Canada should have a castle doctrine

[JakeYYZ]

TORONTO — A man escorting his girlfriend to her home Sunday night discovered signs of entry to her house and, fearing for the woman’s mother sleeping inside, searched for intruders. A man was found hiding, Toronto police said. An ensuing struggle left the intruder bleeding from stab wounds.
As frightening as the incident was, it is the charging of the boyfriend with aggravated assault, punishable by 14 years in prison, that makes the case stand out in a clutter of urban crime.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/08/03 ... side-home/
A justice spokesman said we can't have the American-style "castle" doctrine,it wouldn't be Canadian.

How typical of the justice system, doing everything they can to protect the perpetrator at the expense of the victim.

[iflyforpie]

Dead men tell no tales...

[Expat]

Dead men tell no tales...

...always finish the job...

[North Shore]

Except that buddy went just a little too far:

Key to the case is that the multiple stab wounds were inflicted both inside the home and outside, Const. Vella said, suggesting the occupants might have been able to close the door once he was outside and call police.

I'm sure that the police are sick and tired of what seems like 'revolving door' justice too, and are in no hurry to charge a person who uses reasonable force.

[Canuck223]

In principle, we do enjoy the same rights. In practice, it's a bit hamstrung.

When I first heard this story, I had to wonder what the backstory was to cause the home owner to be charged.

[Beefitarian]

I'm pretty undecided on this one. I somewhat would like free reign on dealing with a person that is inside my home uninvited.

I don't know if we should to be allowed to do what ever, when ever afterwards. It might be fun, "It's friday, I think I'll go over to that burgler's house and kick him in the nuts to make sure he doesn't think about breaking into my place like he did in '03." but maybe it's too much.

I think I understand this guy's plan though. These days showing the guy you're off your rocker and at least making him think the only reason you didn't kill him was he managed to finally out run you and the fireplace poker after several blocks of pursuit. May help him avoid ideas of, "Maybe I should go back when that dude's sleeping. I bet I could take him if it's a surprise."

[JakeYYZ]

No one, in the heat of the moment of defending oneself, one’s property or a loved one, can reasonably be expected to measure the force applied to stopping a criminal. Nor is there enough time to assess a criminal’s capabilities or any potential weapons that he may be carrying.
When a person decides to break into another person’s house, he must accept all possible consequences of his actions, including being killed by the owner of the house. And our law should be changed to reflect this common-sense approach.

[Rockie]

No one, in the heat of the moment of defending oneself, one’s property or a loved one, can reasonably be expected to measure the force applied to stopping a criminal. Nor is there enough time to assess a criminal’s capabilities or any potential weapons that he may be carrying.

When you phrase it that way Jake I'm half inclined to agree with you. But that ignores the fact that attacking the individual is not the only way to deal with a situation like that. It also means it would effectively be open season on anybody caught trespassing in any way shape or form, and all measures up to and including killing the individual are justified even if it's just a kid fishing on your property. Where would you draw the line?

If you use a weapon or even deadly force in a genuine belief that you needed to in order to defend yourself you should have nothing to worry about. But chasing the guy down and stabbing him when he's trying to get away and you are no longer threatened is no longer defending yourself is it?

[JakeYYZ]

This is not to say that any incident should automatically be written up as a case of self-defence without any proper investigation. No, because that would open the door to abuse .. such as when an individual lures another person to his home to murder him and then makes it look like self-defence. But once it has been established that person A was on the property unlawfully and person B injured or even killed A in an effort to stop or eject A, then B must always remain clear of any criminal charges, and the degree of force used must never be an issue at all .. in other words, any force employed against an intruder must invariably be considered reasonable under any and all circumstances.
Simple trespassing on private property is not a matter that could justify the use of force. Breaking into my home is an act of violence in and of itself. Right now, the dumb law we have forces us to handle intruders with kid gloves and to give the criminal an actual chance to injure or kill us ... as if it were his God-given right to harm or kill us. What kind of law would place more power in the hands of a criminal than his victim?

[WileyCoyote]

Pretty simple to me. If you don't break into someone's house you have nothing to worry about...

[grimey]

You're allowed to use whatever force is reasonably necessary to remove the person from your home. After he's out, well, he's out, and you should stop with the stabby-stabby. This guy didn't, and while I can understand why he kept stabbing the guy, charging the guy with assault with a weapon is perfectly in keeping with the law as written. Now if he'd killed an armed intruder inside the house, or outside while defending himself, it'd be a different story.

Defence of house or real property

41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

Assault by trespasser

(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

[Expat]

I remember, when I was living in Gatineau, the case of a man, who has had his house broken into three times, when he had been away for long week-ends. Because the insurance company dropped him, he decided to fix the problem.
One week-end, he parked the car away, then sat home, without lights, with a loaded rifle in hand.
Sure enough, two burglars broke into the house the first night. The house owner appeared, and started firing. The bad guys ran away, but he continued to chase them, and fired at them. He killed one, and the other got a shot in the back.
The wounded guy later sued the houseowner, who had already been charged of assault.
Anyway, the judge was understanding, and the houseowner got away with a light sentence...

