UPDATE: In a statement provided to CBC News, Kawartha Lakes Police Chief Kirk Robertson "touches on the assault charge" handed out to the home owner, after he was the victim of a home invasion.
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/44480641
IMO an important fact is the intruder was charged with possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose.
That raises the threshold of reasonable force quite a bit in my eyes, including "life threatening injuries"
Now he shouldn't keep beating him when he's down and out but I'm sympathetic to the invadee so far.
That's what judges are for, I'm curious how it comes out.
Exactly. Canadian laws are design to incentivize de-escalating the level of violence. Unlike American laws which incentivize jumping straight to lethal force.
We just don't know enough yet. Like, did he cut off his fingers after knocking him out? Did the invader and invaded know each other? I hope more details are shared soon because I imagine most of us are going to side with the invaded here.
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.
Give homeowners the same benefit of the doubt
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.
Hypothetical of the day, if you’re forced into sudden fight or flight situation and you decide to fight can you determine reasonable use of force on the fly without hesitation?
What would you do?
What would you do?
Well first off I live in a province where our Trespass Act permits me to physically remove trespassers. If that person assaults me during that removal, I will defend myself. But I used to do that for a job so I'm much more adept at navigating confrontation and responding to violence than the avg person.
Ultimately in a home invasion situation, I just want to avoid my house getting trashed. I do have "whacking sticks" staged throughout my house. I also have flashlights with strobe function (GOAT self defense tool fyi).
I've been assaulted and defended myself multiple times. Our laws are specifically designed to account for the unique the context of every situation.
Forced into sudden fight or flight situation and you decide to fight can you determine reasonable use of force on the fly without hesitation.
I found this interview by CBC to have a good amount of detail, see around 8:00 for your question
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7gbMJCW2xY
Reasonable force doesn't mean planning it out perfectly in a stressful situation. It means doing what a reasonable person would do in your shoes.
Like the video describes, there's still lots to this case that we don't know and to me it doesn't seem like this is setting any new precedent
Whatever it takes for me to be able to get away and nothing beyond that. That could be a single punch, it could be a gun shot. All depends on the circumstances at the time. The point is "only what is necessary for me to escape".
You break into a house, threaten the people inside, you get what you deserve. If they break your bones or end your life, THAT is the risk YOU take. Fuck this holding the VICTIM responsible. Not much I like from US law, but stand your ground and castle doctrine really ring true for me after being home invaded, robbed, and beaten by 3 invaders. What did the cops do? fuck all. Next fucker breaks intro my house will be dealing with trauma for the rest of their lives.
edit: Thank you to all who up AND down voted, and engaged in conversation, I appreciate it, and it was cathartic. I won't be responding to any more of this post as I have said all I will on this. Remember to not get too mad at dissenting opinions and try to have a great day.
Simply put, if the invader is immobilized and no longer a threat, but you continue to beat them, it's not self-defence anymore, it's vengeance. That's the law in Canada and I'm okay with that.
So, you must not let the adrenaline flow to help you out, got it. I am not a very large man (was an even smaller kid) compared to the average, I have been victimized many times. When I did win a fight in grade school, I almost chocked the kid out completely, he didn't get up right away when I did finally come back to myself, after he hit me once I only saw black shapes in a red haze I had no idea what I had done. I got in shit, he who started it got to leave with no punishment. So yeah... sure
So...someone else doing something bad, means you get a pass to do something even worse?
"He tried to steal from me, so I get to murder him"?
Does that really make sense to you?
You break into a house, you have nefarious intentions. You made a choice to cause physical harm, you pay the price. The victim didn't choose to be broken into, with a weapon to be used against them. The victim doesn't know if that weapon is for intimidation or action.
See, this is the problem, victim is held responsible then bleeding hearts feel bad for the aggressor when he gets what's coming to them. In the moment, you don't have hours to reflect on your actions and adrenaline is one HELL of a drug but yes, keep protecting the aggressors, when they do serve a small amount of time the bleeding hearts try to get them released even when the victims fear their release
I have been assaulted and defended myself multiple times in Canada. It's not how you're describing it where you have some duty of care for the person you're actively defending yourself from. Your right to defend yourself logically does not include the right to counter-assault or murder others. Guarantee this guy could have stopped but didn't. That's 99% of the time what constitutes unreasonable force.
