Crime The CBC continues to be terrible at reporting, Canada continues to be great at protecting criminals.

[Rygu]

So CBC ran a story on MSN. The headline was Yes, self-defence is allowed in Canada. "Misinformation" abounds as man charged in assault of intruder: lawyer. I could tell by the wording on the headline some hilarious bullshit was coming, and I was not disappointed.

MSN

So at the beginning of the story, in the second paragraph, it states the person whose home was broken into was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, and the intruder is also facing charges was airlifted to a hospital is also facing charges (they did not yet state what the intruder was charged with)

Then some smoke and mirrors regarding some hack criminal lawyer saying self-defence is allowed, but for example (her example) was if someone pushes you, you can't pick up a bat and start going apeshit on them.

So it turns out (at the bottom of CBCs story of course) it states the intruder was already wanted by the police, and in this break in was charged with possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, break and enter and theft, mischief under 5k, and failing to comply with probation.

So this person who was a repeat offender breaks into someone's home, with a weapon, gets his ass handed to him and has to be airlifted to hospital, and the person defending his home is charged with assault. The chief of police said "The law requires that any defensive action be proportionate to the threat faced". So the guy had a weapon, was wanted for previous offences, and broke into the guys home. What the fuck is one supposed to do to protect their home against a man with a weapon who breaks in? And why does the CBC continue to embarrass themselves with such hack reporting?

Either way, my country is cucked.

As you were.

 

[HereticBD]

I think this story being in the spotlight, is a net positive. Nobody agrees with the charges, and I doubt they ever will, regardless of what happened in the home.

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

They haven’t given enough information about what the home owner did to the intruder for me to make an informed opinion, but the fact that police charged him with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon suggests to me that he either stabbed or bludgeoned the guy, and to an excessive level.

Basically aggravated assault charges stem from when you keep attacking someone when they’re already down. The police were probably able to determine the homeowner went full Wanderlei Silva with the stomps and soccer kicks on the guy that came into his home. Canada doesn’t have Castle Doctrine, so you cannot take things to that level unless you can demonstrate that it was necessary as part of self defense.

We’ll have to wait to learn more facts about the case to see exactly what happened for the police to feel charges were warranted.

 

[HereticBD]

They haven’t given enough information about what the home owner did to the intruder for me to make an informed opinion, but the fact that police charged him with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon suggests to me that he either stabbed or bludgeoned the guy, and to an excessive level.

Thing is, what's an "excessive level" when a guy breaks into your home armed and ready to do harm? Regardless of the technicalities of the law, I don't think many give a shit about what happens to a home invader.

Unless he boiled him alive and ate his skin, I don't think many will give a shit if the guy caught a severe beating.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

They haven’t given enough information about what the home owner did to the intruder for me to make an informed opinion, but the fact that police charged him with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon suggests to me that he either stabbed or bludgeoned the guy, and to an excessive level.

Basically aggravated assault charges stem from when you keep attacking someone when they’re already down. The police were probably able to determine the homeowner went full Wanderlei Silva with the stomps and soccer kicks on the guy that came into his home. Canada doesn’t have Castle Doctrine, so you cannot take things to that level unless you can demonstrate that it was necessary as part of self defense.

We’ll have to wait to learn more facts about the case to see exactly what happened for the police to feel charges were warranted.

There is no such thing as too much force when it comes to home invasions.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Our self defense laws are a complete joke and leave us completely defenseless. Yes, its been argued that the proportionality of said defense will give you some leeway, but you NEVER hear about it going that way. Are there instances where home owners get away with defending their property? Almost certainly, I'm sure those aren't the stories being publicized.

Here's the thing though, if you have a family and your house is broken into by 2-3 dudes and they decide to corner you in your bed room that you've barricaded yourself in, are you clear to just start stabbing?

No, you're not. Now you have to wait to see what they are going to do to you or your family before you react which is the most bat-shit insane position to take, and under no circumstance can you use a weapon to defend yourself. You can say the law gives you room, but as you see with the OP you really don't.

 

[Broke Lester]

This is why I always say that you have to push these guys out the upstairs window and just say he jumped out while trying to escape.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

They haven’t given enough information about what the home owner did to the intruder for me to make an informed opinion, but the fact that police charged him with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon suggests to me that he either stabbed or bludgeoned the guy, and to an excessive level.

Basically aggravated assault charges stem from when you keep attacking someone when they’re already down. The police were probably able to determine the homeowner went full Wanderlei Silva with the stomps and soccer kicks on the guy that came into his home. Canada doesn’t have Castle Doctrine, so you cannot take things to that level unless you can demonstrate that it was necessary as part of self defense.

We’ll have to wait to learn more facts about the case to see exactly what happened for the police to feel charges were warranted.

