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

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago

It can be very difficult to determine what is reasonable force during a life threatening situation where you may only have a few seconds to make a decision. If its 3 am, someone has broken into your house, and they are armed and threatening what is a reasonable response? This could depend on many factors, if you live alone it could be reasonable to flee if you believe you are fit enough. If the intruder is next your childs door and about the enter their room while armed, you could be seconds away from a hostage situation or worse.

The idea that we have to match the force of the intruder is a little absurd in my opinion. Once a valid threat has been identified, anything that incapacitates them should be reasonable. The issue is that incapaciting is easier said than done. Some people can get shot several times and get lucky where all the important stuff is missed, others die to one shot center mass. IMO its reasonable to aim center mass in a threatening situation because it is most likely to land a hit, especially if the intruder is moving erratically and attempting to close the distance between you or a family member. Most of us aren't John Wick and cant just reliably hit the intruder in the foot or shoot a knife out of their hand.

[-] leftytighty@slrpnk.net 8 points 6 days ago

You and everyone with the same knee jerk response are fighting straw men. Read the article.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

I have read the article. It doesn't really clear up what reasonable force is, basically reinforcing it is a case by case situation. The closest thing to clearing up what reasonable force is the following quote,

There are nine factors, which include things like the nature of the threat, whether there were other means to respond to it, whether someone used or threatened to use a weapon, and the size, age and gender of the people involved.

Let me just consider 9 different factors while trying to decide how best to protect myself groggy at 3 am while an intruder is still threatening me.

[-] leftytighty@slrpnk.net 8 points 6 days ago

Do you worry about committing vehicular manslaughter every time you get in your car? Or do you just drive safely?

The article states that judges often side with the person defending themselves, and it's completely reasonable to have limits on what you can do to someone who is an intruder.

I'm glad we value human life unlike the barbaric laws and culture that allow people to kill children for knocking on the wrong door down south.

You're panicking over some bullshit misrepresentation of the situation. I bet you're also one of those who whine about how soft we are on criminals in Canada.... Yeah I bet this guy used appropriate force and will go away for a looong time, right?

Why don't you let the case play out and the facts emerge before having an opinion?

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

My opinion is on the basis of reasonable force and what that really means in an emergency situation where you have mere seconds to make important decisons. Nothing I've mentioned in either of my comments are case specific to this case or implying i want to murder people.

[-] leftytighty@slrpnk.net 7 points 6 days ago

If you're not talking about this case and can't point to any examples where someone has been sentenced for self defense while acting in a way that you and I would consider reasonable then your opinion is not relevant.

All you're doing is spreading the idea that there's something wrong with our self defense laws, that they're too strict. If you wanna back down on that and say you were just making a pointless unrelated comment then be my guest

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 days ago

If its 3 am, someone has broken into your house, and they are armed and threatening what is a reasonable response?

Stop hitting them after they're on the floor and not moving would seem to be a reasonable line.

[-] Fredthefishlord 2 points 5 days ago

It's an interesting line to take. Depending on your condition , filled with adrenaline , making sure they stay down could be quite reasonable.

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 days ago

"Match the force" is extremely broad. If someone tries to beat the shit out of you with their bare hands, and you defend yourself with a baseball bat, that's almost certainly going to be kosher. It doesn't have to be exact.

Failing to use proportional force has to be really egregious to meet the standard. Something like shooting someone who was twenty paces away from you and armed only with a tire iron (even then you might still have a case). That's a situation where any reasonable person could have defused the situation by just telling the other guy to fuck off, or get down on their knees with their hands behind their head. And even then, you'd probably still be OK to shoot if, say, they lunged at you (check with a lawyer before putting this advice into practice, obviously).

Basically, if you can make the case that what you did was necessary for your own safety, you're in the clear.

The other stuff that gets people jacked up is continuing to "fight back" after the threat is over. You hit a guy with a baseball bat, he goes down... Yeah, that's probably kosher. If you were afraid for your life, well, you did what you had to. But if you then proceed to beat the guy until his skull shatters... Well, what part of that was necessary?

No one has to think through the tests described in the law, because those tests simply exist to define what everyone can already intuitively understand as being reasonable behaviours. You defended yourself? OK. You hunted the guy down and tortured him? Not OK. This isn't complicated, and it's not difficult. You just have to exercise a modicum of self-restraint. And the cops look very, very favourably on people who were defending themselves, unless there was clear evidence that they either majorly crossed a line, or they were actively looking for trouble (ie, walking around armed for a fight).