Or organization that has a hidden agenda to destabilize society and replace it with one of their own making.

The sad thing is, I had high hopes for Lemmy.ca, but it seems these same 100 accounts are starting to clog up the Lemmy user space. I keep seeing the same-old-same-old from a cadre of accounts that seem to work in tandem.

Do you have any idea as to exactly how many police they would need to actively investigate every car break in? You sound exactly like the criminal element in America that is demanding they defund the police to make it easier for criminals to prosper. This is Canada, not America.

And yet the public gets in an outrage when known criminals get put back on the street and then re-offend, some in heinous crimes. Given his background and the number of convictions, I am sure he has his solicitor on speed dial. He was previously charged with attacking people with a baseball bat, and you want the police to believe him? Just ignore the blood, and let him go? Exactly how were the police to believe that the ‘victim’ was legitimately an intruder, and not someone the knife-wielder actually invited into his home, they got into an argument, and this guy took a knife to him? Police are not mind readers, and they are used to people lying to them. No way are they going to believe either side. Charge them, get them off the street, and let the system run its course.

Yet not a word so far in these comments that almost 10% of Meta’s income stream comes from scam posts. No wonder Meta really does not want to do much about these scams.

In 2025, Meta made approximately $196.2 billion from ads. This included $16 billion from ads for scams and banned goods. While these are against its policies, enforcement is often reactive rather than proactive.

But of Meta made $16 billion from these posts, imagine how much the scammers made?

They are doing what they are capable of within their budgets, that are constrained by the taxpayer.

This case makes it clear. Once the authorities determine through an investigation all of the facts, and what actually happened, and collect all the facts, they will determine if the level of self-defense was appropriate.

My point exactly. We do NOT have the unrestricted right to defend by any means possible, specifically to AVOID the situation I described.

So a privatized police force, on contract to only the wealthy who can afford them, accountable only to their employers?

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.

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”

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.

"Open season’ has a tendency to develop into open warfare against anyone you do not like. Unrestricted ‘self defense’ is wide open to abuse, like it is in America.

The Mexican cartel that thought they had a right to defend themselves by using a rocket against a police helicopter.

I am SO glad you do not rule our country.

It is only a very small step from what you said to the male head of the household having the right of life or death over the wife or female children. The right to do whatever he pleases with the wife and children. The right to be as racially prejudiced and the right to do whatever he pleases to any non-white male, because of course all he has to say is ‘they were an intruder’.

There is a very big difference between ‘defending yourself’ and ‘deciding to take the law into your own hand and dishing out your own brand of justice and punishment’.

Doing the first is your right, doing the second is vigilante justice and almost always turns the country into ‘rule by organized crime’. Mexico is a good example of what happens when the ‘right to defend’ leads to ‘the right to impose your will regardless of the law’.

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.

If the legislation passes, they just might be.

Why does this read so much like a conversation between two chatbots? Neither is listening to the other, just responding,

Considering that it has been less than 100 years that America has been considered our ally (the entire purpose of Confederation in 1867 was to form a strong Canada that could defend itself against the American foe), the needle has been pointing to ‘enemy’ longer than it has been pointing to ‘ally’. History will regard the ‘friend’ part as just a brief interlude.

I am afraid Americans in general do not look at Canadians as ‘friends’, they look at us as ‘customers’.

I really good suggestion that was made was that they have to serve their term out as an independent until the next election.