the altercation became necessary the moment someone smashed windows and used the smashed window to gain entry into the house. You’re forcing someone into making a split second decision at that point, and you can’t expect those decisions to always be the correct one, and I don’t think it is criminal to make what might be the wrong decision (or might be exactly the right decision) in such an extreme situation. In the even more extremely unlikely event that the intruder actually had a legitimate reason to be breaking windows and entering the house that way I would call it a very regrettable and unfortunate accident, and it is a very difficult stretch to imagine that actually happening in the real world. But accidents do happen, and they are unfortunate. I don’t think that kind of accident would happen very often.
Otherwise I have to assume they are probably either going to try to get the fuck out as promptly as possible which I would strongly encourage them to do, or they are armed and are going to be starting an altercation themselves with me in the very immediate future which will likely result in my demise. And it’s definitely self-defense at that point. I don’t think it is reasonable to be waiting for proof of the need for self-defense to actually start, because by that point it’s probably too late.
You’re reading a LOT into a choice of wording in a headline there. We do not know anything about the circumstances of the “confrontation” in question. Nothing there indicates that he, for example, went out of his way to get into a fight when he didn’t have to.
Correct. It is not, in fact, criminal to do that. Defendants are given significant leeway in self-defence claims precisely because the law does not expect people to make the right judgement call in a split second. If you responded to a seemingly legitimate threat in a moment of panic, that’s still covered by self-defence. What’s not covered is a) going out of your way to get into a fight, and b) using force that is clearly unnecessary or disproportional to the threat against you. Everything else is fair game.
Remember, the charges against this guy were dropped. Even though his assailant ended up on death’s door, in an emergency room, covered in lacerations and bleeding to death, that was still considered fair and reasonable self-defence. You’re panicking over nothing.
Where did I sound like I was panicking? All I’ve been trying to do is have an opinion, share that opinion, discuss that opinion, and defend that position when it is attacked by people turning the things I’m saying into catastrophic strawmen.
It’s not even that strong of an opinion, if I’m being honest, but I do believe in the principle that these are discussions worth having and if that means I have to be devil’s advocate then so be it, but it doesn’t mean I have to be treated like the literal devil.
I was being charitable. As we’ve just discussed, fear makes otherwise smart people come to bad conclusions.