Plenty of people hospitalize their assailants and don't get charged. This story is rage-bait.
Yes, hindsight is 20/20. When you are calm you can realize you went too far. In the moment, you are more concerned with survival, the Adrenalin is flowing and if there is no way to escape ie; physically running is not an option, the fight gets overwhelming. Like I said, break into my house and I will defend myself, if it costs you the use of limbs, brain function, or life, that is a choice YOU made breaking into the house. When I was younger I tried the CORRECT thing, assault, loss of more than I could afford to lose as I liked eating at least enough to live, the cops were totally useless and did nothing, several times. Now I am at the stage of, get the thief to leave but there are very useful objects all over the house, can you say trauma????, and I will NOT be a fucking victim again.
Does a store owner get to cut off the hand of a person who just steals a single candy from a bulk food bin?
The law is clear - in Canada, the courts determine the punishment, not the individual citizen. That is what 'Common Law' is all about - one common law for all, uniformly and consistently applied.
It appears that the general public has gotten 'punishment' confused with 'defending property'.
If someone breaks into my house, that’s locked up and secured in the evening, and while I’m asleep starts ransacking my house, scaring or terrorizing my kids and wife, or causing harm, if their face happens to meet the end of a baseball bat, so be it. Reasonable force or not, I’m protecting.
The fact is, if that person wasn’t breaking into my house, there’d be no need for me to introduce a bat to their face, and they wouldn’t be injured.
This protecting perpetrators is nonsense especially when it’s on my own property. They’re the ones doing illegal activities.
We really don't know the details here, and I think that's key. There are scenarios where charging a homeowner make sense. Like you see an intruder with a knife. You whack them with a bat. And you knock them to the ground. And then you just...keep doing it. The guy is literally on the ground, skull half caved in, just begging you to call a fucking ambulance, completely at your mercy...and you're still whacking him. Force can easily escalate well past what is needed for any reasonable level of self defense. Just because someone breaks into your home does not give you legal permission to torture them or murder them in cold blood. Maybe the homeowner tied the intruder up and literally tortured him.
A prosecutor knows how unpopular prosecuting a homeowner for attacking a break-in victim would be. It would be an obvious political lightning rod. I'm inclined to believe that if they're willing to go to all that trouble, the homeowner likely did something that went well beyond what any jury would consider reasonable self defense. This is the kind of case you do not as a prosecutor make unless you can be damn sure you're getting a conviction.
I don't care what the reason is, if you break into a home - the actual home, you deserve whatever you get, no restrictions.
I agree that they deserve what they get, but there needs to be some restriction to defense so that someone who has no intent on confrontation doesn't get their fucking head blown off or smashed in.
You shouldn't be able to just intentionally kill someone because they're in your home, but if they don't leave immediately, you should be able to royally fuck them up beyond belief until they decide to bail. If they've got a weapon and they don't leave within 5 seconds of you catching them in the house, that's a different story.
At that point it should be safe to argue that you were in mortal danger and exacted equal punishment to the invader that they intended to inflict on you. If they don't leave immediately after being caught, they make a conscious choice to remain in the face of danger. The problem I see is that if someone carrying a weapon in your home is beaten and let go, there's a chance they hold a grudge against you and come back to exact vengeance.
You shouldn't have to move and abandon your home just because some fucking degenerate is butthurt about having their ass beat. If they leave without a fight, let them leave. If they stay while you've got a bat or a golf club in your hand, you should have full license to revoke their right to personal safety. This is just my opinion.
I love my wife more than anything and the thought of someone even threatening her by breaching into our home while she's there would make it very difficult to remain sane in the moment. I think it would be foolish to treat that as anything other than a mortal threat.
Everyone here taking the rage-bait is clearly ignorant of the actual Canadian laws surrounding this.
So Canadians are well protected in confronting trespassers, so long as their actions are reasonable, IE conducive to removing the trespasser -or defending yourself.
