The biggest thing I want to see tightened is the ability for a criminal who ends up injured in their attempt at accosting you to turn around and litigate against you in civil court.
There should be a standard that disqualifies you from legal proceedings against the victims of your crimes as relating directly to the crime in question, but we don't have this.
There is this one too.
[Man acquitted of firing warning shots at group who firebombed home](https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/man-acquitted-of-firing-warning-shots-at-group-who-firebombed-home-1.1102114)
Some people will say the process worked, I'm sure the person charged feels like the process was the punishment. Years of waiting and who knows how much it cost him.
> who knows how much it cost him.
From the article you posted
> Thomson said he racked up about $60,000 in legal costs during the trial, but said much of that was donated by members of the National Firearms Association, the Canadian Sports Shooting Association (CSSA) and readers of the popular pro-firearms online message board CanadianGunNutz.com.
A lot, I sold him his first gun when he got his license back, and his acquittal is the basis for every acquittal since then as well as the reason the cops won't charge you for self defense in the last decade barring extreme circumstances.
Very comforting knowing that various communities still band together to support their own during times of need. Especially as a people of any particular community should have goals and views aligned to achieve success in all their objectives no matter how small or insignificant the victories may seem.
I don't own any guns, but I support the right to protect one's self from Criminals and other sophisticated oppressors
https://youtu.be/dyiqCkgGDCQ
This was nearby to me. There was A LOT of public outcry when he was arrested and charged. I believe they also tried to charge him with improper storage because they argued there was no way he could get up, unlock a cabinet, and fire shots as quickly as he did. But it was impossible to prove. To me, this guy 100% had the gun beside his bed and not in a locked cabinet, but there was absolutely no way to prove that, so it was irrelevant. The right call was made to acquit him, but to me he should never have been charged in the first place. However, the cops were just going by law, because by definition, it was a careless discharge, regardless of circumstances.
ib4
>B-b-but your property isn't worth a human life!
1) You can't be certain it's your property they're after and 2) They're the ones making that value judgment in favour of the property when risking their life breaking in.
This is my exact response.
ESPECIALLY if you break into my home. Thats my quite literal safe space where only welcomed guests are allowed. If someone breaks into your house you should be allowed to defend yourself, family and home in any way you deem fit. If someone dies they die, don’t break into peoples houses and you won’t have this issue. Fuck these criminals.
my understanding is that in most cases a judge will determine that for you after the fact....
There must be some evidence that the person means physical harm to you specifically before you can react physically. If they stop and say "I give up, don't hurt me" you must also stop... and I guess.. just let them walk out of the house?
our property rights (or lack thereof) in Canada are a joke. We don't even have an engrained right to own property in Canada.
The problem is that there is no clearly articulated standard that is plainly written.
In principle Canadians have a right to apply proportional force in the defense of self or others, up to and including lethal force.
This article is basically about the problem that in practice interpretation of what is proportional for a rational/typical person is up to the legal system, with case law landing on either side of the fence.
All the caveats of "don't talk to police without legal advice" and all that stuff apply. I am positive that the way the facts are delivered and how they are delivered has a huge impact on the outcome for the victim turned defendant.
Thats bullshit and ripe for abuse.
He turns around fakes you out and attacks you? Fuck that if your in my house I’m going on the offensive. I don’t care.
Don’t welcome yourself into my house and the its jot a problem.
Why do we victim blame on this shit. Fuck criminals.
If this person is standing in my home uninvited, I'm not waiting for them to prove that their intention is to harm me, I'm acting immediately. And there won't exactly be any witnesses to say whether he "gave up" besides him and me.
>There must be some evidence that the person means physical harm to you specifically before you can react physically. If they stop and say "I give up, don't hurt me" you must also stop... and I guess.. just let them walk out of the house?
Which is complete horseshit.
I have to wait to get my skull caved in with a bat to retaliate?
Literally as soon as someone breaks into my home, their life and well being should be forfeit. I have no idea what they're there for or looking for, or wanting to do to me or my wife. All I know is that this person has committed one of the most personal crimes and has put me and my wife in danger. I should be allowed to retaliate by any means with any thing regardless of what might be immediately apparent of their intent.
I've always wondered how the victem is suppose to know if the people breaking in are there to harm them or take the property. Seems kinda like an inopportune time to ask.
>B-b-but your property isn't worth a human life!
Counterpoint: my property is **absolutely worth more** than the life of the stranger who just forced their way into my home.
Exactly
I don’t know about you, but I pay for my property with money that I earned by exchanging hours of my life that I’ll never get back, for money. When you steal from me, you are literally stealing my life.
Much of the people who break in are homeless and have already suffered unspeakable horrors in their life .... Your ax to their head is sometimes welcome.... That is the kind of society we live in
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/edouard-maurice-landowner-trespasser-lawsuit-ryan-watson-alberta-1.5429322
The suit was dropped. People can sue for anything, doesn't mean they win.
A couple of guys tried to steal my bike over a decade ago. Everytime I gained to upper hand, and told them to leave, they regrouped and attacked me.
At some point you need to remove the threat via serious bodily harm.
>There should be a standard that disqualifies you from legal proceedings against the victims of your crimes
That's on the lawyer taking the suit. Anyone can sue anyone for any reason. However, finding a lawyer to sue the sun for being too bright is going to be hard to find.
Courts are allowed to throw out suits on the basis of them being frivolous or vexatious, and this should be an expanded category of what we consider vexatious so that these suits can't proceed.
>However, finding a lawyer to sue the sun for being too bright is going to be hard to find.
If you pay a high enough retainer you can find a lawyer to sue a dog for licking it's balls
The issue is that this can be exploited. Someone trespassing on your property doesn’t deserve to have their skull caved in. It’s not the job of the public to administer punishment.
That being said they need better guidelines around self defence. If someone is in your home and they are brandishing a weapon, you should be able to defend yourself. Nobody should have to fear litigation around that. On the other end if you wake up to a drunk passed out on your couch, you call the police. Common sense reform is needed.
> That being said they need better guidelines around self defence. **If someone is in your home and they are brandishing a weapon, you should be able to defend yourself.** Nobody should have to fear litigation around that. On the other end if you wake up to a drunk passed out on your couch, you call the police. Common sense reform is needed.
This opinion piece doesn't really do a good job of establishing that this is an actual problem plaguing the legal system. It leans heavily on one Edward Burlew, a fairly vocal gun-rights lawyer who seems to want stand your ground-like laws on the books. We can debate the merits of that, but the point is he's very vocally biased on this issue.
The opinion piece then tells two 'horror' stories of self-defense where people defended themselves and in both cases ended with home intruders dead, followed by this line:
> **While police ultimately decided against laying charges in the above cases**, that’s not always how such incidents end.
Wait, what? But there's a big problem with people being charged in cases of self-defense! Why use two cases that prove *the exact opposite* to argue that? If it's not always how such incidents end, surely there must be many examples of it going differently!
Oh, here we go. There's a story about a home invasion where two people were tied up, managed to escape, then scared off the assailants. After the assailants had very clearly run away (e.g. the victims were no longer in harms way, the assailants had left the home), both victims *chased the assailants and fired weapons at them while they were driving away*. One of the weapons was even illegally owned. It is no longer self-defense when you are no longer under physical threat, and despite that and despite shooting people fleeing the scene, both victims of the home invasion ultimately pled guilty to illegal discharge/careless use/illegal possession charges.
It's almost as if the people were held responsible for shooting at people no longer threatening them, and illegally owning a gun, not for "punishing self-defense."
> In 2019, a Manitoba man was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to five years in prison after he stabbed to death an intruder who broke into his home and attacked him with a knife.
More details, maybe? Lots of details about the other cases are put forward, why does this get a one-liner without context? I wonder if maybe there's some details about that case that might make it read differently with context?
Hrm...
[Oh maybe it's because he](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/vincent-bunn-dakota-pratt-sentencing-1.5165442) disarmed his armed attacker, chased the man out of his home, stabbed him 13 times in the process, and then after killing him, kicked the body repeatedly. Another case where the threat had ended, and the victim of initial assault went from defending themselves to (fatally) attacking a subdued or fleeing criminal.
> These are **extreme and rare examples** of the problem with Canada’s self-defence laws ...
Indeed they are.
> ... much more common is the legal jeopardy many women face every day.
Finally a point that can be argued! How does the op-ed choose to argue them?
> In the Greater Toronto Area alone, recent months saw a woman riding public transit stabbed to death by a stranger, another woman randomly set on fire and killed, a woman shot execution-style in a gas station parking lot, and yet another attacked by a man who attempted to put a bag over her head. These are just the most violent attacks that make headlines, and don’t include the hundreds of sexual assaults Canadian cities see each year.
... okay, where in this list of events are people defending themselves and being punished for doing so? Is the argument supposed to be that the women in question did not adequately defend themselves *because* of the risk of legal jeopardy? Because that's an absolutely bizarre and unfounded leap, but it's the only one I can assume the author wants me to make, given the point of the rest of the article as written.