The general public sentiment seems to be against the idea of not having castle laws in place. When someone breaks in to your house at 3AM and you have no clue what their intentions are, in the animal kingdom, all is fair.

I'll bludgeon you to death with a baseball bat even when you're down to make sure you're not getting back up.

The idea that we need more information beyond that is what people are criticizing. Like, no you don't need anymore info, the breaking down of my door was enough.

 

[Andy Capp]

So CBC ran a story on MSN. The headline was Yes, self-defence is allowed in Canada. "Misinformation" abounds as man charged in assault of introder: lawyer. I could tell by the wording on the headline some hilarious bullshit was coming, and I was not disappointed.

MSN

So at the beginning of the story, in the second paragraph, it states the person whose home was broken into was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, and the intruder is also facing charges was airlifted to a hospital is also facing charges (they did not yet state what the intruder was charged with)

Then some smoke and mirrors regarding some hack criminal lawyer saying self-defence is allowed, but for example (her example) was if someone pushes you, you can't pick up a bat and start going apeshit on them.

So it turns out (at the bottom of CBCs story of course) it states the intruder was already wanted by the police, and in this break in was charged with possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, break and enter and theft, mischief under 5k, and failing to comply with probation.

So this person who was a repeat offender breaks into someone's home, with a weapon, gets his ass handed to him and has to be airlifted to hospital, and the person defending his home is charged with assault. The chief of police said "The law requires that any defensive action be proportionate to the threat faced". So the guy had a weapon, was wanted for previous offences, and broke into the guys home. What the fuck is one supposed to do to protect their home against a man with a weapon who breaks in? And why does the CBC continue to embarrass themselves with such hack reporting?

Either way, my country is cucked.

As you were.

lol @ introder

"I could tell by the wording on the headline some hilarious bullshit was coming"


Way to engender crudibility.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

If someone comes in your house without your permission you waterboard them for days and pin their testicles to your door, or else you’re gay

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

lol @ introder

"I could tell by the wording on the headline some hilarious bullshit was coming"


Way to engender crudibility.

If someone comes in your house without your permission you must waterboard them for days and pin their testicles to your door, or else you’re gay

The guys who would prefer everyone to crowbar their asses open for criminals, have entered the chat.

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

Unless he boiled him alive and ate his skin, I don't think many will give a shit if the guy caught a severe beating.

The police made an initial assessment that the homeowner committed a crime, now it’s up to the Crown to determine if they’ll prosecute or not.

What the general public thinks is irrelevant unless the guy elects for a jury trial, in which case the likelihood of conviction goes way down like what happened with the Colten Boushie case.

There is no such thing as too much force when it comes to home invasions.

Except according to the law.

The idea that we need more information beyond that is what people are criticizing. Like, no you don't need anymore info, the breaking down of my door was enough.

Except according to the law.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

The police made an initial assessment that the homeowner committed a crime, now it’s up to the Crown to determine if they’ll prosecute or not.

What the general public thinks is irrelevant unless the guy elects for a jury trial, in which case the likelihood of conviction goes way down like what happened with the Colten Boushie case.



Except according to the law.



Except according to the law.

Yes, the law is in question and it's ridiculous that this guy has to be dragged through court for this.

We get it, the "law" is working. But the "law" is insane and needs to be reconsidered to be less so.

 

[Cherry Brigand]

The guys who would prefer everyone to crowbar their asses open for criminals, have entered the chat.

You're in my house uninvited, I'm shooting you until you stop moving.

Law or not, my thought is 'they get past me, bad things will happen to mine'. Not worth the risk.

 

[Cherry Brigand]

lol @ introder

"I could tell by the wording on the headline some hilarious bullshit was coming"


Way to engender crudibility.

Have you ever actually been a man?

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

Yes, the law is in question and it's ridiculous that this guy has to be dragged through court for this.

We get it, the "law" is working. But the "law" is insane and needs to be reconsidered to be less so.

Not going to happen. The Canadian legal system is very anti-property rights, anti self-defense rights, anti-vigilantism, and anti-firearms rights. If anything the system is going in the opposite direction.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Not going to happen. The Canadian legal system is very anti-property rights, anti self-defense rights, anti-vigilantism, and anti-firearms rights. If anything the system is going in the opposite direction.

You're the lawyer here, can you explain why it's going in the opposite direction when it's so unpopular with the people?

 

[Andy Capp]

Have you ever actually been a man?

 

[Broke Lester]

Have you ever actually been a man?

He posted his picture in the lounge about a year or so ago, I was nice to him and said he looked good.

Spoiler

He looked like a mature lesbian.

 

[Rygu]

lol @ introder

"I could tell by the wording on the headline some hilarious bullshit was coming"


Way to engender crudibility.

Oh no I made a typo.

Leave it to the forum retard to ignore the story and focus on a letter.