Huor
1112
39
4
So basically in Canada, you don't have a legal right to violent self-defence.
Well ... yes, you are, but there are very strict limits to how violent you can be. Enough to fight off an attacker but no more than that. Your response has to be reasonable and proportionate. Anything beyond that and you risk arrest -- especially if you use a gun.
Theoretically you can kill someone in self-defence, but you'll almost certainly have some 'splainin to do in front of a judge. In practice it almost never happens.
A few years back a shop owner caught a shoplifter and held him while he waited for the cops to arrive, and was charged with kidnapping (among other charges) but was acquitted in court. In another case, a farmer shot a trespasser and was charged with second-degree murder, but was acquitted; his defence was that his gun went off by accident.
Basically -- you fight back in Canada and you takes your chances. No "stand your ground" laws here.
I'm guessing this sounds really weird to most Americans.
JohnWickdidnothingwrong
"Stand your ground" isn't the relevant concept, "Castle Doctrine" is.
zanaria
Yes, in Canada you do not have the right to murder someone just because they step on your property. When I took karate years ago, our instructor, one of only I think 3 black belts of a certain rank in Canada, told us that if we ever were threatened, we had to warn the attacker that we knew karate, so that they couldn't sue later on.
mrthewhitee
You can subdued or scare off an intruder, and that's it. You have no right to kill an intruder and are required to disengage if an attacker is retreating or surrendering.
It's a completely reasonable self-defense limitation.
Sherpafish
And yer flag decal won't get'cha into heaven anymore.
Makerofthingsmasherofstuff
It makes a lot of sense. Yes, you can choose to take action, but the reality is that it's much safer for everyone involved to not get into a fight.
If a thief knows that someone is not going to shoot them, they don't go in with the intent to harm anyone.
Property can be replaced. Criminals can be arrested. People can live. I remember being told at one of my first jobs that if someone wants to steal the cash from the register, don't be a hero. The cash can be replaced, I can't be.
eion85
I once had to write up an employee for chasing shoplifters who grabbed a bunch of $200 box sets off our display and ran to their waiting car.
We avoiding firing him, which was actually the company policy. Not because they care about humans of course, but because it would open them up to lawsuits.
Your life is not worth any stuff, certainly not stuff you don't even own.
cattlegrazer82
Thats generally the same in most places in the US too.
DiracsDelta
Castle doctrine has entered the chat
GTVAHeretic
Ridiculous. With recent history talking about America invading Canada, as an American my reaction was a huge "Why? They're an ally." After reading this article my thought was "Oh... well maybe just a little bit."
Umkontodon
You know how hard it is to control the level of your reaction when facing life and death situation with all that adrenaline pumping through your veins and all the worst scenarios playing in your mind.
PostalHeathen
Castle Doctrine's the rule of the day in my part of the US, and I'm ok with that.
an0therthr0waway
"Building walls makes you strong. Defending them makes you stronger." -- Swanson's Law of Masonry
eion85
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Self Defense is a defense in common law, but it still is subject to rulings by a court or the discretion of the prosecutor.
Making self defense a total immunity is a bad idea because that would mean I'd be totally protected if I beat an intruder, tie them up, and slowly torture them to death for invading my property.
animatronicChristmasChickens
I generally agree. The only issue I see is that the homeowner here will have to spend a lot of money for the defense
stayingalive4life
I would say it’s not just money but time and potential damages to reputation.
eion85
Canada has a right to counsel and it's arguably a better run system than the US's, but could certainly be improved.
comacomacomacomachameleon
"I'd be totally protected if I beat an intruder, tie them up, and slowly torture them to death" - No you wouldn't. That's a bad faith argument. The basis of "self-defense" in most jurisdictions is that the actions you took were necessary to prevent grave bodily harm or death. If you tied up the perpetrator, you are no longer in danger. It's not self-defense by any legal definition if you kill them while they pose no threat.
eion85
It's not a bad faith argument if it's reasonable to assume advocates for an unlimited right to "self defense" would gleefully celebrate it.
Can you honestly say otherwise?
comacomacomacomachameleon
It's a bad faith argument in that there exists no jurisdiction where it would fall under "self-defense." An unlimited right to self-defense exists in Texas. It means you can use any force, even deadly force, to defend yourself and your property. It would mean you can shoot an unarmed intruder for example.
eion85
And I was talking about what would seem to be the natural progression from the shitty situation we have now to an even worse one.
"I have a right to protect my property with any force needed. I feared for further break ins down the road, so your honor I had to torture and kill that man to make sure a message was sent. Plus he was an illegal immigrant, right?"
It's not a slippery slope fallacy if we've seen progression decade after decade to expand the allowance for violence. All for property