13 Comments
User's avatar
Carl Linkletter's avatar

The police noted that the public should remember that “charges are not convictions.”

Yea, right. Have you seen the lawyer bills for such things. As Microsoft used to say - It is not whether you are right or wrong .. but can you sustain the battle.

Expand full comment
Barb Haines's avatar

Only the victims get charged in Canada while the criminals walk free stalking their next victim. I have zero respect for our police force, the RCMP or the federal government who has created all of this out of control crime with their catch & release bail system. Commit a murder, a slap on the wrist. Break into someones home, charge the victim. I'm so done with all of this. What is wrong with Canadians that they keep voting these wackos back into power.....

Expand full comment
Harold Buchner's avatar

Cops are all under woke control . You should have no rights during a criminal activity . It looks like criminals have their own union today . It is late at night and dark and you don't know what this guy has for a weapon . He probably will get probation while they try to crucify the home owner . What a sick country we live in . People better wake up because when we bottom out crime is going to really go through the roof and that could be you .

Expand full comment
Erin's avatar

These police are so two-faced. Such hypocrisy. “[I]t is important to understand that these rights are not unlimited in Canada. The law requires that any defensive action be proportionate to the threat faced. This means that while homeowners do have the right to protect themselves and their property, the use of force must be reasonable given the circumstances.”

So how come we’re supposed to exonerate police when they use what the public seems to be excessive force? How do they know this homeowner wasn’t fearing for his life and the life of his family and fought the intruder with that in mind. They don’t know what it’s like to be woken up in the middle of the night in your own home and do everything you can to defend yourself. This entire arrest is just insane garbage and the police are fools.

Expand full comment
John's avatar

Charging the homeowner was a political move by the police. The police are trying to satisfy both political sides - the realists and the woke idiots. In due time, when the dust clears in a while, the charges against the homeowner will be dropped and the perpetrator will be convicted of some more minor charges, and continue his life of crime at taxpayers cost ( lawyers/judges/systems etc..) Sad.

Expand full comment
Tom C.'s avatar

Yes but how much $ is the homeowner going to lose fighting this? The process is the conviction.

Expand full comment
Erin's avatar

Meanwhile, this homeowner will have lived two of his worst nightmares—having his home invaded and having jail time threatened.

Expand full comment
Ken Harcus's avatar

Does a victim have to ask the perp,"please detail how you are going to assault me so I can plan an appropriate response,"

Expand full comment
Claudnificent's avatar

The punishment is the process. Defending your property is a fundamental right!

Expand full comment
Marilyn Tanguay's avatar

When a stranger breaks into your home and HE HAS a weapon you're not thinking "what's the appropriate defense". You're being threatened, the guy has a weapon that could hurt/kill you and/or your family. You're going to do EVERYTHING in your power to not let that happen. We don't all have security sleeping at the foot of our beds like the powers that be. What would they do. Oh right...cower, cry and say please don't hurt me, here's a billion dollars.

Expand full comment
Ruth semple's avatar

Police saying 'charges are not convictions" should not be charging the victim in the first place. If you are already a criminal & you break into someone's house & threaten them, you hopefully get what you deserve. If this were the law, I suspect there would be less criminals free to inflict themselves on innocent citizens. This guy (if he recovers) might think twice before his next break in.

Expand full comment
Kathy's avatar

Yep

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Aug 22
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Guy Cabellero's avatar

Well said. Thank you for this. It does go back to ‘85 - ‘87. Things that never should have changed: home invasion is an existential threat to the people living in that home. Any and all means to mitigate that threat are justified and should be legal. It used to be legal to shoot someone who was running away from you if you had been burglarized (in the US). Seems we need more of that and less of “just leave your car keys and cash by the door so the thieves have easy access.

Expand full comment