[niss]

Personal safety is one thing. Property is not worth killing or being killed over. Is this what we want canada to be like?

[Dash-Ate]

We need to bring their families into canada with free health care, housing, schooling and lawyers!!!

It's the harper hug-a-thug way. Look forward to another 200,000 more coming in this year.

Look at this link for our new way of life!!! What we fight for?!?!?

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/homicide/mostwanted.php

[grimey]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/09/15 ... ound-dead/

Happened 3 blocks from my house. Some lowlife who'd PREVIOUSLY BROKEN INTO THE SAME GARAGE, discovered that the owner had since installed an alarm system, and that 1) the owner is an ex-MP 2) he's a wrestling coach 3) both of his large teenage sons are avid wrestlers and 4) they don't like burglars who assault them. I guess this was a bad way for the guy to try to pay off his drug debt. Anyway, the perp jumps dad from behind while he comes out to investigate, it looks like the perp is getting the best of him, so the son stabs him and kills him. Good for him, and I hope he's not dwelling on it too much. Anyway, they're now they're being threatened by the idiot's associates, and have a potential manslaughter charge looming over their heads.

"Corey liked to go for bike rides at night when he couldn't sleep"

Uh, he was burglarizing places, honey. @#$! him.

[bmc]

Canada has become a nation of boyscouts. It's more important to be polite than to have a set of nuts.

[Siddley Hawker]

W'aal da man did say "We are da nation of boy scout, us we."

[grimey]

Good news, my neighbour and his son got off with no charges laid.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/charg ... story.html

An Arnprior man is the latest to join a lengthening list of Canadian homeowners who've found themselves facing prosecution-or persecution, as critics claim- for defending themselves against threatening intruders.

The highly publicized case of Nathan Woods, a retired military officer, concluded in his favour Tuesday. The OPP, in consultation with the Crown Attorney's Office, decided not to lay criminal charges against him. The decision came more than two weeks after Woods and his son confronted a man trying to break into their home at 44 Edward St. North. in Arnprior, about 70 kilometres northwest of Ottawa. During the altercation the intruder, Corey Blaskie, 41, was fatally stabbed.

[Expat]

[JakeYYZ]

A farmer in Alberta, Brian Russell Knight, was charged criminally and sentenced to 90 days.. that is 60 days more than one of the criminals got who had entered Mr. Knight’s property illegally and tried to steal equipment. Mr. Knight’s crime....... He had taken out his shotgun to defend his property and family and fired a warning shot in the direction of the criminals.
Any judge who applies a more severe punishment to a victim of crime than to the actual perpetrator doesn’t deserve to be a judge.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Albert ... story.html

[straightpilot]

Jake: you just don't get it. The government isn't interested in protecting citizens. The government is interested in protecting it's power.

This farmer, that attempted to protect himself/family/property, is clearly guilty of a greater crime than the thieves. The government couldn't care less about protecting the law-abiding citizen from the thieves. The government doesn't see protection of citizens as it's job.

The farmer, by defending himself and his property, usurped the power of the state, which is a very dangerous thing to do. He attacked the government's sole right to the use of force, and the government struck back - note the "vigilante" pejorative term used by the government to describe him.

This in left-wing rural Alberta!

[human garbage]

...It's the harper hug-a-thug way...

I'm assuming this was a typo and you meant the 'Liberal Hug-a-thug' way. I know it is knee-jerk for some to blame Harper for all of societies ills but he has only appointed two judges so far... The new omnibus crime bill is bringing in mandatory minimums... Hardly the catch and release system practiced under past Governments. That reminds me of an article from the 2006 election where all the inmates are voting Liberal, and one loser has a big "L" shaved one the side of his head. Pretty clear to those inmates who the party giving the hugs is, and it doesn't appear to be the CPC:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... ection2006

(Just what every law and order party wants; to be endorsed by dope-dealing armed robbers lol)

I agree with having a castle doctrine. Someone comes into your house and presents a threat to your safety, I have no problem with them leaving in a body bag. Outside the home it is a different story, leave them for the cops to deal with. That said, I understand people will do things under stress they wouldn't do normally or if they have time to reflect. There should be some leeway for that. Better to be judged by twelve then carried by six, so it is understandable that some may err on the side of caution...

[JakeYYZ]

The federal government has pledged to alter Canada's laws governing self defence, with an eye to giving citizens increased latitude to protect themselves and their property.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Torie ... z1cHVDJdE9
Freeing the individual to defend his or her own self and property is an important positive move.

[Apollo]

Property is not worth killing or being killed over

Hrm... Interesting.

[Nark]

My State just passed a Castle-Doctrine law today.

Come into Casa-da-Nark unannounced, chance are very good you aren't walking out.