It's against the law in Canada to defend yourself in your own home

[dead0man]

3 guys with guns break into home, home owner struggles with bad men, gets gun shoots at bad guys, lightly wounds one and now he

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and is

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2 men break into man's garage, homeowner bonks one on head with shovel.  So of course he's under investigation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

what the funk Canada?

[mileslunn]

In Canada we do allow self defence but it has to be proportional so if they people who enter your home are unarmed and you shoot one, then you can be charged.  We don't have the castle doctrine like the US has, otherwise force always has to be proportional to the threat.  Otherwise if someone is just breaking in but they are not physically threatening you, then using force can land you in trouble, but if they actually threaten you, you can fight back.  As for firearms, Canada has much stricter gun laws than the US, if you have firearms, they have to be unloaded and locked away and you can only take them to the range or when going hunting, you cannot carry a loaded gun with you in Canada.  This has been a controversial issue with the right generally wanting to change laws so you won't get charged like below, while the left is generally supportive of the laws arguing it would just lead to US style castle doctrines which they believe could result in more deaths.

[dead0man]

Right, if someone breaks into your home you have to WAIT until he/she does a level of violence before you do that level of violence.  That's clearly moronic.

[mileslunn]

Right, if someone breaks into your home you have to WAIT until he/she does a level of violence before you do that level of violence.  That's clearly moronic.

Different country different values.  I don't think too many Canadians are overly upset by this but could be wrong.  Canada tends to be quite a bit more communitarian and socialistic compared to the US although this might be a bridge too far, but I am not sure castle doctrines would sell well here either.

[Santander]

He'll probably be acquitted, but be financially ruined by the legal process. He should crowdfund his legal fees - he'd find plenty of sympathy.

[Horus]

He'll probably be acquitted, but be financially ruined by the legal process. He should crowdfund his legal fees - he'd find plenty of sympathy.

[Hatman 🍁]

at least we didn't elect a fascist.

[dead0man]

touché!

[Cory]

In Canada we do allow self defense but it has to be proportional so if they people who enter your home are unarmed and you shoot one, then you can be charged.  We don't have the castle doctrine like the US has, otherwise force always has to be proportional to the threat.  Otherwise if someone is just breaking in but they are not physically threatening you, then using force can land you in trouble, but if they actually threaten you, you can fight back.  As for firearms, Canada has much stricter gun laws than the US, if you have firearms, they have to be unloaded and locked away and you can only take them to the range or when going hunting, you cannot carry a loaded gun with you in Canada.  This has been a controversial issue with the right generally wanting to change laws so you won't get charged like below, while the left is generally supportive of the laws arguing it would just lead to US style castle doctrines which they believe could result in more deaths.

Well that's stupid.

[Kingpoleon]

at least we didn't elect a fascist.

Germany did that 85 years ago. Stop comparing Canada to Nazi Germany to say, "At least we're better than those guys!!"

[mvd10]

Right, if someone breaks into your home you have to WAIT until he/she does a level of violence before you do that level of violence.  That's clearly moronic.

Different country different values.  I don't think too many Canadians are overly upset by this but could be wrong.  Canada tends to be quite a bit more communitarian and socialistic compared to the US although this might be a bridge too far, but I am not sure castle doctrines would sell well here either.

I don't know enough about Canada but in the Netherlands a jeweller once killed a robber and according to a poll 62% thought the jeweller should not be prosecuted (only 19% who thought he should be prosecuted). 77% considered death an occupational hazard for burglars and 48% thought citizens should never be prosecuted for crimes committed on burglars in their houses (and 43% disagreed).

Anyway, I think defending yourself in your own home should be legal (self defense doesn't cover locking burglars up in torture chambers or shooting people who obviously aren't a threat anymore though). People shouldn't underestimate the emotional impact burglary can have on someone. I know someone who literally couldn't sleep in her own home after a burglary and eventually moved. Burglars can go f**k themselves.

[DC Al Fine]

at least we didn't elect a fascist.

I'm sure that will console the defendant's family if he goes to prison or goes broke defending himself.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I actually have more American view on dealing with home invaders: you enter somebody's home, you're doing it at your own risk.

[RFayette]

He'll probably be acquitted, but be financially ruined by the legal process. He should crowdfund his legal fees - he'd find plenty of sympathy.

Another reason why the American Constitution is such a treasure. 

[MaxQue]

at least we didn't elect a fascist.

I'm sure that will console the defendant's family if he goes to prison or goes broke defending himself.

Seems from the accusations he didn't have weapon permit and/or the weapon was illegal.

[dead0man]

at least we didn't elect a fascist.

I'm sure that will console the defendant's family if he goes to prison or goes broke defending himself.

Seems from the accusations he didn't have weapon permit and/or the weapon was illegal.

well he wouldn't have...since the bad guys brought the guns.

[mileslunn]

Right, if someone breaks into your home you have to WAIT until he/she does a level of violence before you do that level of violence.  That's clearly moronic.

Different country different values.  I don't think too many Canadians are overly upset by this but could be wrong.  Canada tends to be quite a bit more communitarian and socialistic compared to the US although this might be a bridge too far, but I am not sure castle doctrines would sell well here either.

I don't know enough about Canada but in the Netherlands a jeweller once killed a robber and according to a poll 62% thought the jeweller should not be prosecuted (only 19% who thought he should be prosecuted). 77% considered death an occupational hazard for burglars and 48% thought citizens should never be prosecuted for crimes committed on burglars in their houses (and 43% disagreed).

Anyway, I think defending yourself in your own home should be legal (self defense doesn't cover locking burglars up in torture chambers or shooting people who obviously aren't a threat anymore though). People shouldn't underestimate the emotional impact burglary can have on someone. I know someone who literally couldn't sleep in her own home after a burglary and eventually moved. Burglars can go f**k themselves.

Not sure whether you use judge or jury, but we use jury and while these cases make a lot of news, they almost always get acquitted anyways.  I haven't seen any polls on this, but certainly the political establishment is definitely against it.  Mind you the political establishment in Canada is very liberal and while Canada is quite liberal in its voting patterns I think that has more to do with being socially liberal and tolerant as well as wanting a strong social welfare system and a smaller gap between the rich and poor as opposed to this.

[Santander]

Mind you the political establishment in Canada is very liberal and while Canada is quite liberal in its voting patterns I think that has more to do with being socially liberal and tolerant as well as wanting a strong social welfare system and a smaller gap between the rich and poor as opposed to this.

That's why Canada has the lowest social welfare spending as a percentage of GDP of any Anglosphere country, including the US, right? I also fail to see how that has anything to do with a guy being charged with attempted murder for literally defending himself from armed individuals threatening him in his home.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

at least we didn't elect a fascist.

I'm sure that will console the defendant's family if he goes to prison or goes broke defending himself.

This is an aspect that many don't seem to care about. "Well he will 'likely' be acquitted. Yes, he likely will be and by that time how ruined is his life.

I thought social welfare state was suppose to prevent "unforeseen health hazards" from bankrupting someone. I guess that only applies to health care coverage.

[Kingpoleon]

I actually have more American view on dealing with home invaders: you enter somebody's home, you're doing it at your own risk.

Really? I think we need to be more tolerant of the felony community.

[mileslunn]

Mind you the political establishment in Canada is very liberal and while Canada is quite liberal in its voting patterns I think that has more to do with being socially liberal and tolerant as well as wanting a strong social welfare system and a smaller gap between the rich and poor as opposed to this.

That's why Canada has the lowest social welfare spending as a percentage of GDP of any Anglosphere country, including the US, right? I also fail to see how that has anything to do with a guy being charged with attempted murder for literally defending himself from armed individuals threatening him in his home.

That is true although I think in Canada there is sort of a myth we have a strong social welfare state.  To be fair Canada has a much lower poverty rate than the US so that probably is a big part of it.  Median incomes are about the same in both countries but the US has a much bigger gap between the rich and the poor than Canada has.  I guess my point is Canada likes to think of itself as being more communitarian and collectivist in its thinking although I think that is questionable.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Right, if someone breaks into your home you have to WAIT until he/she does a level of violence before you do that level of violence.  That's clearly moronic.

"Hey guys, do you have firearms? If so, just wait a second until I get my gun..."

"Hey guys, I must warn you the second you lay a punch on me I'll be legally permitted to lay a punch on you."