Our laws work well. A fact that's evidenced by our relatively peaceful society and the fact that stories like this (double charges) are a rarity.
Thankfully, this is Canada and we have a history of not taking the law into our own hands. It is, in our country, still up to the court and a judge to determine guilt and administer judgement and punishment.
I have learned very little about this because it's extremely obvious we are learning a politically spun version of the story to drum up a hysteria. Not interested in being involved in that.
It is also completely true and well-known that in Canada you do not have unlimited rights to take a life as soon as someone crosses an imaginary border, as you might in the States. I think that's fine, and the fantasy of "defending yourself" is an American invention of hyperindividualism. The very same that has been absolutely ripping apart their society at the seams. Not really interested in following in their footsteps there.
why are we defending thief and robbers again?
I think that's fine, and the fantasy of "defending yourself" is an American invention of hyperindividualism
You'll find that all this thinking quickly disappears when you find a man ravaging your closets at 4am
People don't steal for no reason. It is usually desperation, a last resort. If we remove the pressure causing people to feel that stealing is their only option, people won't steal. I fundamentally believe in providing people their basic needs (food, clothing, shelter) because it makes these problems irrelevant. Ex-cons will tell you themselves that they felt they had absolutely no other option to keep themselves or their family alive. Give them the other option.
As for your fear bait, I'm more scared of dying via car because it's FAR more statistically likely than your invented scenario.
Why do I get this strange feeling that the last laugh could easily be from this 'intruder', when he wins a multi-million-dollar defamation suit against all the media, and Ford, for portraying him as a 'guilty home invader' instead of the victim, because we really do not know all of the facts - what happens if it turns out the facts establish that he was actually invited in, and the home-owner attacked him first, then tried to invoke his innocence by declaring 'self defense'? Perhaps a drug deal gone bad?
The police refer to an 'intruder', and 'break-and-enter', but these claims are 'alleged' and have not been established in a court of law. Apparently, according to one article I read, the two knew each other.
'It's not over until it's over', and even then, it is not always over.
The police also indicated that the non-resident individual was charged with offences related to home invasion, is known to police, and had an active arrest warrant out.
Considering that farmer guy got away with shooting the native kid in the face a few years ago, I don't think these charges will stick if it's just "stabbing is fine, but he stabbed too much."
A good defense attorney will turn everything you just said against the prosecution. Everything you said was conjuncture, not supported by facts. That the police charged both men means the facts are undetermined, and they are leaving it up to a court of law to sort through. Break-and-enter is not home invasion. It is a broad catch-all.
Police took the rare step of issuing a statement after they said that news of the arrest “generated significant public interest and emotional responses” as well as “unjust and inaccurate” commentary about the officers involved.
They said investigators examined all information and evidence that was available to them before laying any charges, adding that only a limited amount of information is being released to the public at this time about this incident as to both protect the investigation as well as ensure the right of the accused during their court proceedings.
“The role of the police is to investigate impartially and present findings to the justice system, which ultimately determines the outcome,” the statement notes.
“We encourage you to follow this matter as it proceeds through the justice system.”
Most of the alleged 'facts' presented to the public so far are, at best, fabrications of the public imagination. Did Ford even once use the term 'alleged', or similar? His statements were made in public, not covered by parliamentary privilege.
He has revealed his rue colors - just like Trump, he wants to be judge, prosecutor, police commander, jury, and executioner. Ford wants to be the only Law that exists.
I despise Doug Ford in general, but I agree with him on this issue. Someone fighting for their lives does not have the time or expertise to have to be considering what is an "appropriate" response, and should not be required to. Also ACAB.
I disagree with Drug Fraud (as I almost always do). The reason being that I abhor the fact we have completely adopted the idea that our "stuff" is worth more than someone's life -- whether it be ours or someone else's.
George Carlin made fun of it, but it's true.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac&pp=0gcJCf8Ao7VqN5tD
The part I disagree with is that he's making political statements before more details are released to the public for us to judge what happened, and that he's misrepresenting what the law is. You don't need to carefully consider appropriateness and pick the perfect action. The 'reasonable' refers to doing what a reasonable person would do in your situation, and not a significant escalation past that.