> Yet the items women regularly carry “just in case,” like small knives, pepper spray or keychains fashioned as potential weapons, are often illegal. Possessing them alone exposes women to potential charges, let alone the legal consequences of actually using them, even in self-defence.
Ah, there it is. If only those women above had been allowed to carry small knives and pepper spray and use keys as weapons, they'd have been able to defend themselves better and been less stabbed to death, set on fire, or (and bizarrely) unsuccessfully had a bag put over their head.
After 12 paragraphs of baseless and incoherent schlock that repeatedly admits is overblowing the stated problem, the article finally gets to something worth all of our time, but it throws it in right at the end after an uncritical reader is likely already good an outraged:
> When it comes to domestic violence, which spiked during the pandemic, women are also too often charged for attempting to protect themselves. This is exacerbated by “mandatory charging” laws for domestic abuse incidents that can see police either misidentify the aggressor or charge both aggressor and victim.
The final paragraph is a capstone to a thesis not actually defended by the rest of the op-ed. And then, the final line:
> It’s time to reform the Criminal Code to ensure we no longer blame the victims.
... seriously begs the question as to if we actually blame the victims or not. The ONLY paragraph that seems to demonstrate this happens is the third last, and it is barely explored, barely discussed, no examples are brought forward to illustrate the problem, and the only supporting evidence are two links to women's domestic violence supports and some legal research that illustrate how the problem exists in a fairly narrow scope defined by gendered lines and domestic violence. Not, say, home invasion, or being stabbed on a bus.
Now, don't get me wrong. The issues brought up in the third last paragraph are serious, and need serious discussion and solutions. Because of domestic violence laws, women face a difficult road when they are defending themselves against their partner. But that isn't what this article is about! 12 paragraphs about self defense, 3 discussing women as victims broadly (including another bait and switch), and 1 with substance about the very real domestic violence problem. It is shitty of this author to conflate several examples of home invasion self-defense (where no charges were laid for said self-defense), public assaults where self-defense doesn't even appear to be part of the problem, and domestic partner violence cases. It's a gross bait and switch.
This article is trash and garbage, and clearly illustrates multiple cases where people have defended themselves in their home without being charged, up to and including the murder (in self defense) of assailants while trying to argue it's a major problem.
> If someone is in your home and they are brandishing a weapon, you should be able to defend yourself
What if that person is a foot taller than you and much more physically adept? What if you’re physically disabled? What if you live in a rural community and the police could be more than an hour away? There are certainly criminals who could kill me with only their hands in this country.
At what point is using a weapon to defend yourself, your family, your home, your livelihood, etc. reasonable? I think some American states have overzealous self-defense laws, but they tend to better recognise the right to protect one’s own life - why should an intruder possessing a weapon be the discriminator for the appropriateness of the response? How is one supposed to know whether the intruder *has* a weapon if it’s dark, if the weapon is concealed, etc.
What if one arms themself to confront an intruder and ends up in an altercation? Is it their fault for being ready for more danger? I think the blame should clearly skew towards perpetrators of home invasion - you should have few assurances of safety if you break into a home, knowing you threaten the owner.
It may be the police’s job to intercept criminals (it’s actually not really, and there’s no guarantee they’ll do anything to help you), but it’s every person’s right to defend themselves when illegally threatened. Idgaf if the police show up after I’m FUBAR and file a report, preventing harm to oneself should trump an intruder’s expectations of safety. I’m not advocating for the blanket execution of home invaders, but we shouldn’t be subject to Kafkaesque court processes for keeping ourselves alive.
I think the problem that you and the person you’re responding to are identifying are the reason why the article in the OP isn’t very helpful. There are simply too many variables to try to make blanket statements about what needs to be done. It’s always going to be done on a case by case basis no matter what, and chances are that some of them will be bungled no matter how the laws are written
> Someone trespassing on your property doesn’t deserve to have their skull caved in.
But who is to say that they wont do that to you? Like yeah, someone that has stumbled onto your yard, not that exigent.... But finding them in your home in the middle of the night after breaking in..... all bets are off.
Yup. My bedroom is in the basement, if they've broken in upstairs I have no way out of the house. I'll be hiding in the basement with a hammer and if they happen to come downstairs, I'm going to pop out of the closet and hit them as hard as I can, preferably right in the face. I'm not a fighter, I don't know what their intentions are, I don't know if they're armed, and I don't have time to find out.
Fortunately home invasions are exceedingly rare.
This happened to me. My ex started abusing me. Wrapped his arm around my throat from behind, then lifed my 18 year old, 80 lb body off the ground by my throat to throw me down the stairs. I panicked.. from not being able to breathe, fought back and was able to turn my head enough to bite him hard in the forearm. That shocked him into dropping me. I ran back into the house and called the police.
Police come arrested me for spousal assault because I bit him. I had brusies the size of grapefruits on me already including a broken finger and fingernail torn off right to the quick. I went back to the police the next day to get pictures done.
I went to court. Explained how it was self defence. They were having none of it.. I was a bawling mess. They were threatning me with contempt of court. Ma'am you wont listen to me, have let my abuser off scott free, and Im suposta hold my composure when being told I am being charged, and this will be on my permenent record?! Duty councel was 0 help.
There was no justice in that courtroom that day.
I, too, was treated like absolute shit by the JP during my initial arraignment and appearance. Absolute disrespect, being told I wasn't taking things seriously enough because I was in a state of shock (And I had a fractured orbital process - which I had to sleep on the entirety of a night in jail, before being released on bail to seek medical help/xrays).
Duty council was of 0 legal help, but she at least pulled me aside to tell me she'd be furious too, and just to limit myself to 1 word answers, things would resolve in the end. I owe that woman, aha.
makes zero sense eh?
just because you are in a state of shock doesn't mean your information is unreliable?
and if you are in shock? why do they treat you so inhumanely? Why is Canada's justice system so messed up?????
Your story just pisses me off that it happened to you and that you're not the only one it happens to. You were 80 lbs at the time, what were your other options? There were none.
>You were 80 lbs at the time, what were your other options? There were none.
Remember situations like this when thinking about the government banning any and all forms of self-defense weapons. It's primarily an attack on those who are smaller and weaker, so mostly women.
Making pepper spray illegal isn't going to stop the rapist/abusive BF/mugger but it will prevent their (much weaker than them) victims from properly defending themselves.
100% Ive always carried a pocket knife (for opening bags of chips) and a small pipe (to slip over the tire iron to make a lever if/when I need to change a tire) since. The world can be a dangerous place when you are slight, female and short.
Crazy. The strength disparity between men and woman is huge and chokes can put you out in seconds. If someone is choking you it is reasonable to assume that they intend to kill you.
As would I, its been a long time. I checked CSO I couldnt find any record. This was from 2006, do you have the ability to access records from then? Feel free to PM me.
If I feel there is a real and immediate physical threat against myself or another family member, I'm going to act to stop that threat. I mean something like a lunatic with a knife breaking into my house in the middle of the night.
That's why I have a baseball bat propped up in the corner by our bed. In the last twenty year I haven't had a reason to wield it, but it's there just in case. And if that day ever comes, I'm certainly not going to think about whether or not I have a moral right to defend myself/family. I'm just going to start swinging for the fences.
Not to rain on your parade, but a baseball bat is terrible for home defense.
It’s long and awkward to swing in a small space.
Cut that mf down a little bit to make it more manageable, and put a sock over the end.
If someone tries to grab it, they’ll grab the sock.
As brutal as it is, a long framing hammer is much better. The weight means you don’t need as much wind-up to deliver the same amount of energy, and you can swing it more easily in the confined space of a hallway.
Just saying.
I have this extremely heavy and bright flashlight from Costco next to my bed, and it would blind someone long enough to either fight or flee.
At the end of the day, none of us know how we'd react until it happens.
Plans are still good, though. Being completely unprepared will only create extreme panic. I live alone, so maybe I spend more time thinking about it than the majority.
I avoid suggesting a flashlight as its kinda hit and miss.
Unless you’re a big /r/Flashlight enthusiast and have some wild shit on strobe, it won’t help you much.
You’d be better off keeping some **dog** spray in your house in case a **dog** breaks in and you need to spray the **dog** with some **dog** spray.
I got some dog spray off amazon that is like jelly and sticks to whatever is sprayed so you better have good aim with that shit lol but it doesn't gas a room even, tested lol.
A baseball bat is fine in tight spaces, you just have to thrust forward with it instead of swinging it. The sock on the end isn't bad advice though. Thanks!
All my time playing zombie games has prepped me for this moment. A baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire with a table saw blade fixed in the end of the bat. Perfect home defense weapon.
All I can think of is the "Musket for home defense" copypasta.
> Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
>Just as the founding fathers intended.
Why can't we have the same kind of artillery like they intended anymore?
We're getting ripped of. I want my cannons back.
A baseball bat is just a baseball bat, a reasonable thing to have around the house. If you defend yourself from someone with a weapon with a bat, you are never going to be charged.
