Key takeaway:

According to police, the resident had woken up to find an intruder inside his apartment. The two had an "altercation" and the intruder suffered life-threatening injuries, police say, and was later airlifted to a Toronto hospital.

Police say the resident is facing charges for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. 

The alleged intruder, 41, is also facing charges, including breaking and entering and possession of a weapon for dangerous purposes. Police say the man was also already wanted for unrelated offences.

The homeowner does not deserve to be treated as a criminal for defending himself, his family and his home! Canada needs sane self defence laws!

all 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 6 points 1 year ago

Boy, that's sure going to deter me from defending my family! What effective legislation!

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Given the nature of the situation, I'm not at all surprised that both parties are facing charges.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    That's only been required for 20 years. Ffs Canada, common sense. Just let yourself get mugged, raped, murdered- no self defense or defending your own home against invader. Lest you too be charged and sent to jail with the offender

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Self defense needs limits. Wait to find out more details before judging. He could have been beating an unconscious person with a baseball bat for 10 mins for all we know. Defense of property doesn't merit risk of a life. Only defense of life should be worth life threatening force.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    The intruder was charged with possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. It is certainly possible the victims life was at risk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    absolutely... but the devil is in the details.

    the intruder coud have had a pocket knife in his pocket and still would merit the charge.

    given the police statement, it does sound like the home owner went overboard but more details are needed before understanding the charges

  • source
  • parent
  • 32 comments in c/ontario@lemmy.ca view that post
    [–] 23 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    They ALWAYS get charged. They almost never get convicted. You have the right to self defense.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (16 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (15 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    Not that I'm (dis)agreeing with anyone here but I'm curious if people actually do get charged most of the time even if it looks blatantly like self defense.

    I suppose that'd be very hard to find a source on though and might require some more complex sleuthing. Regardless, I know here in the USA a lot of times people won't even get charged if it looks like self defense.

    To be fair to you and the guy you replied to it's kind of a hard thing to actually ferret out.

    I think one could definitely argue either way on the merits of charging someone vs not when it comes to a self defense situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    These are pretty high profile cases and always get reported on. Convictions are rare and only when obvious egregious examples like chasing the crook down the street then assaulting them or shooting them in the back.

    Anyone who follows these types of cases knows. Sorry I don't have a lawyer handy to dig up a statistical analysis of Canadian court cases. Google Fu works reasonably well if you are inclined to put in the effort.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Meh it's random shit on the internet, my Google Fu says fuck that noise lol

    I get what you're saying though. Suppose you can't just let someone get away with murder.

    I think maybe on some level I kind of just feel like it's okay to kill a person breaking into a house regardless of their motivation and actions. Like, idk if I'd say I'm that bloodthirsty or unforgiving but I almost feel it to the level where if you just straight execution style murdered a person breaking into your house that would be a okay. Which, admittedly, is fucked up on my part and I'm not that callous, I know it's a bad take, but something about the violation of personal sanctify and trust just makes me go "eh fuck that person, remove them from our society."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    The law in Canada was written so you can't do that under many circumstances. A drunk neighbour who opened the wrong unlocked door and crashed on the wrong couch doesn't deserve to get blasted.

    A knife, or similar beweaponed intruder who broke into your home and doesn't leave when they are confronted with residents both deserves to get blasted and the resident will be charged but not convicted.

    The key is proportionality to the threat. A drunk mistakenly at the wrong door poses little threat. A 911 call, solid yelling at, and even a push out the door is fine.

    The armed intruder who doesn't immediately retreat when confronted takes one step towards you gives a reasonable person a legitimate fear of greivous bodily harm or death and proportional self defense is warranted.

    E.g. he had a knife. He adanced towards me. I feared for my life, as most people would under the circumstances and I used the most expiditous means at my disposal to end the imminent threat. (Bat, gun,knife,frozen salmon, table lamp, ming vase, whatever.

    If they run, you let them go. It's the police's problem. Easy peasy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    They aren't even necessarily intending to kill. Shooting center mass in a panicked situation against a moving target has the highest likelihood of landing a hit due to center mass being the largest area. There also happens to be a ton of important organs there. You could try to aim for a leg or arm to be non lethal, but if you miss several shots the intruder could close the distance and harm/kill you.

    You can kill someone during self defense and still have it not be intentful murder. Some people take 6 rounds to the chest and can walk away from the hospital, some die to 1 shot. An intruder can break their neck and die after falling during a physical struggle, is it fair to say the defender intended to murder them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    You're citing a law, I guarantee that thier are innocent self defense people in jail.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    A personal guarentee you say? I'd prefer a reference.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You're giving me the same guarantee the government is. You're on the side of .gov saying they don't do anything wrong. I'm not believing a boot licker.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 11 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    If someone intrudes are you just supposed to let them?

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Well, it is a police matter right?

    But the best case scenario is 5 min response, and you’re facing a meth addict with a gun. What the heck are you supposed to do, besides defend yourself and family with whatever is at hand? Lunacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 1 year ago* (12 children)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    The article specifically states that the intruder was charged with possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. Its likely the victims use of force prevented the weapon being used against the victim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Huh? How does the text not support this being likely?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I get your example, and you should probably resist killing your ex. Any other rando appearing inside your house should be dealt with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Lesson here is don't call anyone, as your families safety is not important.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Wow, that is insane.

  • source
  • 10 comments in c/canada@lemmy.ca view that post
    [–] 19 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I’m pretty sure that’s the proper procedure. They will charge him, the procurer will choose to follow up or not IF the crown choose to prosecute he will plead self defence (likely win) and will have to prove that he had properly store his firearm.

    I’m not a lawyer so maybe I’m in the wrong but I’m pretty sure that’s how it works

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 9 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    You aren’t wrong actually, I made a post a yesterday I believe which Criminal Defence attorney Jordana Goldlist explains that self defence in Canada occurs at trial, people who justifiably defend themselves and are arrested have to essentially sit in legal limbo waiting for a judge or jury to determine their outcome which really isn’t fair for the victim given they’re forced to relive the moments of the event.

    If the person defending themselves went way out of line I absolutely agree they should be prosecuted however, there needs to be some change in the system that doesn’t immediately criminalize the victim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    A person illegally enters your home, they forfeit life. That's how the laws should be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    My neighbour's mom came to visit and got the wrong house. She just opened my door and walked right in.

    Unfortunate, but ultimately my neighbour understood I had to keep my family safe. He was actually very apologetic on behalf of his mother. They said she was a sweet lady, but anyone who so brazenly breaks the law is surely a danger to society.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'd kill him and bury the body if that happened to me. Already had this talk with family, we only call the police if it is the only option available.

    I think that is safer than relying on Canada's self defence laws to protect us, because they don't.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The problem with that is if you do get caught now, the actions of hiding the body and killing someone who otherwise was wounded, will significantly impact the trial and it will likely lean more on the murder side than self defense at that point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment