Fact File: Canadians can defend against home invaders, but force must be 'reasonable' (www.coastreporter.net)

submitted 6 days ago by Sunshine@piefed.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

There is a lot of information and nuance in this that article that we're not getting that could make this a good or a bad call.

You definitely don't want a home occupant to be allowed to open fire indiscriminately in the back of someone who set foot on their property and then turned around to run away the moment they realized the occupants were still home like you see in the States. Or even worse, people who use the self-defence law as an excuse to shoot some kid who went in their yard to recover their ball.

But on the other hand, you don't want to make it too complicated or restrictive either. There are a lot of unknowns in a situation like this. Is the intruder armed? Is the intruder alone? How well can they fight? These are often questions you will only know the answers of in hindsight, long after the time at which a critical decision had to be made. If someone breaks into someone's house and does not turn around to run away the moment the occupant(s) make their presence known to the intruder, I can't think of many more hurdles we should put in their way of defending themselves.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago

IMO if they don't turn and run, it's now a life threatening situation.

[-] slykethephoxenix@lemmy.ca 11 points 5 days ago

Had a drunk dude run into my garage a few weeks back. He was covered in blood because he had just been in a fight and was fleeing.

He stumbled into my garage, putting blood on the gate and door (door should have been locked, but my MIL sometimes forgets.

I of course grabbed a mallet from the toolbox after hearing crashing in the garage and seeing a dark figure opening the door swiftly on the camera. Wife was already calling the cops, but as soon as I opened the door I could tell the dude was just drunk and couldn't stand properly. He was crying and lost. I tried to talk to him (putting down the mallet of course), but he ran back out the door, stumbling through my bush and off into the street somewhere. He apparently tried to get into the neighbors yard too, damaging their gate.

He came back like 2 days later to apologise lol.

In America he probably would have been shot.

[-] Rakonat@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago

Doesn't work in Canada because the person could be lost or confused (drunk) but if they aren't approaching the occupants of the house or disturbing property then the resident can not legally use lethal force.

[-] gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com 7 points 6 days ago

That's how you catch a charge in Canada. You only have the right to self-defense if you are being actively assaulted (legally speaking, being violently threatened or harmed). Further, the force used must basically be equal to the threat, and while interpreting that can be complex, it's completely reasonable.

[-] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

It is more nuanced than that. I does not necessarily have to be equal to the threat, but must be the minimum means required to stop the attack that is available to you at the time.

So if someone runs at you with a knife and all you have is a gun, you're not expected to drop the gun and start looking for a knife to defend yourself with. But if someone who is half your size comes at your bare handed, you shouldn't need to do much more than use measured open handed techniques like pushing them away. Someone this much smaller isn't much of a threat and there is no need to pummel that person into a paste to stop their attract. Your actions shouldb also immediately stop as soon as the threat is no longer active and you absolutely shouldn't be allowed to use it as an excuse to cause unnecessary harm.