If you modify a bat so it's only a weapon, then a lawyer is going to argue that you were looking for an excuse to use that weapon.
Don't make it easy for someone to build a case against you.
Same idea about a hammer, but I'd just use a dead blow hammer. It's less likely to stick into a person's body parts.
If you hit someone with a framing hammer in the head high possibility you break through and have the hammer stuck now.
You're absolutely right. A lot of people have a bat or golf club as their go to but those pretty useless in a hallway.
You can get kid sized bats, can't you?
Some cracked out dude tried to kick down our door at 3AM a few years ago. Since then I've slept with a knife beside the bed.
If someone kicks down our door, you best believe I'm stabbing until there's no possible chance of them getting up again. I'm not going to politely ask if he's armed first.
Yeah, that's what you have to do. Survival at all costs is job one, dealing with the legal fallout is secondary to that.
At the end of the day, even if you get charged and convicted of manslaughter you'll be out in what, a couple of years? That sucks, but it's still better than being dead, blinded, disfigured or crippled for life.
It’s almost like this article’s title is absolute bullshit and this is already what happens. Literally the two main examples the article tried to use were investigated and dropped because they seemed to be reasonable self defense. The only position change it could possibly be arguing here is that police shouldn’t investigate murders if they’re in your home.
Ooooo in Canada? You better have a good reason for that bat being there! If you weren't planning on playing midnight baseball in the sandlot next door then what you did was premeditated escalation of the situation! You should have just let the guy come and go as he pleases! Smh. Crazy self defense nuts. Haha.
Someone here in Yellowknife actually just recently got cleared for someone's death after defending themselves.
https://cabinradio.ca/114235/news/yellowknife/prosecutors-clear-man-involved-in-fatal-yellowknife-fight/
Was pleasantly surprised to see that it wasn't the assailant that got a free pass, that's what I expected from the headline.
That reads like the one person struck the other in defence and the aggressor then fell and hit their head and suffered a traumatic brain injury.
Too many lives have been lost to this, a bit of roughhousing in a bad spot and someone ends up with brain damage or dead. No one intends it, but we can be very fragile.
Why shouldn't I be able to be able to defend myself?
Scenario
It's 2 am
Wife and I are sleeping
Dog starts barking
Hear something
2 men trying to break into my house and 1 may be armed
Police are 5-30 minutes away (urban to rural)
They are 4 minutes away from getting in
What should I do? Why can't I be legally armed?
Why are you defending someone violating someone's right?
You are absolutely allowed to defend yourself. Your force has to be appropriate. If they’re attacking you with a knife and you shoot them with your legal gun, you’ll be fine after the investigation. If your dog has run them off and you shoot them in the back from 100 yards away as they flee, not so much.
The problems lies with if you can't identify if they have a weapon or not or if it's just concealed. What if they grab a knife from my kitchen before I decide to use force against them? If someone is unarmed in your house, it's still a deadly situation warranting physical force which could *potentially* be deadly.
I'm not one to pass judgement on victims of home invasions. Expecting them to do legal calculus in their head at 3am trying to decide how much force they should use to stop the threat is ridiculous. Obviously if someone is fleeing that's clear enough, but the way the law is written gives too much leeway for suspects and not enough for victims.
Victims should not have to be worried about getting caught up in the legal system for using *potentially* deadly force against home invaders in what will probably be the largest fight or flight response in their life.
You don't have to do any legal calculus in your head, and the courts don't expect you to either.
http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Self-Defence_and_Defence_of_Another
> When considering the objective component to the defence, "the court must be alive to the fact that people in stressful and dangerous situations do not have time for subtle reflection".
You can also use the defence if you have mistaken them as having a weapon. (Victim being the invader).
> The defence can still be invoked even where there is a reasonable mistake of fact.[1] This could include a reasonable belief that the victim was armed.
And the calculus is even worse if you consider that some Canadians have legal firearms while some intruders may have illegal ones.
I would definitely use the most effective weapon at hand to defend my safety.
Are they really expecting you to yell "I have double-barrelled shotgun and a kitchen knife, what are you armed with so I can use equal force to chase you out"?
Its just so washy. How are you supposed to determine what weapon they have within a split second in the middle of the darkness of night. It seems you have to wait to get stabbed before you can try and find a weapon to stab them back with.
And from my understanding if you get put through the court system even if you are innocent at the end of the day it will be hard to gain high level employment when anything other than nothing comes up on a background check or Google search.
This article does a piss-poor job of using examples to support the point it's trying to make.
For example, the first mention of recent self-defence killings in Halifax goes on to casually mention "in both of these cases, the police declined to pursue charges". Um... okay? So in other words, the killings were deemed justifiable and no charges were laid. The first two examples *literally* undermine the headline that victims are being punished.
The next example it gives is of a guy getting a one-year conditional sentence (i.e. never saw the inside of a prison cell) for killing a burglar in self-defence. Except the sentence (which again - was non-custodial) was for having an illegal firearm, *not* for blowing the burglar away in self-defence.
The third (and final) example it gives is the only legit one I can see in the article (someone got five years manslaughter for stabbing a home invader) - and it's from four years ago.
You'd think that if this was the endemic problem that the author posits it to be, they would have *zero* difficulty finding a whole ton of recent examples that prove their point. The fact that they're obviously grasping for straws in terms of concrete examples shows this is probably just an opinion piece to rile up the plebes with something that *feels* like it must happen often (but actually doesn't).
I listened to someone try to say that if there was a mass murderer in Canada that killed a bunch of people, and he chose to step up and shoot the mass murderer that “damn right I’d be the one charged with murder and spend the rest of my life in jail!”. I wanted him to apply some critical thinking to the situation so I asked him if there was precedent for this assumption. I got brushed off, because the knew the answer was no. The examples of self defence instances that he gave were all examples that ended in no charges. He was still adamant that he’d end up in jail. There’s no winning. You can’t convince someone with facts when their feelings mean more to them than facts.
According to him all criminals go free and all good guys go to jail. It’s a black and white issue. This article was written for people like him.
>You can’t convince someone with facts when their feelings mean more to them than facts.
This is exactly it. There's too much op-ed "news" these days that's put out there because it *feels* right. It *feels* intuitive. It *feels* well-aligned with someone's existing worldview. Even when the facts don't actually support it.
It *feels* like liberal, gun-hating Canada must routinely and brutally punish innocent people who are just defending themselves... and so people don't think critically about that claim, or ask for actual proof it's a commonplace occurrence.
To be honest though, I find that people of all political leanings are prone to this, it's not just a right-wing thing.
A great example I saw recently was in one of the dozens of "grocery store profiteering is responsible for the sky-high grocery prices you're paying!" articles. Once again, a claim that *feels* right. It *feels* intuitive. It aligns beautifully with the trope that large corporations are evil...
...until someone deconstructed it by pointing out that profit margins only account for one to three cents per dollar of groceries. So even if Galen Weston increases his margins by 50%, it would be barely perceptible to the average shopper since profit is such a tiny component of the overall price.
But once again, because it *feels* accurate that Loblaws profiteering must be the source of food inflation, virtually no one bothers to dig any deeper and actually do the math that disproves the claim.
> Yet the items women regularly carry “just in case,” like small knives, pepper spray or keychains fashioned as potential weapons, are often illegal. Possessing them alone exposes women to potential charges, let alone the legal consequences of actually using them, even in self-defence.
Carrying a weapon on your person for defence against people is always illegal, not often. It's the intention that matters, not the actual object. Carrying a brick or toaster is a crime, if you intend to use it for defence against people.
Officer: why do you have bear/dog spray in your purse?
My wife: we go for hikes in the forest, also in the city at night. We’ve been attacked by stray dogs before. The dog spray is for dogs.
That’s the appropriate answer to that question.
Anyone actually read the linked article, or is this just more Natpo + editorialized headline / opinion piece = invitation for conservatives to vomit stream of consciousness nonsense?
The example of police discretionary prosecution was a guy who was tied up by home invaders with a shotgun. They managed to get out, get the shotgun and scare them off with the birdshot it was loaded with. That was not seen as unreasonable.
What was seen as unreasonable was grabbing a rifle they had procured outside of legal pathways, and shooting the vehicle as they fled the property, and wanging the guy in the back with a rifle bullet.
Shoot active threat: self defense
Shoot actively fleeing person without active threat : not
While I agree that relying on police discretion for prosecution sucks nubbins, it is for a different reason than those being implied here. When you give cops the ability to flex their judgement, typically it flexes a specific way.
Agreed. As someone who has learned the basics of self defense statutes (security guard training), I have absolutely zero fear of defending myself. The laws are very clear that you can defend yourself with reasonable force as long as you stop when the threat is over. I'm sure the case law is even more favourable to people defending themselves.
There is no story here.
Its Natpo. Their product isnt news, it is astroturfing conservative outrage. If you see it posted on r/canada, downvote, because it functionally is someone trying to stoke conservative narratives, and it will always violate the subreddit rules for being editorialized.
There is a reason there are multiple canada subreddits. This one has some really odd and unfortunate choices.
Exactly. As far as I'm concerned, once you've started attacking me or broken into my house you have willfully given up your protection by the law. Obviously if they try to flee don't chase them down, but if someone is being attacked and they end up killing the attacker in self defense I have absolutely zero sympathy for that attacker.
Yeah, generally people view this issue from the perspective of someone who was completely justified in using the defence they did. But when considering how we want the justice system to work, we need to consider all possibilities. Up to and including the far other end of the spectrum, where someone invites another person to their house with intent to kill them and claims self defence. And all possibilities in between. Justice system needs to consider all possibilities before deciding not to pursue charges.
Yes please. Being arrested for pushing an attacker (My SO) off of me after they hit me repeatedly with a blunt weapon - and facing a potential sentence of 5 years for it, costing me my sanity and half of my retirement funds to form a legal defense - has destroyed my opinion of our legal system, and evaporated my respect for authority of any kind. The last point is extremely dangerous, too, in light of mediocre policing and workplace insubordination policies.
I'd love to afford therapy for this as well, but alas, *Ontario*.
And if you must defend yourself, don't tell 911 dispatch (I made the call) you pushed your spouse off you. Apparently even civilian dispatch qualifies as a cop you don't talk to.
>It really irks me people are against self defense and owning guns while they support politicians that are surrounded by armed guards.
Agreed, but worse still are judges who are against self-defense but who then insist on enhanced levels of security protection for themselves (in the absence of any specific, credible threat). There's no coherent philosophical justification for this that isn't anathema to me, nor is there any data-based rational justification. Judges should live in the same world they insist others live in.
Here’s where “self defense” will always fail as an argument.
If the perpetrator(s) is/are *leaving* the scene of the crime, that’s it, you don’t get to “chase they/them” as they flee, you call the authorities and let them handle it.
Any attempt to pursue as the perpetrator(s) flee isn’t about self defense anymore, it’s about revenge.
Too many of these “self defense” arguments fail that basic test.
Her preamble invalidated her point. I'd be much more open minded to hear what you have to say if your first few statements don't make me groan and put down my phone.
Additionally, you chose to highlight a case where two people fired guns at fleeing criminals? That's what you want to call self defence? Shooting someone running away in the back with an illegal firearm?
We need a Canadian castle doctrine. You invade someone's home there should be 0 consequences for the victim.
Edit: Ok I'm seeing a pattern. Not many know what castle doctrine is. You have to prove the entry was forced and it doesn't apply to the whole property only the inside of the home aka the castle. Also part of this is absolving the homeowner of liability so the home invader can't sue because of an injury or something like that.
>Ok I'm seeing a pattern. Not many know what castle doctrine is
There seems to be a large percentage that are confusing castle doctrine with stand your ground laws and some of what is coming out of the USA and don't realize a not insignificant number of European countries have castle doctrine
Criminals should not be able to operate on a presumption that they have some guarantee of safety under the law when they’re committing crimes. It should be the opposite.
I like that her first example of being punished for using self-defence is that a homeowner shot an intruder in the back as he was driving away in a truck.
Edited for clarity
Until the laws are changed, people should be aware that [jury nullification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Canada) is a thing, even in Canada. It was jury nullification that got our abortion law struck down.
So mugh fiend live rurally out side a Village in the bc interior.
His father, mother, wife, and children also live on the home stead. It's about ten minutes from the village nearby.
One night, he heard his car alarms going off and opening his front door to find a man attempting to break into his cars. He yells at him, and the man charges him. He slams the door shut and his wife's tarts calling 911. The intruder attempts several times to get the door open. My friend goes for his rifle, but decides to call is call his father and warm him instead. His father tells him not to bring a gun out or that he will be forced to use it.
The intruder continues to move around the property as they have several cars between the family members. The local police station has no one on staff and has dispatched police from a town nearby. My friend decided he needed to confront this guy. His father is racing back to the property.
My friend goes outside, and immediately, the guy attacks him. They end up wrestling on the ground, and the intruder get the upper hand. Just then, his father arrives and whacks the intruder over the back with a fence post. They dog pile on him and restrain him.
For over an hour, they sit on this guy, as he promises he's going to come back with a gang and kill him, and says horrible and violent things about my friends family. His wife is still severely traumized by this.
Finally the police arrive. The intruder had escaped from a healing lodge located nearby and was on the run. Not only did he escape, but the lodge was not even aware he was missing. The police started ripping into my friend and his father.
In my opinion, he did the right thing. He has many neighbors who are older or alone. They are fairly remote. He criminal was getting more desperate, especially after the police had been notified (even though they had done over an hour to drive about 25 minutes). They restrained the man with outany serious injuries.
But here's the icing on the cake.
Thanks to our ridiculous legal system, the felon was placed back into the healing lodge and immediately escaped with a few other guys, and they were on the run for weeks.
I see many people in the comments talking about hypothetical scenarios. Well, they happen. In my opinion, he should have shot him. He was given n opportunity to surrender or leave but chose aggression.
Many canadians assume the rcmp or local police will magically appear. That they will stop the person. They think because they don't want to ever defend themselves that other people shouldn't have the right to either.
For rural Canadians, this is a real threat. But even in the city, it's a common thing. I've seen multiple home invasions in the news recently. Including a person who used an ice fishing auger to mine through theor downs stairs neighbors ceiling and ruthlessly attack them. The victim is facing charges for using inappropriate force in retaliation.
I don't think we should have some right to shoot thieves in our garden shed or open carry a 357 into Walmart. But I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want the right to protect their life, family, and home.
When I took my firearms course, the teacher was an ex Mountie. He said you absolutely cannot shoot someone in self defense. But if you do, shoot to kill so that you don’t get sued afterward.
The biggest thing I want to see tightened is the ability for a criminal who ends up injured in their attempt at accosting you to turn around and litigate against you in civil court. There should be a standard that disqualifies you from legal proceedings against the victims of your crimes as relating directly to the crime in question, but we don't have this.
Absolutely!! It's insanity that someone can try to break into your home, hurt themselves, and sue you. Like..wtf is that!?
There is this one too. [Man acquitted of firing warning shots at group who firebombed home](https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/man-acquitted-of-firing-warning-shots-at-group-who-firebombed-home-1.1102114) Some people will say the process worked, I'm sure the person charged feels like the process was the punishment. Years of waiting and who knows how much it cost him.
> who knows how much it cost him. From the article you posted > Thomson said he racked up about $60,000 in legal costs during the trial, but said much of that was donated by members of the National Firearms Association, the Canadian Sports Shooting Association (CSSA) and readers of the popular pro-firearms online message board CanadianGunNutz.com.
So he got lucky basically that other people donated money.
Americas healthcare system right now
I'm happy to hear the community came together to help this man.
You would hope that's how it would be for anybody in these situations, since the laws are atrocious here.
Damn right. We need a change here. Things in this country are ass-backwards at this point.
A lot, I sold him his first gun when he got his license back, and his acquittal is the basis for every acquittal since then as well as the reason the cops won't charge you for self defense in the last decade barring extreme circumstances.
Very comforting knowing that various communities still band together to support their own during times of need. Especially as a people of any particular community should have goals and views aligned to achieve success in all their objectives no matter how small or insignificant the victories may seem. I don't own any guns, but I support the right to protect one's self from Criminals and other sophisticated oppressors
It's generally gonna be more expensive to be the one setting the precedent.
have not heard the tale of Ian Thompson in a while.
https://youtu.be/dyiqCkgGDCQ This was nearby to me. There was A LOT of public outcry when he was arrested and charged. I believe they also tried to charge him with improper storage because they argued there was no way he could get up, unlock a cabinet, and fire shots as quickly as he did. But it was impossible to prove. To me, this guy 100% had the gun beside his bed and not in a locked cabinet, but there was absolutely no way to prove that, so it was irrelevant. The right call was made to acquit him, but to me he should never have been charged in the first place. However, the cops were just going by law, because by definition, it was a careless discharge, regardless of circumstances.
I remember this one on CGN. They were relentlessly trying to nail Ian with multiple firearms related charges for him trying to protect his property.
There's also home security video of a molotov landing near his tied up dog outside.
[удалено]
ib4 >B-b-but your property isn't worth a human life! 1) You can't be certain it's your property they're after and 2) They're the ones making that value judgment in favour of the property when risking their life breaking in.
>>B-b-but your property isn't worth a human life! It isn't. Which is why no one should be risking theirs trying to take it
This is my exact response. ESPECIALLY if you break into my home. Thats my quite literal safe space where only welcomed guests are allowed. If someone breaks into your house you should be allowed to defend yourself, family and home in any way you deem fit. If someone dies they die, don’t break into peoples houses and you won’t have this issue. Fuck these criminals.
Like the saying goes, "I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6"
my understanding is that in most cases a judge will determine that for you after the fact.... There must be some evidence that the person means physical harm to you specifically before you can react physically. If they stop and say "I give up, don't hurt me" you must also stop... and I guess.. just let them walk out of the house? our property rights (or lack thereof) in Canada are a joke. We don't even have an engrained right to own property in Canada.
The problem is that there is no clearly articulated standard that is plainly written. In principle Canadians have a right to apply proportional force in the defense of self or others, up to and including lethal force. This article is basically about the problem that in practice interpretation of what is proportional for a rational/typical person is up to the legal system, with case law landing on either side of the fence. All the caveats of "don't talk to police without legal advice" and all that stuff apply. I am positive that the way the facts are delivered and how they are delivered has a huge impact on the outcome for the victim turned defendant.
Thats bullshit and ripe for abuse. He turns around fakes you out and attacks you? Fuck that if your in my house I’m going on the offensive. I don’t care. Don’t welcome yourself into my house and the its jot a problem. Why do we victim blame on this shit. Fuck criminals.
If this person is standing in my home uninvited, I'm not waiting for them to prove that their intention is to harm me, I'm acting immediately. And there won't exactly be any witnesses to say whether he "gave up" besides him and me.
>There must be some evidence that the person means physical harm to you specifically before you can react physically. If they stop and say "I give up, don't hurt me" you must also stop... and I guess.. just let them walk out of the house? Which is complete horseshit. I have to wait to get my skull caved in with a bat to retaliate? Literally as soon as someone breaks into my home, their life and well being should be forfeit. I have no idea what they're there for or looking for, or wanting to do to me or my wife. All I know is that this person has committed one of the most personal crimes and has put me and my wife in danger. I should be allowed to retaliate by any means with any thing regardless of what might be immediately apparent of their intent.
that's a pretty good summary of the disconnect between certain people and the majority of Canadians, yep.
I've always wondered how the victem is suppose to know if the people breaking in are there to harm them or take the property. Seems kinda like an inopportune time to ask.
>B-b-but your property isn't worth a human life! Counterpoint: my property is **absolutely worth more** than the life of the stranger who just forced their way into my home.
And the best part, it's the stranger that instigated the situation that defined that value for you!
Yeah good point, it was the stranger who devalued their own life by dragging me into their bullshit.
Hard agree
Counter point. If property isn't worth a human life the person shouldn't have broken into property, risking his human life
Exactly I don’t know about you, but I pay for my property with money that I earned by exchanging hours of my life that I’ll never get back, for money. When you steal from me, you are literally stealing my life.
Much of the people who break in are homeless and have already suffered unspeakable horrors in their life .... Your ax to their head is sometimes welcome.... That is the kind of society we live in
I just want to live in a world where claymore roombas are not only legal, but encouraged.
DUST DETECTED, clearing the area. \*loudest boom you ever heard\* DUST DISPOSED OF.
We talking sword, or explosive?
Tally Ho lads intensifies
RIP neighbour's dog
Has this happened? If you have a link to an incident you’re thinking of I’d love to read it
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/eddie-maurice-rural-homeowner-shooting-trespasser-lawsuit-intruder-watson-1.5295370
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/edouard-maurice-landowner-trespasser-lawsuit-ryan-watson-alberta-1.5429322 The suit was dropped. People can sue for anything, doesn't mean they win.
True, thank you for the research and correcting me.
A couple of guys tried to steal my bike over a decade ago. Everytime I gained to upper hand, and told them to leave, they regrouped and attacked me. At some point you need to remove the threat via serious bodily harm.
>There should be a standard that disqualifies you from legal proceedings against the victims of your crimes That's on the lawyer taking the suit. Anyone can sue anyone for any reason. However, finding a lawyer to sue the sun for being too bright is going to be hard to find.
Courts are allowed to throw out suits on the basis of them being frivolous or vexatious, and this should be an expanded category of what we consider vexatious so that these suits can't proceed.
>However, finding a lawyer to sue the sun for being too bright is going to be hard to find. If you pay a high enough retainer you can find a lawyer to sue a dog for licking it's balls
The issue is that this can be exploited. Someone trespassing on your property doesn’t deserve to have their skull caved in. It’s not the job of the public to administer punishment. That being said they need better guidelines around self defence. If someone is in your home and they are brandishing a weapon, you should be able to defend yourself. Nobody should have to fear litigation around that. On the other end if you wake up to a drunk passed out on your couch, you call the police. Common sense reform is needed.
Yes, I agree with you on this.
> That being said they need better guidelines around self defence. **If someone is in your home and they are brandishing a weapon, you should be able to defend yourself.** Nobody should have to fear litigation around that. On the other end if you wake up to a drunk passed out on your couch, you call the police. Common sense reform is needed. This opinion piece doesn't really do a good job of establishing that this is an actual problem plaguing the legal system. It leans heavily on one Edward Burlew, a fairly vocal gun-rights lawyer who seems to want stand your ground-like laws on the books. We can debate the merits of that, but the point is he's very vocally biased on this issue. The opinion piece then tells two 'horror' stories of self-defense where people defended themselves and in both cases ended with home intruders dead, followed by this line: > **While police ultimately decided against laying charges in the above cases**, that’s not always how such incidents end. Wait, what? But there's a big problem with people being charged in cases of self-defense! Why use two cases that prove *the exact opposite* to argue that? If it's not always how such incidents end, surely there must be many examples of it going differently! Oh, here we go. There's a story about a home invasion where two people were tied up, managed to escape, then scared off the assailants. After the assailants had very clearly run away (e.g. the victims were no longer in harms way, the assailants had left the home), both victims *chased the assailants and fired weapons at them while they were driving away*. One of the weapons was even illegally owned. It is no longer self-defense when you are no longer under physical threat, and despite that and despite shooting people fleeing the scene, both victims of the home invasion ultimately pled guilty to illegal discharge/careless use/illegal possession charges. It's almost as if the people were held responsible for shooting at people no longer threatening them, and illegally owning a gun, not for "punishing self-defense." > In 2019, a Manitoba man was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to five years in prison after he stabbed to death an intruder who broke into his home and attacked him with a knife. More details, maybe? Lots of details about the other cases are put forward, why does this get a one-liner without context? I wonder if maybe there's some details about that case that might make it read differently with context? Hrm... [Oh maybe it's because he](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/vincent-bunn-dakota-pratt-sentencing-1.5165442) disarmed his armed attacker, chased the man out of his home, stabbed him 13 times in the process, and then after killing him, kicked the body repeatedly. Another case where the threat had ended, and the victim of initial assault went from defending themselves to (fatally) attacking a subdued or fleeing criminal. > These are **extreme and rare examples** of the problem with Canada’s self-defence laws ... Indeed they are. > ... much more common is the legal jeopardy many women face every day. Finally a point that can be argued! How does the op-ed choose to argue them? > In the Greater Toronto Area alone, recent months saw a woman riding public transit stabbed to death by a stranger, another woman randomly set on fire and killed, a woman shot execution-style in a gas station parking lot, and yet another attacked by a man who attempted to put a bag over her head. These are just the most violent attacks that make headlines, and don’t include the hundreds of sexual assaults Canadian cities see each year. ... okay, where in this list of events are people defending themselves and being punished for doing so? Is the argument supposed to be that the women in question did not adequately defend themselves *because* of the risk of legal jeopardy? Because that's an absolutely bizarre and unfounded leap, but it's the only one I can assume the author wants me to make, given the point of the rest of the article as written. > Yet the items women regularly carry “just in case,” like small knives, pepper spray or keychains fashioned as potential weapons, are often illegal. Possessing them alone exposes women to potential charges, let alone the legal consequences of actually using them, even in self-defence. Ah, there it is. If only those women above had been allowed to carry small knives and pepper spray and use keys as weapons, they'd have been able to defend themselves better and been less stabbed to death, set on fire, or (and bizarrely) unsuccessfully had a bag put over their head. After 12 paragraphs of baseless and incoherent schlock that repeatedly admits is overblowing the stated problem, the article finally gets to something worth all of our time, but it throws it in right at the end after an uncritical reader is likely already good an outraged: > When it comes to domestic violence, which spiked during the pandemic, women are also too often charged for attempting to protect themselves. This is exacerbated by “mandatory charging” laws for domestic abuse incidents that can see police either misidentify the aggressor or charge both aggressor and victim. The final paragraph is a capstone to a thesis not actually defended by the rest of the op-ed. And then, the final line: > It’s time to reform the Criminal Code to ensure we no longer blame the victims. ... seriously begs the question as to if we actually blame the victims or not. The ONLY paragraph that seems to demonstrate this happens is the third last, and it is barely explored, barely discussed, no examples are brought forward to illustrate the problem, and the only supporting evidence are two links to women's domestic violence supports and some legal research that illustrate how the problem exists in a fairly narrow scope defined by gendered lines and domestic violence. Not, say, home invasion, or being stabbed on a bus. Now, don't get me wrong. The issues brought up in the third last paragraph are serious, and need serious discussion and solutions. Because of domestic violence laws, women face a difficult road when they are defending themselves against their partner. But that isn't what this article is about! 12 paragraphs about self defense, 3 discussing women as victims broadly (including another bait and switch), and 1 with substance about the very real domestic violence problem. It is shitty of this author to conflate several examples of home invasion self-defense (where no charges were laid for said self-defense), public assaults where self-defense doesn't even appear to be part of the problem, and domestic partner violence cases. It's a gross bait and switch. This article is trash and garbage, and clearly illustrates multiple cases where people have defended themselves in their home without being charged, up to and including the murder (in self defense) of assailants while trying to argue it's a major problem.
