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

Law Talkin’ Guy said:
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.
Click to expand...
The laws is your country are terrible then. We encourage home owners to kill intruders where I live.
 
Apparently he used a knife and the intruder had a crossbow. Either way, if someone chooses to break into a home, the home owner should be able to protect themselves by any means that works; regardless of the well being of the perp.

Get why the police have to follow protocol; just hoping the crown chooses not to take it to trial.
 
EL CORINTHIAN said:
You're the lawyer here, can you explain why it's going in the opposite direction when it's so unpopular with the people?
Click to expand...

Sort of, but not really. The longer I’ve practiced law the more specialized my practice has become, such that over my 14 year career I’ve gone from being a broad, generalist to doing exclusively labour and employment law since 2019. As such, my interest in following developments in the overall jurisprudence coming out of Canada’s courts has narrowed to just reading case law that affects my practice areas. I never practiced criminal law at all, but ten years ago I’d still occasionally read summaries of the more interesting cases coming out the highest levels of court across the country, but not so much anymore, so I feel slightly unqualified to give an “informed” answer.

@EndlessCritic is also a Canadian lawyer and at least used to dabble in criminal law (and maybe still does?) and may be better positioned than me to weigh in on your question, as well as to give his thoughts on the overall thread topic as well.

Anyway, my passive observation on the evolution of the jurisprudence I largely attribute to Canada’s judiciary following trends suggested or recommended by legal academics who are typically very left-leaning.

TL/DR: I don’t really know but will generalize by blaming woke legal academics influencing the judiciary.
 
Man, as a former law enforcement officer, self defense instructor, and now, program lead of criminal justice at a university, this boggles my mind. If someone armed with a weapon breaks into your home and you beat the hell out of them, I see no issues-at least according to my state laws. Now, if you tie them up and sodimize them with a baseball bat….thats a crime and excessive, but in Canada, hell, you might have to hand over your wallet and fix them breakfast.
 
Rygu said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...

Holy Shit!! Liberals are the fucking worst...

""I've seen numerous comments on Twitter about how there's no self-defence in Canada, when we fully have a section that deals with self-defence," she said. "I think part of the public fear is a lot of the time misinformation that is passed around online about the way that the law works in Canada."

If someone assaults a person by pushing them, for instance, that person can't then pick up a baseball bat and start beating them and claim self-defence, she said.

"That's not reasonable force.""

Go fuck yourself lady. You might be armed with a hot dog and if you commit a home invasion at my house... especially when my kids are home. You're getting a face full of my 12 gauge.

I'm going to assume the worst and ask questions later. You've forfeited any rights once you forcibly entered my home with ill intent

Now... I agree that if said Home Invader flees, I don't get to chase him down and shoot him in the street as he's running away.


I've been burned by Twitter before... But RebelNews has some detail

 
Scerpi said:
Holy Shit!! Liberals are the fucking worst...

""I've seen numerous comments on Twitter about how there's no self-defence in Canada, when we fully have a section that deals with self-defence," she said. "I think part of the public fear is a lot of the time misinformation that is passed around online about the way that the law works in Canada."

If someone assaults a person by pushing them, for instance, that person can't then pick up a baseball bat and start beating them and claim self-defence, she said.

"That's not reasonable force.""

Go fuck yourself lady. You might be armed with a hot dog and if you commit a home invasion at my house... especially when my kids are home. You're getting a face full of my 12 gauge.

I'm going to assume the worst and ask questions later. You've forfeited any rights once you forcibly entered my home with ill intent

Now... I agree that if said Home Invader flees, I don't get to chase him down and shoot him in the street as he's running away.


I've been burned by Twitter before... But RebelNews has some detail

Click to expand...

The laws are one problem, it's the morons like the lady in your post that are another.

The idea that your supposed to enact some sort of mental calculus, in the middle of the night when your fight or flight responses and adrenaline are kicking in, just shows how disconnected from reality they are.
 
EL CORINTHIAN said:
The laws are one problem, it's the morons like the lady in your post that are another.

The idea that your supposed to enact some sort of mental calculus, in the middle of the night when your fight or flight responses and adrenaline are kicking in, just shows how disconnected from reality they are.
Click to expand...
Everyone conducts a dynamic risk assessment when they are put in danger. The lack of time and information you have prior to making the decision to attack forms the basis of whether your actions were reasonable or not.

Canadian law, which is similar to UK, has the reasonableness test to prevent situations where individuals can engineer a situation where they can kill someone or claim self defence in a scenario where there was no risk.

There is a term in law called 'the man on the Clapham Omnibus' which effectively sets out what a person of reasonable firmness would do in the same situation.

There is a trade off countries with Castle Doctrine Vs reasonable force self defence. This is more criminals arming themselves ready to kill to protect their own life Vs more innocent people being investigated for killing criminals.

I don't have the stats, but my gut feeling is more homeowners are murdered in the US by home invaders than criminals killed by homeowner's
 
If anyone wants a good analysis, this is a classmate of mine from law school who has a YouTube channel with over 300,000 subscribers (he really took off after attending the Johnny Depp trial in person and covering it). As a Canadian criminal defence lawyer he’s eminently more qualified than most to give comments about this. I haven’t watched it yet but I have no doubt he’ll have great insights and would recommend anyone that’s interested to give it a watch:

 
Being responsible for the safety of people that intentionally and illegally put themselves into a dangerous position.
A decision they make that put everyone involved in potentially mortal danger with presumed fear of injury or great bodily harm a reasonable assumption;
has to be the dumbest fucking interpretation of law in the so called civilized world.
Stand your ground and Castle doctrine should
offer blanket protection globally, period end of story.
 
CantCucktheTuck said:
Honestly it shouldn't even need to be codified into law. It's just common sense.
Click to expand...
In fairness, it can get sticky. Say someone wanted to murder someone. Invite them into your home, and murder them. Then carefully stage a break-in, and say you feared for your life.

Granted, it's an outlier of a problem, but criminal minds are gonna criminal mind, and take advantage of any little thing. This is how stupid laws like this get enacted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pierce 34
Crime Canada and USA crime rate is getting narrower
Replies
9
Views
172
Barney Gumble
Barney Gumble

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,480
Messages
58,287,684
Members
175,994
Latest member
Doomer

Share this page

Back
Top