Hmmm. The article indicates a broken window, and further ‘medical and forensic evidence’. If the broken window was the point of access, it might indicate that a lot of the cuts sustained by the alleged intruder could be traced to the broken glass. That fact would change the entire scenario. It then becomes ‘much ado about nothing’.
I can’t imagine living in a place where defending yourself in your own home from an intruder with a crossbow is up for debate.
Read the article bud.
At the time that the charges were brought, the evidence suggested he may have broken the law. New evidence made it sufficiently clear that he hadn’t. That’s a really big part of how prosecutions work.
We have a very simple principle here; proportionate response. Someone tries to beat the crap out of you, you got every right to beat the crap out of him. Someone pulls a knife on you, you can pull a knife on him. Someone attacks you with enough physical force and threat that you’re in fear of your life, you can do what it takes to protect yourself. Depending on the circumstances, that can even result in your attacker’s death, as long as you weren’t going out of your way to seek that outcome when there were very clearly other options available. And it’s very, very rare that cases like this even get prosecuted, because the law and the courts are very generous to the defendant.
You can absolutely defend yourself in Canada. We just don’t think it’s reasonable to gun down a teenager for the crime of ringing your doorbell. And for some reason Americans always seem to take issue with that.
But this defense costs money. Likely thousands. That shouldn’t be the case
The Crown dropped the case of their own accord after reviewing the additional evidence. He didn’t have to defend himself in court.
Obviously that doesn’t mean that no legal costs were incurred. We do have public defenders in Canada, so it’s likely those costs were born by the state. If he did incur any out of pocket expenses I would certainly like to see him compensated for those. Unfortunately I’m not aware of what the specific law is on that matter.
But again, as I pointed out elsewhere, this is a very, very rare case. Normally cases for self-defence are never even brought to begin with. The Crown either fucked up very badly here, or they sincerely believed that they had a very strong case that this was not legitimate.
That can happen in any justice system. Unless you simply declare that all murder is legal, there is absolutely no version of a self-defence exemption that will not sometimes be wrongly prosecuted. The question here is not whether or not the prosecuters were right to bring the case, it’s whether or not Canada’s legal self-defence standard makes sense. And given a choice between what we have, which works extremely well, and very rarely produces outlier results like this (remember, you never hear about the self-defence incidents that don’t get prosecuted) and a system where cleaners get shot for knocking at the wrong house, I think the choice is clear.
There’s a few ways I would like to take this but also I think overall I agree with you.
I don’t go into it to much but where I’m slowly adapting my views are on a few issues.
One is that I think one is that no cost should be incurred by anyone who defended themselves. I do totally get the argument that everybody deserves justice including criminals. But the stories I’ve come across tend to highlight how self defense laws are lacking in Canada and there is a lot of room between allowing all killings and some kind of castle doctrine.
The second issue for me is as I’ve aged, I can’t tell you what the hell police do. The amount of times myself or someone i know has called them, only for them to say “not much we can do, just file a report online” is too many. Yet majority of my municipal taxes go to them. So for me I am coming around to the idea that we need to pull back some of the responsibility society has given to police and reclaim it ourselves. They’re not keeping us safe. They are now refusing to act when the government tells them to. Because of this I think society does need to go back to the idea that we can’t rely on the justice system.
Exactly how high do you want your taxes to go? Complete coverage for all o the calls would be prohibitively expensive, and I suspect you would be one of the first people to protest your high taxes.
If they cannot provide this basic service then we as the public need to the law in our own hands. The entier reason we do not is we entrust that to police. But they no longer serve. They are there to increase their budget and militarize themselves to protect only certain people.
So a privatized police force, on contract to only the wealthy who can afford them, accountable only to their employers?
That’s the one. But even then, they can’t be held accountable. Look at the gun buy back. Police all over are refusing to do their job. Same happened during covid. Police forces just flat out refused to listen if they don’t want to. In America it also is happening more frequently. The police refused to action what the state government were asking of them.
Yet every year it’s Police budgets that eat up the Majority of all budgets. So what are they doing?
Here’s the thing. I hear this a lot. And every single time that I’ve ever been presented with an example, and looked into it deep enough, or enough time has passed that more information came to light, every obvious case of Canada’s self-defence laws “failing” has always turned out to be “No, actually, in this case there really was a line crossed.”
That’s not to say that no law can ever fail. Laws do get misapplied, and no law is perfect. There are edge cases where people will simply disagree; that happens a lot with the law. There are entire fields of academia basically devoted to disagreeing about laws. But it is remarkable that I have never yet seen even one clear cut case of “Wow, that guy totally did not deserve to get charged with anything, he was clearly just defending himself,” that didn’t turn out to be something far more ambiguous, if not outright damning to the defendant when the details are known.
deleted by creator
And you can. It’s not a strict “equal force” rule, it just has to be proportional. In most circumstances using a gun to defend yourself against a knife would be entirely within reason. You sincerely believed they were trying to kill you (and presumably did not have any super obvious alternatives), you killed them in self defence. That generally falls within the principle of proportional response.
“Defending yourself against someone with a crossbow is the same as gunning down an unarmed teenager”
In that both of those things are apparently legal in the respective countries? Yes.
Ever wonder why in USA there’s tons of case where people shot their own family because they think they’re intruder? Most of the world function like what you can’t imagine, yet we exists and thriving.
The mandela catalogue is not a documentary
Not even sure what is that supposed to mean but ok.
It typically is in Canada because until the stories are proven you don’t know what went down.
Then I wonder, can you imagine living in Canada? You know, that land where the Rule of Law is still important. That land that defines when ‘self-defense’ turns into ‘assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill’. No matter what Ford says, he is provincial and has no authority nor say over the Criminal Code, which is prosecuted by Federal, not Provincial, prosecutors. Ford would get charged if he crosses that line, just like any other person in Canada. And he could go to jail if convicted, just like any other person in Canada.
Because you have to see if they really did that.