To an extent, this IS on the police. They could have declined to charge the man with assault as he was defending himself. They chose the easy way, which is let the courts decide. Problem is that will cost the victim a ton of money and time. He should not have to go through this.
Absolutely correct sir!!! This is 50% on the police, 50% on the libtards. If the police exercised common sense, ANY property owner in this situation would obviously not wait until they'd been killed to do something about people in their home - potentially ravaging their loved ones and stealing their possessions. Zero thinking was exercised by these alleged "enforcers of the law" - they should be FIRED!
the same brain-dead police force who ignore protesters blocking highways and downtown streets, then arrest the peaceful ones; those who loot and destroy private and public property; those who turn a blind eye to victims of serious verbal and physical harassment from the alphabet community and trans supporters....their actions come from higher above, unfortunately
As a Canadian this makes me furious. The intruder gets a MISCHIEF charge and the victim gets Aggravated assault????? Anyone breaks into OUR HOME in the middle of the night picked the WRONG house. If intruders KNOW they could be shot, it is a HUGE deterrent to the crime. Get a brain legislation writers…that would be YOU, MP’s. The law is wrong and we need ‘Castle’ law in this country. Get back to work, you’ve had TEN months off, with pay that should be returned to the taxpayers. Mr. MacDonald better have those charges dropped- I didn’t know I could be any more furious with this useless government than I already am.
Sherry1 - I concur; anyone breaking into my home and potentially threatening my kids and wife will be lucky to get out alive. It's called be a Father and Husband - i have a job to do: defend my family. Period. Full stop. I am not there to let them suffer. Mr. MacDonald should also be allowed to sue 1) the Feds, 2) the local police force, 3) the officers involved. In addition to castle law, we need to make the officers of the law ACCOUNTABLE. And not to the criminals, but to the victims of crime.
Sounds like the cops and Libtards want you to sit down with the intruder and go over the rules of engagement . The criminal has no rules and the innocent home owner has a text book to study . This home owner will be dragged through court and end up dealing with a woke judge . The criminal will be out before the home owner gets halfway through the court system . They will at the least make him spend a small fortune on lawyers .
Let’s CHANGE that. WE forget, as do they, that the Government answers to US. Let’s all remind them of that fact. Too many Limos, Perks, Private Jets, high roller life-style, expenses paid all ON US. We must change that. They are NOT Royalty. Put them on a short leash. .
Too many people who appear to love the Liberals and of course the deep corruption in our government , courts and everything else important to keeping control .
The police officers should have exercised a little common sense - Breen broke into the home, McDonald defended his home and family. If Breen wasn't there illegally, he wouldn't have gotten hurt. McDonald could just as easily have been injured. The fact there was a struggle, means Breen didn't surrender or just simply flee.
If we had the "Stand your ground" rule, and some common sense gun laws, McDonald could have confronted Breen with a gun, told him to lie on the floor until the police arrived - no struggle. We are not told what weapon Breen had, but he obviously thought he could overcome McDonald with just a knife. He likely would not have fought if McDonald was in possession of a gun. If Breen had a gun or he resisted, then McDonald should have been within his rights to shoot Breen. There should be no requirement to give ground. This is all on the Intruder who had no legal right to be there.
Nobody should have to wait for the arrival of police to defend home and family. Response times truly negate that. The first responders in any of these situations is the resident with legal right to be there.
There is only one answer at this point, protect yourself at all costs. If Premier Smith would just bring Alberta to independence we would make our own laws. And in my opinion every province should be going independent. The feds are nothing but a tax incinerator. They order you how much money to throw into the incinerator, and you do. and every year they increase the order.
What is ignored is the motives of the criminal and the victim. The criminal came prepared to commit murder while the victim is required to make a complete assessment in one second of the level of threat to his children and home. All freeze while the court decides.
Only in Canada our inept Gary government would have this rule in place. The victim is treated as the perpetrator! You break into my house while I am home I guarantee it will be slice and dice. There will be no second thought. My famous everything. If this law remains there will be people who will buy shovels ….
This is going to get far worse as the the economy tanks . Crime will go through the roof and the cops will be of no use . But then they don't work for us .
I believe it has happened. Meanwhile the LibTARDS are suppling free drugs to the Zombies who are infecting our communities. The cops arrest and our perverted courts catch and release. We need Pierre!!!!!
Hey Dr Meat! (Giving Carney a hand here!) Here is how to solve the problem: 1. Ban all legally registered guns. 2. Provide free sex and sex changes to adolescents, and 3. Join the EU (AKA The Fourth Reich). Sieg Heil to you Great Leader!
Clearly one should, as the law allows, use whatever force is needed to defend oneself. Also, clearly, there are limits to how much and in what circumstances force can be used.
Finding someone uninvited in your place sounds bad. How about the demented individual I found removing Dad's wheelchair from his place? Breaking in, yes, attempted theft, yes. Force yes, (I took his elbow and led him out) Unlimited force? Don't be silly. There have to be limits.
When PP, DF et al mouthed off what was known was that somebody went into somebody's place uninvited, there was an altercation involving weapons, the trespasser was airlifted to the hospital, and the owner had been arrested and charged. One can't develop an informed opinion from that. In the absence of facts, tossing blame around is inane. The knee jerk reactions are inane. Ford, Poilievre et al know that.
Just depends on the definitions of what You say. Who is providing these definitions of "force" for instance? In My home My definition counts, not Yours, or the so called law. My home is My castle, not any body else's. If I could I probably would put up a sign "all trespassers will be hurt very, very badly". But then I try to be a law abiding citizen.
I am afraid you are too late. When we said "Mi casa es su casa," (my house is your house) the sexual deviants, wannabe dictators and grifting money-launderers in the capitals of the world took us at our word.
How lucky you were just to be able to lead him out by the elbow! Must be a fellow "elbows up" kind of guy. Rock. paper. scissors. You the paper, him the rock if he had been on drugs and demented or just plain BAD. You were lucky......this time.
Dad was in a seniors' place, the intruder had Alzheimer's or something similar. It was more guidance than force. The law allows as much force as necessary, I have no intention of taking chances but recognize that when the threat is over, I have to stop. (BTW - If someone who knows what he's doing has you by the elbow, you be very meek, polite, and docile.)
The scenario you described is totally different. You're talking about the intruder being a senior with Alzheimer's. How would you act if that person was strong and armed and you couldn't get close to his elbow? That's all I'm asking ...
Of course it's different. I'm responding to the idiot idea that one can use unlimited force in any home invasion circumstances. Look above "I have no intention of taking chances. . ." or "Clearly one should, as the law allows, use whatever force is needed to defend oneself". I've been pretty clear.
Silly comparison .Don't expect other people to be so passive . Give him a kiss if you want but thinking a home owner will know what he has for a weapon in the dark and middle of the night is just plain stupid . I guess OSHA covers criminals now . To me I don't care what either had the criminal gave up all rights when he broke in . You hug a thug people helped them bring in these insane laws .
It was a good illustration of a point. Did some part of " I have no intention of taking chances but recognize that when the threat is over, I have to stop." lead you to believe that I'm into kissing criminals?
How do you know he didn't stop . I am more concerned for the home owner and could care less about the criminal . Your comparison isn't close to what this home owner had to deal with . Two different incidents . No the law is not consistent of these rulings .
Please quote where I said he didn't stop. What I did say was that we lack the information to make an informed opinion. While you're retracting that nonsense go ahead and retract the statements that I made a comparison
Well that is nice and perhaps when someone breaks into your house next time he might not be so easy to deal with when he is sane and armed . Your comparison is silly because those break ins are rare . Maybe you can put up bail for the criminal and have him move in and show him the error of his ways . By the way they just told you what happened . You have to be a Liberal .
So this is what Canada and Canadians have come to after more than a decade of Liberal rule, where crime and criminals are rewarded for their criminality and Canadians suffer and pay the price, sometimes paying the ultimate price: their death. Strange isn't it, when Harper was PM, crime especially violent crime was going down in 2014. You have to ask why did judges become almost as dumb as Trudeau, throwing innocent citizens in jail in exchange for criminals walking away free to repeat their crimes.
To an extent, this IS on the police. They could have declined to charge the man with assault as he was defending himself. They chose the easy way, which is let the courts decide. Problem is that will cost the victim a ton of money and time. He should not have to go through this.
Absolutely correct sir!!! This is 50% on the police, 50% on the libtards. If the police exercised common sense, ANY property owner in this situation would obviously not wait until they'd been killed to do something about people in their home - potentially ravaging their loved ones and stealing their possessions. Zero thinking was exercised by these alleged "enforcers of the law" - they should be FIRED!
Why does a homeowner have to suffer for some brain-dead cop who thinks criminals are nice have to suffer?
the same brain-dead police force who ignore protesters blocking highways and downtown streets, then arrest the peaceful ones; those who loot and destroy private and public property; those who turn a blind eye to victims of serious verbal and physical harassment from the alphabet community and trans supporters....their actions come from higher above, unfortunately
The largest threat to law abiding, tax paying Canadian citizens? The Liberal Party of Canada.
