this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
62 points (97.0% liked)

Canada

11665 readers
672 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

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


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hmmm. The article indicates a broken window, and further 'medical and forensic evidence'. If the broken window was the point of access, it might indicate that a lot of the cuts sustained by the alleged intruder could be traced to the broken glass. That fact would change the entire scenario. It then becomes 'much ado about nothing'.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Canada is mostly good at sorting out the facts. After an initial arrest the gears of justice grind away and the facts lead to dismissals. Every time this happens though, people get all heated up about the initial arrest.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago

Doug Ford was one of those people.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Good. Self defense is not a crime nor should it be. And yes I am aware that many people don't understand what self defense means on a legal level, they can fuck off.

[–] Smaile@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Oh no they understand, people were just getting wro fully charged for doing so before.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'd be really interested to see an actual example of someone who was wrongfully charged in a situation that was clearly self-defence, as I've never yet seen one. And by that I do mean a) the charges stuck, and b) the situation was still clearly self-defence once all the facts were known.

[–] Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

I kept asking for that when this case originally hit the media. Nobody could provide an example. I can also think of people I know that also inflicted life threatening injuries on an intruder and were never charged. Police act on the information available to them at the time, then collect evidence that either confirms or contradict their suspicions. People seem to think our legal system is just for show and that only guilty people are charged with a crime.

[–] DarylInCanada@lemmy.ca 11 points 4 days ago (2 children)

There is a very big difference between 'defending yourself' and 'deciding to take the law into your own hand and dishing out your own brand of justice and punishment'.

Doing the first is your right, doing the second is vigilante justice and almost always turns the country into 'rule by organized crime'. Mexico is a good example of what happens when the 'right to defend' leads to 'the right to impose your will regardless of the law'.

[–] deltapi@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Are you saying that if someone breaks into your home with apparent intent to cause harm that you can't defend your person with whatever means necessary? I think that if someone breaks in brandishing a weapon that it should be open season.
This isn't a case of a homeowner beating up a drunk that accidentally broke into a house thinking it was their own and fell asleep on the couch.

[–] DarylInCanada@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"Open season' has a tendency to develop into open warfare against anyone you do not like. Unrestricted 'self defense' is wide open to abuse, like it is in America.

[–] deltapi@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Alright, so if someone breaks in to your home with a crossbow, what is the limit on your self defense?

[–] DarylInCanada@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This case makes it clear. Once the authorities determine through an investigation all of the facts, and what actually happened, and collect all the facts, they will determine if the level of self-defense was appropriate.

[–] deltapi@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not sure I can agree. Why did they not simply wait to get the facts before filing charges?
This guy has had to deal with the fallout of being charged/arraigned/etc. and probably had to retain a barrister. The news said that they dropped the charges due to a conviction being practically impossible. Reading the details, it sounds like there was a strong defense for the resident to claim that most of the cuts were from the home invader cutting himself up on the window he broke in through...
So the charges were not dropped because it's ok to defend yourself, the charges were dropped because they can't prove that this guy sliced up the home invader.

This case doesn't do anything to show where the line is.

[–] DarylInCanada@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And yet the public gets in an outrage when known criminals get put back on the street and then re-offend, some in heinous crimes. Given his background and the number of convictions, I am sure he has his solicitor on speed dial. He was previously charged with attacking people with a baseball bat, and you want the police to believe him? Just ignore the blood, and let him go? Exactly how were the police to believe that the 'victim' was legitimately an intruder, and not someone the knife-wielder actually invited into his home, they got into an argument, and this guy took a knife to him? Police are not mind readers, and they are used to people lying to them. No way are they going to believe either side. Charge them, get them off the street, and let the system run its course.

[–] deltapi@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] DarylInCanada@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago

That is entirely up to the courts, and the judge, to decide. This is Canada, where the Rule of Law and the decisions of the court still mean something.

But really, why be concerned about it? The chances of any Canadian ever coming close to the lie are in the vicinity of winning the lottery - one in tens of millions odds.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (6 children)

Can you elaborate on how that is the case in Mexico?

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›