This interview with a former crown prosecutor dives into it in more depth (around 4:00 minutes in)
Let's take the kown facts from what the police have said, and develop an alternative narrative, just as likely as the one Ford espoused, by filling in the gaps with just as valid conjecture.
Mary (obviously no real names are used) is being abused by her boyfriend Bob. Mary decides to move out, and Bob is angry. He will not let her take any of her belongings.
Mary enlists the help of her somewhat nefarious acquaintance, Peter, who has had dealings with Bob on the past and they do not like each other.
So Peter, at Mary's behest, goes to Bob's place to collect Mary's rightfully owned possessions, using force if becessary, because after all they do Belong to Mary. (Bailiffs do this all the time, it is a grey area of law - >Bailiffs and assistant bailiffs generally cannot use force or the threat of force when carrying out their duties. Under the Repair and Storage Liens Act, if the bailiff is acting under a writ of seizure, they may use reasonable force to enter land and premises in some circumstances If so, then other rules may apply. Bailiffs and assistant bailiffs must leave if you tell them to. If they don’t leave, you may wish to contact your local police and inform them that the bailiff or assistant bailiff does not have your consent. In these cases, the repossession or seizure is not deemed “peaceful”. Afterwards, you can also file a complaint with the ministry. https://www.ontario.ca/page/your-rights-when-dealing-bailiff). Bob lets Peter in, reluctantly, but objects to what Peter is taking (ownership is in dispute). A fight breaks out. Peter has taken tools to disassemble some of Mary's belongings, which can also be classified as break-and-enter or dangerous weapons (a screwdriver). Bob decides to teach both Peter AND Mary exactly who is the boss. So Bob gets the worst of it, neighbors call in the police, Bob gets taken to the hospital, and Peter claims 'self-defense'. The police, having knowledge of all of them, decide to charge everybody and let the detectives, attorneys, forensics, and the Judge to sort everything out.This is a mix of family, civil and criminal law and the boundaries are blurred..
So Peter not only has regularly beaten the crap out of Mary, he has beaten the crap out of Peter, and somehow he is the victim?
I would submit that this is not actually an uncommon occurrence, that the police, attorneys, and courts deal with regularly. Except that someone ended up in the hospital, perhaps the most innocent Samaritan of all..
Suddenly, the media tables are turned. Who does the media side with? Does Peter now have the unmitigated right to defend his home with any amount of force necessary against this battered spouse's representative 'invading' her own home to get her belongings back?
So let's review the difference between:
"You broke into my house and I am going to teach you a lesson you will never forget" which is against Canadian law (it is the Courts that met out justice),
and
"You broke into my house and I am going to stop you from doing further damage or injury" which Canadian law allows, and is the meaning of 'Self Defense" in Canada.
If Ford disagrees with this, he should run for governor of an American state, not the premiere of a Canadian province.
Let’s review the difference between charged and found guilty of.
Charged means we’re going to see if he acted legally or not.
Found guilty of means he acted illegally.
Hot take: anyone who hospitalizes someone else with life threatening injuries should be required to defend that action in court. "I was defending myself" is a valid argument, but one that should be heard by a judge at trial. Nobody should be allowed to skip trial entirely just by claiming self defence.
That's literally how the law works. Reasonable force means you can hurt them (pretty badly) but once they stop being a threat you have stop hurting them.
Nobody gets a free pass.
https://lemmy.ca/comment/18450264
So, dead?
It's almost unreasonable for the courts to believe that someone experiencing a home invasion would be in anything but survival mode, and would have the capacity to simply "calm down" once the threat has been stopped. Because to them, they don't know if the threat is over, or if someone else is going to bust in to kill them, or if the original attacker will fight back, or if they have a weapon, etc.
Courts should be very lenient towards homeowners deafening their life, family, and property. And if the jackass who decided to commit this crime is still alive, they should have severe consequences laid on them, with additional compensation to the homeowner for the trauma they caused.