Yes sir! And we can't get rid of it.
We can but the Liberal media is hanging real tight to the gravely train. Never the public the media are serving their masters the Liberals.
Exactly right. They are a bigger threat than Russia, China, Iran, India,Brazil, the USA, combined.
As a Canadian this makes me furious. The intruder gets a MISCHIEF charge and the victim gets Aggravated assault????? Anyone breaks into OUR HOME in the middle of the night picked the WRONG house. If intruders KNOW they could be shot, it is a HUGE deterrent to the crime. Get a brain legislation writers…that would be YOU, MP’s. The law is wrong and we need ‘Castle’ law in this country. Get back to work, you’ve had TEN months off, with pay that should be returned to the taxpayers. Mr. MacDonald better have those charges dropped- I didn’t know I could be any more furious with this useless government than I already am.
Sherry1 - I concur; anyone breaking into my home and potentially threatening my kids and wife will be lucky to get out alive. It's called be a Father and Husband - i have a job to do: defend my family. Period. Full stop. I am not there to let them suffer. Mr. MacDonald should also be allowed to sue 1) the Feds, 2) the local police force, 3) the officers involved. In addition to castle law, we need to make the officers of the law ACCOUNTABLE. And not to the criminals, but to the victims of crime.
Sounds like the cops and Libtards want you to sit down with the intruder and go over the rules of engagement . The criminal has no rules and the innocent home owner has a text book to study . This home owner will be dragged through court and end up dealing with a woke judge . The criminal will be out before the home owner gets halfway through the court system . They will at the least make him spend a small fortune on lawyers .
Let’s CHANGE that. WE forget, as do they, that the Government answers to US. Let’s all remind them of that fact. Too many Limos, Perks, Private Jets, high roller life-style, expenses paid all ON US. We must change that. They are NOT Royalty. Put them on a short leash. .
Too many people who appear to love the Liberals and of course the deep corruption in our government , courts and everything else important to keeping control .
100% agree. Thanks for your stand.
Thanks for the great reporting. Canadian laws need to be changed to protect law abiding citizens and not the criminals.
This is wrong on so many levels.
The police officers should have exercised a little common sense - Breen broke into the home, McDonald defended his home and family. If Breen wasn't there illegally, he wouldn't have gotten hurt. McDonald could just as easily have been injured. The fact there was a struggle, means Breen didn't surrender or just simply flee.
If we had the "Stand your ground" rule, and some common sense gun laws, McDonald could have confronted Breen with a gun, told him to lie on the floor until the police arrived - no struggle. We are not told what weapon Breen had, but he obviously thought he could overcome McDonald with just a knife. He likely would not have fought if McDonald was in possession of a gun. If Breen had a gun or he resisted, then McDonald should have been within his rights to shoot Breen. There should be no requirement to give ground. This is all on the Intruder who had no legal right to be there.
Nobody should have to wait for the arrival of police to defend home and family. Response times truly negate that. The first responders in any of these situations is the resident with legal right to be there.
You are hundred percent correct in my opinion. And I would do the same.
There is only one answer at this point, protect yourself at all costs. If Premier Smith would just bring Alberta to independence we would make our own laws. And in my opinion every province should be going independent. The feds are nothing but a tax incinerator. They order you how much money to throw into the incinerator, and you do. and every year they increase the order.
Another good reason for Alberta Separation.
Yup.
What is ignored is the motives of the criminal and the victim. The criminal came prepared to commit murder while the victim is required to make a complete assessment in one second of the level of threat to his children and home. All freeze while the court decides.
Only in Canada our inept Gary government would have this rule in place. The victim is treated as the perpetrator! You break into my house while I am home I guarantee it will be slice and dice. There will be no second thought. My famous everything. If this law remains there will be people who will buy shovels ….
This is going to get far worse as the the economy tanks . Crime will go through the roof and the cops will be of no use . But then they don't work for us .
I believe it has happened. Meanwhile the LibTARDS are suppling free drugs to the Zombies who are infecting our communities. The cops arrest and our perverted courts catch and release. We need Pierre!!!!!
They have us fighting on so many fronts we lose track of what they are doing to us . Well not all of us . Crime will reach all of us soon .
Hey Dr Meat! (Giving Carney a hand here!) Here is how to solve the problem: 1. Ban all legally registered guns. 2. Provide free sex and sex changes to adolescents, and 3. Join the EU (AKA The Fourth Reich). Sieg Heil to you Great Leader!
