this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2025

41 points (97.7% liked)

Canada

10438 readers

546 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

Toronto Raptors

Soccer

Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

General:
- Canada Politics
- FairVote Canada
Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- Animal Protection Party of Canada
- NDP
By Province (alphabetical):
- BC Greens

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

Ontario man charged after confronting intruder inside home allegedly used knife, court docs say (www.cbc.ca)

submitted 3 weeks ago by Quilotoa@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 28 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

This sounds broken and stupid, but I think it might be the system working well. I don't think we want stand your ground laws like in Florida.

Self defence is allowed, but only so far as to defend yourself. You can't go maim someone once your outside of danger. Also this doesn't mean the guy is guilty, just charged.

It's pretty nuanced: https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-34.html

Even the post points this out:

"What would be unreasonable," former police officer Dan Jones told CBC News Network, "is as you've got them subdued on the ground, already under control, continuously hitting them, or hurting them, or stabbing them."

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, we can't have a "as long as he's on your property you can do whatever you want to him" situation like we see in some states. Which means there are definitely things you can do to an intruder that should result in you going to jail, and figuring that sort of thing out is what the courts are there for.

Obviously this is a new case and a lot of details are unclear, so I can't speak much to this particular situation. But hypothetically, if some drunk guy came wandering into my house baffled about how "his" furniture was all different and rearranged and I started whacking away at him with a machete then I am clearly the asshole here and should be put away for a very long time.

Likewise if some guy comes in to rob me brandishing a pocket knife, I do the "that's not a knife, this is a knife" routine brandishing my machete, and he backs away saying "woah dude I don't want to actually fight" then I shouldn't start whacking away in that situation either. Let him retreat. Though perhaps if I can make the argument that I couldn't tell if he was retreating or attacking that might work as a defense.

It's complicated. So to the courts it goes.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

The UK has similar rules.

There was a case a few years back where a farmer shot 2 teenagers burglarizing his house, with a shotgun. The papers made a stink about it. It turned out that he was only charged for the second. The first was shot in the chest, in his house. The second was shot in the back, while running up his drive. The first was "reasonable self defence", the second was manslaughter.

[–] bookmeat@lemmynsfw.com 19 points 3 weeks ago

Yes, you see, in Canada you can fight for your life with deadly force, but you can't fight for your property with deadly force. Canadian society values life over property.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 weeks ago

I think I’d acquit if I were on the jury

A home invader with a weapon and a physical confrontation is impossible to judge someone’s mental state and level of fear/adrenalin.

But the devil’s in the details.

[–] datavoid@lemmy.ml 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Next time I do a home invasion I'm going to bring a gun to protect myself, can't be too careful these days.

[–] MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Won't they think of the poor home invader's rights?

[–] datavoid@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It's crazy to me that being pro self-defense is a conservative talking point. Im about as left as can be, and yet in my mind being able to defend against home intruders is common sense.

[–] MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago

Yes, by breaking into someone's house and threatening (even by their presence) the homeowner/tenant means you should forfeit the normal benefits of society. They are choosing to break societal norms by doing this, and should face the consequences.

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago

As people have commented on all these posts since the incident appeared, we have no info on the incident.

Could be evidence of assault above and beyond that required for self defense (injuries to the intruders back, for example, from him attempting to run away, or signs of the fight continuing from inside to the exterior). Generally self defense is accepted with a good degree of latitude in Canada/(would love to find any examples of cases where someone defended themselves appropriately yet were convicted) , but obvious attacks that aren't self defense still are assault.

[–] saigot@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

"What would be unreasonable," former police officer Dan Jones told CBC News Network, "is as you've got them subdued on the ground, already under control, continuously hitting them, or hurting them, or stabbing them."

Hate to agree with a cop but this is my stance. Any act of physical violence should have a trial, and unless the guy did something like in the quote it should be a quick and not overly onerous one.

[–] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 weeks ago

Any act of physical violence should have a trial

Any act of physical violence should have an investigation. There are plenty of straightforward cases that don't need to go through the time and expense of a trial.

[–] Shortstack@reddthat.com 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Hold up

This guy is attacked by an ARMED intruder in his apartment in the middle of the night, and he's being charged for fighting for his life?

Canada, I love you guys, but this is fucked up

[–] kbal@fedia.io 23 points 3 weeks ago

If he was attacked, there's no mention of it in this report of the story. Instead, "there's a lot that we don't know." There's far too little info to draw any conclusions about exactly how fucked up it may or may not be.

[–] SamuelRJankis@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

The most broken thing here is CBC going out of their way to put the spotlight on this idiot doing his performative politics.

Federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said in a social media post, "If someone breaks in, you deserve the right to defend your loved ones and your property — full stop."

I thought they'd stop doing this stuff after the elections.