[удалено]
All you need to read is the headline. The host and the opinion piece flair. NP is just doing their thing.
> If someone is in your home and they are brandishing a weapon, you should be able to defend yourself What if that person is a foot taller than you and much more physically adept? What if you’re physically disabled? What if you live in a rural community and the police could be more than an hour away? There are certainly criminals who could kill me with only their hands in this country. At what point is using a weapon to defend yourself, your family, your home, your livelihood, etc. reasonable? I think some American states have overzealous self-defense laws, but they tend to better recognise the right to protect one’s own life - why should an intruder possessing a weapon be the discriminator for the appropriateness of the response? How is one supposed to know whether the intruder *has* a weapon if it’s dark, if the weapon is concealed, etc. What if one arms themself to confront an intruder and ends up in an altercation? Is it their fault for being ready for more danger? I think the blame should clearly skew towards perpetrators of home invasion - you should have few assurances of safety if you break into a home, knowing you threaten the owner. It may be the police’s job to intercept criminals (it’s actually not really, and there’s no guarantee they’ll do anything to help you), but it’s every person’s right to defend themselves when illegally threatened. Idgaf if the police show up after I’m FUBAR and file a report, preventing harm to oneself should trump an intruder’s expectations of safety. I’m not advocating for the blanket execution of home invaders, but we shouldn’t be subject to Kafkaesque court processes for keeping ourselves alive.
I think the problem that you and the person you’re responding to are identifying are the reason why the article in the OP isn’t very helpful. There are simply too many variables to try to make blanket statements about what needs to be done. It’s always going to be done on a case by case basis no matter what, and chances are that some of them will be bungled no matter how the laws are written
> Someone trespassing on your property doesn’t deserve to have their skull caved in. But who is to say that they wont do that to you? Like yeah, someone that has stumbled onto your yard, not that exigent.... But finding them in your home in the middle of the night after breaking in..... all bets are off.
Yup. My bedroom is in the basement, if they've broken in upstairs I have no way out of the house. I'll be hiding in the basement with a hammer and if they happen to come downstairs, I'm going to pop out of the closet and hit them as hard as I can, preferably right in the face. I'm not a fighter, I don't know what their intentions are, I don't know if they're armed, and I don't have time to find out. Fortunately home invasions are exceedingly rare.
[удалено]
This happened to me. My ex started abusing me. Wrapped his arm around my throat from behind, then lifed my 18 year old, 80 lb body off the ground by my throat to throw me down the stairs. I panicked.. from not being able to breathe, fought back and was able to turn my head enough to bite him hard in the forearm. That shocked him into dropping me. I ran back into the house and called the police. Police come arrested me for spousal assault because I bit him. I had brusies the size of grapefruits on me already including a broken finger and fingernail torn off right to the quick. I went back to the police the next day to get pictures done. I went to court. Explained how it was self defence. They were having none of it.. I was a bawling mess. They were threatning me with contempt of court. Ma'am you wont listen to me, have let my abuser off scott free, and Im suposta hold my composure when being told I am being charged, and this will be on my permenent record?! Duty councel was 0 help. There was no justice in that courtroom that day.
I, too, was treated like absolute shit by the JP during my initial arraignment and appearance. Absolute disrespect, being told I wasn't taking things seriously enough because I was in a state of shock (And I had a fractured orbital process - which I had to sleep on the entirety of a night in jail, before being released on bail to seek medical help/xrays). Duty council was of 0 legal help, but she at least pulled me aside to tell me she'd be furious too, and just to limit myself to 1 word answers, things would resolve in the end. I owe that woman, aha.
makes zero sense eh? just because you are in a state of shock doesn't mean your information is unreliable? and if you are in shock? why do they treat you so inhumanely? Why is Canada's justice system so messed up?????
because it's not about justice, it's about keeping us peasants in line.
This doesn't surprise me and sorry our judicial system left you out to dry. I woulda taken that shit to the media
I was 18, didnt know I could do that. The things we learn as we grow. This over 15 years ago now.
Your story just pisses me off that it happened to you and that you're not the only one it happens to. You were 80 lbs at the time, what were your other options? There were none.
>You were 80 lbs at the time, what were your other options? There were none. Remember situations like this when thinking about the government banning any and all forms of self-defense weapons. It's primarily an attack on those who are smaller and weaker, so mostly women. Making pepper spray illegal isn't going to stop the rapist/abusive BF/mugger but it will prevent their (much weaker than them) victims from properly defending themselves.
100% Ive always carried a pocket knife (for opening bags of chips) and a small pipe (to slip over the tire iron to make a lever if/when I need to change a tire) since. The world can be a dangerous place when you are slight, female and short.
Agreed, I carry dog spray in my car for those exact reasons.
this makes me think that canada may be a petty criminal's paradise
Not just for petty crimes.
Crazy. The strength disparity between men and woman is huge and chokes can put you out in seconds. If someone is choking you it is reasonable to assume that they intend to kill you.
His intent was to throw me down the stairs. Def an "intend to kill you" situation
May I ask when ans where this was? If possible I'd like to read the court documents.
As would I, its been a long time. I checked CSO I couldnt find any record. This was from 2006, do you have the ability to access records from then? Feel free to PM me.
If I feel there is a real and immediate physical threat against myself or another family member, I'm going to act to stop that threat. I mean something like a lunatic with a knife breaking into my house in the middle of the night. That's why I have a baseball bat propped up in the corner by our bed. In the last twenty year I haven't had a reason to wield it, but it's there just in case. And if that day ever comes, I'm certainly not going to think about whether or not I have a moral right to defend myself/family. I'm just going to start swinging for the fences.
Not to rain on your parade, but a baseball bat is terrible for home defense. It’s long and awkward to swing in a small space. Cut that mf down a little bit to make it more manageable, and put a sock over the end. If someone tries to grab it, they’ll grab the sock. As brutal as it is, a long framing hammer is much better. The weight means you don’t need as much wind-up to deliver the same amount of energy, and you can swing it more easily in the confined space of a hallway. Just saying.
Heavy flashlight will work. You can blind them with the light, and it's more circumspect.
A six D cell mag lite is a lot easier to explain than a bat.
And is why the 6 D cell maglite exists
Maybe in your car, but at home both are pretty normal things to have around.
A ball and glove laying nearby can help.
And actually use it as a flashlight instead of just having a random baseball bat laying around.
I have this extremely heavy and bright flashlight from Costco next to my bed, and it would blind someone long enough to either fight or flee. At the end of the day, none of us know how we'd react until it happens. Plans are still good, though. Being completely unprepared will only create extreme panic. I live alone, so maybe I spend more time thinking about it than the majority.
I avoid suggesting a flashlight as its kinda hit and miss. Unless you’re a big /r/Flashlight enthusiast and have some wild shit on strobe, it won’t help you much. You’d be better off keeping some **dog** spray in your house in case a **dog** breaks in and you need to spray the **dog** with some **dog** spray.
Oh that's advice I'd never give. It's a confined space. You'd be gassing yourself.
I got some dog spray off amazon that is like jelly and sticks to whatever is sprayed so you better have good aim with that shit lol but it doesn't gas a room even, tested lol.
[удалено]
> Unless you’re a big /r/Flashlight enthusiast and have some wild shit on strobe, it won’t help you much. Well you can also swing it, is the thing.
This guy self defends
A baseball bat is fine in tight spaces, you just have to thrust forward with it instead of swinging it. The sock on the end isn't bad advice though. Thanks!
If its tight spaces you're concerned about just put a cannon at the top of your stairs
LOL "It thought it was ornamental officer, until the very second I accidentally fired it when the intruder came up the stairs, I swear."
If you're gonna thrust forward, why not use something sharp and stick em with the pointy end?
Fix bayonets!
All my time playing zombie games has prepped me for this moment. A baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire with a table saw blade fixed in the end of the bat. Perfect home defense weapon.
I see you also enjoy playing Days Gone
I imagine most criminals would just nope the fuck out at the sight of it.
Especially when the notice the guy wielding it is butt ass naked too.
And smiling.
With an erection?
All I can think of is the "Musket for home defense" copypasta. > Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
You should check out the Eminem AI rapping the copypasta
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43NzlOx2pIs
Make home defense spears great again
No one fucks with a naked guy holding a halberd
Tally Ho lads! Over the top now, and we'll be in Berlin by dinnertime!
Like a pitchfork? Every redditor probably has one...