Canada is now the JOKE of the world thanks to Trudeau and the Liberals.
Why do the police most often shoot to kill rather then taking time to decide if some other action is “reasonable “
For a sensible approach to this issue, see Florida Statute 776.013
Florida knows how to let citizens handle crime . Shoot baby shoot .
Clearly one should, as the law allows, use whatever force is needed to defend oneself. Also, clearly, there are limits to how much and in what circumstances force can be used.
Finding someone uninvited in your place sounds bad. How about the demented individual I found removing Dad's wheelchair from his place? Breaking in, yes, attempted theft, yes. Force yes, (I took his elbow and led him out) Unlimited force? Don't be silly. There have to be limits.
When PP, DF et al mouthed off what was known was that somebody went into somebody's place uninvited, there was an altercation involving weapons, the trespasser was airlifted to the hospital, and the owner had been arrested and charged. One can't develop an informed opinion from that. In the absence of facts, tossing blame around is inane. The knee jerk reactions are inane. Ford, Poilievre et al know that.
Just depends on the definitions of what You say. Who is providing these definitions of "force" for instance? In My home My definition counts, not Yours, or the so called law. My home is My castle, not any body else's. If I could I probably would put up a sign "all trespassers will be hurt very, very badly". But then I try to be a law abiding citizen.
I am afraid you are too late. When we said "Mi casa es su casa," (my house is your house) the sexual deviants, wannabe dictators and grifting money-launderers in the capitals of the world took us at our word.
And We let them!
We humans usually collude in our own destruction at the hands of the organized psychopaths which call themselves a state or a government.
The worst thing is they always hold the monopoly on violence. Do not comply… with anything.
Yep, till death do us part!
How lucky you were just to be able to lead him out by the elbow! Must be a fellow "elbows up" kind of guy. Rock. paper. scissors. You the paper, him the rock if he had been on drugs and demented or just plain BAD. You were lucky......this time.
Dad was in a seniors' place, the intruder had Alzheimer's or something similar. It was more guidance than force. The law allows as much force as necessary, I have no intention of taking chances but recognize that when the threat is over, I have to stop. (BTW - If someone who knows what he's doing has you by the elbow, you be very meek, polite, and docile.)
The scenario you described is totally different. You're talking about the intruder being a senior with Alzheimer's. How would you act if that person was strong and armed and you couldn't get close to his elbow? That's all I'm asking ...
Of course it's different. I'm responding to the idiot idea that one can use unlimited force in any home invasion circumstances. Look above "I have no intention of taking chances. . ." or "Clearly one should, as the law allows, use whatever force is needed to defend oneself". I've been pretty clear.
Silly comparison .Don't expect other people to be so passive . Give him a kiss if you want but thinking a home owner will know what he has for a weapon in the dark and middle of the night is just plain stupid . I guess OSHA covers criminals now . To me I don't care what either had the criminal gave up all rights when he broke in . You hug a thug people helped them bring in these insane laws .
It was a good illustration of a point. Did some part of " I have no intention of taking chances but recognize that when the threat is over, I have to stop." lead you to believe that I'm into kissing criminals?
How do you know he didn't stop . I am more concerned for the home owner and could care less about the criminal . Your comparison isn't close to what this home owner had to deal with . Two different incidents . No the law is not consistent of these rulings .
Please quote where I said he didn't stop. What I did say was that we lack the information to make an informed opinion. While you're retracting that nonsense go ahead and retract the statements that I made a comparison
I answered your other email and this is the same answer .
Well that is nice and perhaps when someone breaks into your house next time he might not be so easy to deal with when he is sane and armed . Your comparison is silly because those break ins are rare . Maybe you can put up bail for the criminal and have him move in and show him the error of his ways . By the way they just told you what happened . You have to be a Liberal .
I made no comparison at all. You are not constrained to the truth.
You don't seem to understand what you wrote . You have to be a Liberal .
You seem to be digging a deep hole, would you like a long-handled shovel?
Now I know you are a Liberal .
I see you brought your own. You must be a boy scout
It is clear to everyone except #dominionvoting, that the #Left are a failure.
So this is what Canada and Canadians have come to after more than a decade of Liberal rule, where crime and criminals are rewarded for their criminality and Canadians suffer and pay the price, sometimes paying the ultimate price: their death. Strange isn't it, when Harper was PM, crime especially violent crime was going down in 2014. You have to ask why did judges become almost as dumb as Trudeau, throwing innocent citizens in jail in exchange for criminals walking away free to repeat their crimes.