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.
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.
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.
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 ….
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!
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.
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.)
Pierre Poilievre has to explain exactly what he means by that! Defending yourself is one thing. Everyone agrees with that. At some point a defense turns into an attack. Then it is no longer a defense. Where does Pierre draw the line? If he tells us that people can decide whether or not they agree with it. Depending on where the line is it would make it legal for Transgender people to kill Heterosexuals. Remember that. It would also affirm the legalization of abortion if the fetus is hurting the mother.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ….
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!
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.
For a sensible approach to this issue, see Florida Statute 776.013
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.)
Why do the police most often shoot to kill rather then taking time to decide if some other action is “reasonable “
It is clear to everyone except #dominionvoting, that the #Left are a failure.
Canada is now the JOKE of the world thanks to Trudeau and the Liberals.
Pierre Poilievre has to explain exactly what he means by that! Defending yourself is one thing. Everyone agrees with that. At some point a defense turns into an attack. Then it is no longer a defense. Where does Pierre draw the line? If he tells us that people can decide whether or not they agree with it. Depending on where the line is it would make it legal for Transgender people to kill Heterosexuals. Remember that. It would also affirm the legalization of abortion if the fetus is hurting the mother.
REALLY?? You miss the point. DO NOT break the law. DO NOT break into someone's HOME! DO NOT enter another's property.