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’.
The Mexican cartel that thought they had a right to defend themselves by using a rocket against a police helicopter.
Unhinged to compare self-defence causing bodily harm to a literal terrorist organization.
My point was to demonstrate the end result of the unrestricted right to defend by any means possible. What exactly does ‘intruder’ mean? It goes both ways. If it applies to a law-abiding citizen, it applies to everyone, criminals included.
Intruder as in someone who breaks into a residence. Trespassing is not enough according to Canadian law. And Canadian law already punishes excessive force (there was a conviction regarding a case in recent years where the victim had chased the intruder and thus became a criminal themselves). So you’re literally just fear mongering
My point exactly. We do NOT have the unrestricted right to defend by any means possible, specifically to AVOID the situation I described.
Ugh! No if that’s your basis then no!