I said good day, sir! [Godendag](https://www.arms-n-armor.com/products/a-goedendag)
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
Classic.
God I love this copy pasta
>Just as the founding fathers intended. Why can't we have the same kind of artillery like they intended anymore? We're getting ripped of. I want my cannons back.
A baseball bat is just a baseball bat, a reasonable thing to have around the house. If you defend yourself from someone with a weapon with a bat, you are never going to be charged. If you modify a bat so it's only a weapon, then a lawyer is going to argue that you were looking for an excuse to use that weapon. Don't make it easy for someone to build a case against you.
The sock is just because my bat gets cold in the winter here. Have some sympathy
My socks got wet when I lost all my guns in that boating accident. So I put it on my bat to dry it out.
Sock is there for the nights I'm lonely.
I have a T ball bat. It's a perfect size I think.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Same idea about a hammer, but I'd just use a dead blow hammer. It's less likely to stick into a person's body parts. If you hit someone with a framing hammer in the head high possibility you break through and have the hammer stuck now.
I was just about to suggest a bat sock as well. Seems like a good idea.
You're absolutely right. A lot of people have a bat or golf club as their go to but those pretty useless in a hallway. You can get kid sized bats, can't you?
See: oldboy
I bought a child-sized bat for this reason. But I agree that a framing hammer is a better weapon.
Some cracked out dude tried to kick down our door at 3AM a few years ago. Since then I've slept with a knife beside the bed. If someone kicks down our door, you best believe I'm stabbing until there's no possible chance of them getting up again. I'm not going to politely ask if he's armed first.
That's why the saying is "it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"
I'm a pretty big dude. Don't think a 6-incher will be able to carry me.
💀
Hey, you just admitted intent to owning something for self defence, which the criminal code believes is a crime. Very cool, Canada.
[удалено]
It's okay, it's a catch & release system.
Some people sleep walk, I sleep baseball. It's a serious self-diagnosed medical condition.
Doctor says it’s the worst case he’s ever seen.
Yeah, that's what you have to do. Survival at all costs is job one, dealing with the legal fallout is secondary to that. At the end of the day, even if you get charged and convicted of manslaughter you'll be out in what, a couple of years? That sucks, but it's still better than being dead, blinded, disfigured or crippled for life.
It’s almost like this article’s title is absolute bullshit and this is already what happens. Literally the two main examples the article tried to use were investigated and dropped because they seemed to be reasonable self defense. The only position change it could possibly be arguing here is that police shouldn’t investigate murders if they’re in your home.
Ooooo in Canada? You better have a good reason for that bat being there! If you weren't planning on playing midnight baseball in the sandlot next door then what you did was premeditated escalation of the situation! You should have just let the guy come and go as he pleases! Smh. Crazy self defense nuts. Haha.
Someone here in Yellowknife actually just recently got cleared for someone's death after defending themselves. https://cabinradio.ca/114235/news/yellowknife/prosecutors-clear-man-involved-in-fatal-yellowknife-fight/ Was pleasantly surprised to see that it wasn't the assailant that got a free pass, that's what I expected from the headline.
That reads like the one person struck the other in defence and the aggressor then fell and hit their head and suffered a traumatic brain injury. Too many lives have been lost to this, a bit of roughhousing in a bad spot and someone ends up with brain damage or dead. No one intends it, but we can be very fragile.
[удалено]
Why shouldn't I be able to be able to defend myself? Scenario It's 2 am Wife and I are sleeping Dog starts barking Hear something 2 men trying to break into my house and 1 may be armed Police are 5-30 minutes away (urban to rural) They are 4 minutes away from getting in What should I do? Why can't I be legally armed? Why are you defending someone violating someone's right?
>>police are 5-30 minutes away That’s how far away they are, but they’ll take longer to get there.
[удалено]
Let me give you a report number for your insurance over the phone, that's all you need, right?
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/toronto-woman-livid-after-police-allegedly-told-her-to-call-the-mayor-during-home-invasion-attempt-1.6184960
You are absolutely allowed to defend yourself. Your force has to be appropriate. If they’re attacking you with a knife and you shoot them with your legal gun, you’ll be fine after the investigation. If your dog has run them off and you shoot them in the back from 100 yards away as they flee, not so much.
The problems lies with if you can't identify if they have a weapon or not or if it's just concealed. What if they grab a knife from my kitchen before I decide to use force against them? If someone is unarmed in your house, it's still a deadly situation warranting physical force which could *potentially* be deadly. I'm not one to pass judgement on victims of home invasions. Expecting them to do legal calculus in their head at 3am trying to decide how much force they should use to stop the threat is ridiculous. Obviously if someone is fleeing that's clear enough, but the way the law is written gives too much leeway for suspects and not enough for victims. Victims should not have to be worried about getting caught up in the legal system for using *potentially* deadly force against home invaders in what will probably be the largest fight or flight response in their life.
You don't have to do any legal calculus in your head, and the courts don't expect you to either. http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Self-Defence_and_Defence_of_Another > When considering the objective component to the defence, "the court must be alive to the fact that people in stressful and dangerous situations do not have time for subtle reflection". You can also use the defence if you have mistaken them as having a weapon. (Victim being the invader). > The defence can still be invoked even where there is a reasonable mistake of fact.[1] This could include a reasonable belief that the victim was armed.
And the calculus is even worse if you consider that some Canadians have legal firearms while some intruders may have illegal ones. I would definitely use the most effective weapon at hand to defend my safety. Are they really expecting you to yell "I have double-barrelled shotgun and a kitchen knife, what are you armed with so I can use equal force to chase you out"?
Its just so washy. How are you supposed to determine what weapon they have within a split second in the middle of the darkness of night. It seems you have to wait to get stabbed before you can try and find a weapon to stab them back with. And from my understanding if you get put through the court system even if you are innocent at the end of the day it will be hard to gain high level employment when anything other than nothing comes up on a background check or Google search.
This article does a piss-poor job of using examples to support the point it's trying to make. For example, the first mention of recent self-defence killings in Halifax goes on to casually mention "in both of these cases, the police declined to pursue charges". Um... okay? So in other words, the killings were deemed justifiable and no charges were laid. The first two examples *literally* undermine the headline that victims are being punished. The next example it gives is of a guy getting a one-year conditional sentence (i.e. never saw the inside of a prison cell) for killing a burglar in self-defence. Except the sentence (which again - was non-custodial) was for having an illegal firearm, *not* for blowing the burglar away in self-defence. The third (and final) example it gives is the only legit one I can see in the article (someone got five years manslaughter for stabbing a home invader) - and it's from four years ago. You'd think that if this was the endemic problem that the author posits it to be, they would have *zero* difficulty finding a whole ton of recent examples that prove their point. The fact that they're obviously grasping for straws in terms of concrete examples shows this is probably just an opinion piece to rile up the plebes with something that *feels* like it must happen often (but actually doesn't).
I listened to someone try to say that if there was a mass murderer in Canada that killed a bunch of people, and he chose to step up and shoot the mass murderer that “damn right I’d be the one charged with murder and spend the rest of my life in jail!”. I wanted him to apply some critical thinking to the situation so I asked him if there was precedent for this assumption. I got brushed off, because the knew the answer was no. The examples of self defence instances that he gave were all examples that ended in no charges. He was still adamant that he’d end up in jail. There’s no winning. You can’t convince someone with facts when their feelings mean more to them than facts. According to him all criminals go free and all good guys go to jail. It’s a black and white issue. This article was written for people like him.
>You can’t convince someone with facts when their feelings mean more to them than facts. This is exactly it. There's too much op-ed "news" these days that's put out there because it *feels* right. It *feels* intuitive. It *feels* well-aligned with someone's existing worldview. Even when the facts don't actually support it. It *feels* like liberal, gun-hating Canada must routinely and brutally punish innocent people who are just defending themselves... and so people don't think critically about that claim, or ask for actual proof it's a commonplace occurrence. To be honest though, I find that people of all political leanings are prone to this, it's not just a right-wing thing. A great example I saw recently was in one of the dozens of "grocery store profiteering is responsible for the sky-high grocery prices you're paying!" articles. Once again, a claim that *feels* right. It *feels* intuitive. It aligns beautifully with the trope that large corporations are evil... ...until someone deconstructed it by pointing out that profit margins only account for one to three cents per dollar of groceries. So even if Galen Weston increases his margins by 50%, it would be barely perceptible to the average shopper since profit is such a tiny component of the overall price. But once again, because it *feels* accurate that Loblaws profiteering must be the source of food inflation, virtually no one bothers to dig any deeper and actually do the math that disproves the claim.
> Yet the items women regularly carry “just in case,” like small knives, pepper spray or keychains fashioned as potential weapons, are often illegal. Possessing them alone exposes women to potential charges, let alone the legal consequences of actually using them, even in self-defence. Carrying a weapon on your person for defence against people is always illegal, not often. It's the intention that matters, not the actual object. Carrying a brick or toaster is a crime, if you intend to use it for defence against people.
Officer: why do you have bear/dog spray in your purse? My wife: we go for hikes in the forest, also in the city at night. We’ve been attacked by stray dogs before. The dog spray is for dogs. That’s the appropriate answer to that question.
The appropriate answer is: say nothing, and say you want your lawyer.
Oh, is it shut the fuck up Friday already?
When it comes to police.. Every day is shut the fuck up Friday.
Pepper spray is illegal. Bear spray is only legal if it's clearly labeled and I've seen a couple that weren't in the past.
I don’t carry things for protection against people but I am afraid of dogs. I like the strobe flashlight + bear spray + asp combo
That is an immoral concept and should be changed.
Anyone actually read the linked article, or is this just more Natpo + editorialized headline / opinion piece = invitation for conservatives to vomit stream of consciousness nonsense? The example of police discretionary prosecution was a guy who was tied up by home invaders with a shotgun. They managed to get out, get the shotgun and scare them off with the birdshot it was loaded with. That was not seen as unreasonable. What was seen as unreasonable was grabbing a rifle they had procured outside of legal pathways, and shooting the vehicle as they fled the property, and wanging the guy in the back with a rifle bullet. Shoot active threat: self defense Shoot actively fleeing person without active threat : not While I agree that relying on police discretion for prosecution sucks nubbins, it is for a different reason than those being implied here. When you give cops the ability to flex their judgement, typically it flexes a specific way.
* Posted by the same poster that posts all these articles. * Is an Opinion Piece * Is from NatPo You do the math. I just auto-downvote this guy
Agreed. As someone who has learned the basics of self defense statutes (security guard training), I have absolutely zero fear of defending myself. The laws are very clear that you can defend yourself with reasonable force as long as you stop when the threat is over. I'm sure the case law is even more favourable to people defending themselves. There is no story here.
The article has next to no evidence to support itself. Each case it cites categorically opposes their very thesis. I'm shocked that it got published.
Its Natpo. Their product isnt news, it is astroturfing conservative outrage. If you see it posted on r/canada, downvote, because it functionally is someone trying to stoke conservative narratives, and it will always violate the subreddit rules for being editorialized. There is a reason there are multiple canada subreddits. This one has some really odd and unfortunate choices.
It should really be banned at this point for pushing blatantly false propaganda.
Too much sympathy for criminals.
Exactly. As far as I'm concerned, once you've started attacking me or broken into my house you have willfully given up your protection by the law. Obviously if they try to flee don't chase them down, but if someone is being attacked and they end up killing the attacker in self defense I have absolutely zero sympathy for that attacker.
I’m all for self defence, but is this author suggesting we don’t bother investigating anytime anyone simply claims self defence?
Yeah, generally people view this issue from the perspective of someone who was completely justified in using the defence they did. But when considering how we want the justice system to work, we need to consider all possibilities. Up to and including the far other end of the spectrum, where someone invites another person to their house with intent to kill them and claims self defence. And all possibilities in between. Justice system needs to consider all possibilities before deciding not to pursue charges.
Yes please. Being arrested for pushing an attacker (My SO) off of me after they hit me repeatedly with a blunt weapon - and facing a potential sentence of 5 years for it, costing me my sanity and half of my retirement funds to form a legal defense - has destroyed my opinion of our legal system, and evaporated my respect for authority of any kind. The last point is extremely dangerous, too, in light of mediocre policing and workplace insubordination policies. I'd love to afford therapy for this as well, but alas, *Ontario*. And if you must defend yourself, don't tell 911 dispatch (I made the call) you pushed your spouse off you. Apparently even civilian dispatch qualifies as a cop you don't talk to.
Also 911 records from when you dial, not when they pick up.
It really irks me people are against self defense and owning guns while they support politicians that are surrounded by armed guards.
Our country has pioneered a culture of helplessness and an absolute need to lean on the gov't for support and no one else.
The guy taking away guns has a bunch of guns protecting him. Irony at its finest.
>It really irks me people are against self defense and owning guns while they support politicians that are surrounded by armed guards. Agreed, but worse still are judges who are against self-defense but who then insist on enhanced levels of security protection for themselves (in the absence of any specific, credible threat). There's no coherent philosophical justification for this that isn't anathema to me, nor is there any data-based rational justification. Judges should live in the same world they insist others live in.
Here’s where “self defense” will always fail as an argument. If the perpetrator(s) is/are *leaving* the scene of the crime, that’s it, you don’t get to “chase they/them” as they flee, you call the authorities and let them handle it. Any attempt to pursue as the perpetrator(s) flee isn’t about self defense anymore, it’s about revenge. Too many of these “self defense” arguments fail that basic test.
Her preamble invalidated her point. I'd be much more open minded to hear what you have to say if your first few statements don't make me groan and put down my phone. Additionally, you chose to highlight a case where two people fired guns at fleeing criminals? That's what you want to call self defence? Shooting someone running away in the back with an illegal firearm?
You can be a victim of crime and also commit a crime. They're not mutually exclusive
We need a Canadian castle doctrine. You invade someone's home there should be 0 consequences for the victim. Edit: Ok I'm seeing a pattern. Not many know what castle doctrine is. You have to prove the entry was forced and it doesn't apply to the whole property only the inside of the home aka the castle. Also part of this is absolving the homeowner of liability so the home invader can't sue because of an injury or something like that.
>Ok I'm seeing a pattern. Not many know what castle doctrine is There seems to be a large percentage that are confusing castle doctrine with stand your ground laws and some of what is coming out of the USA and don't realize a not insignificant number of European countries have castle doctrine
The castle doctrine wouldn't have applied in any of the examples this article gave, where someone was actually convicted.
Criminals should not be able to operate on a presumption that they have some guarantee of safety under the law when they’re committing crimes. It should be the opposite.
I like that her first example of being punished for using self-defence is that a homeowner shot an intruder in the back as he was driving away in a truck. Edited for clarity
The mentality starts early, when schools punish both a bully and their victim equally.
Until the laws are changed, people should be aware that [jury nullification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Canada) is a thing, even in Canada. It was jury nullification that got our abortion law struck down.
So mugh fiend live rurally out side a Village in the bc interior. His father, mother, wife, and children also live on the home stead. It's about ten minutes from the village nearby. One night, he heard his car alarms going off and opening his front door to find a man attempting to break into his cars. He yells at him, and the man charges him. He slams the door shut and his wife's tarts calling 911. The intruder attempts several times to get the door open. My friend goes for his rifle, but decides to call is call his father and warm him instead. His father tells him not to bring a gun out or that he will be forced to use it. The intruder continues to move around the property as they have several cars between the family members. The local police station has no one on staff and has dispatched police from a town nearby. My friend decided he needed to confront this guy. His father is racing back to the property. My friend goes outside, and immediately, the guy attacks him. They end up wrestling on the ground, and the intruder get the upper hand. Just then, his father arrives and whacks the intruder over the back with a fence post. They dog pile on him and restrain him. For over an hour, they sit on this guy, as he promises he's going to come back with a gang and kill him, and says horrible and violent things about my friends family. His wife is still severely traumized by this. Finally the police arrive. The intruder had escaped from a healing lodge located nearby and was on the run. Not only did he escape, but the lodge was not even aware he was missing. The police started ripping into my friend and his father. In my opinion, he did the right thing. He has many neighbors who are older or alone. They are fairly remote. He criminal was getting more desperate, especially after the police had been notified (even though they had done over an hour to drive about 25 minutes). They restrained the man with outany serious injuries. But here's the icing on the cake. Thanks to our ridiculous legal system, the felon was placed back into the healing lodge and immediately escaped with a few other guys, and they were on the run for weeks. I see many people in the comments talking about hypothetical scenarios. Well, they happen. In my opinion, he should have shot him. He was given n opportunity to surrender or leave but chose aggression. Many canadians assume the rcmp or local police will magically appear. That they will stop the person. They think because they don't want to ever defend themselves that other people shouldn't have the right to either. For rural Canadians, this is a real threat. But even in the city, it's a common thing. I've seen multiple home invasions in the news recently. Including a person who used an ice fishing auger to mine through theor downs stairs neighbors ceiling and ruthlessly attack them. The victim is facing charges for using inappropriate force in retaliation. I don't think we should have some right to shoot thieves in our garden shed or open carry a 357 into Walmart. But I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want the right to protect their life, family, and home.
was this in the news
I would sooner be judged by 12 then carried by 6. With that said I have already committed to calling 1911 not 911.
I mean, yes for the most part, but if you no longer are in danger beating the guys head in should probably be punished.
No probably about it. It's not self defense if you aren't *defending* yourself. You're just assaulting/murdering someone at that point.
So the examples were from 2019 and 2017?
Shooting someone in the back as they’re driving away isn’t self defence.
When I took my firearms course, the teacher was an ex Mountie. He said you absolutely cannot shoot someone in self defense. But if you do, shoot to kill so that you don’t get sued afterward.
Okay national rag. Let’s be Americans like you want us to be.