ExFlyer

Yes you ar. The topic is "Pierre Poilievre proposes changing the law to allow people to defend their home and families without all the present complicated requirements." I presented the actual Law and also identified it was PP and his party that enacted the law. For PP to try and squirm out by trying to make liberals the party that made this stupid law...is what the issue here is but, none of the PP suckers are willing to admit it is PP that s responsible for the law and how it is being enforced.

It was all about you but now. shady and user pop in so...this is for them too LOL

Love it when you and your buddies have nothing of value and just complain about me down voting you LOL Guess they are LOSERS too, just like you LOL

It does prove something. It proves what the law is and not the nonsensical debate going on. Knowing what you are debating or talking about supposedly makes you smarter.

Yet it was PP and his gang that made that exact law... LOL

Here is the actual law. It is very clear and no hysterics or political BS associated with it. "34.(1) A person is not guilty of an offence if (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person; No change from old law." https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/rsddp-rlddp/p5.html Case law https://www.dunnandassociates.ca/news/you-have-the-right-to-self-defence-within-limits/ Ontario law https://www.kruselaw.ca/video/home-invasion-self-defence-in-canada/

OK. LOSER

OK LOSER Love it when you and your buddies have nothing of value and just complain about me down voting you LOL Guess they are LOSERS too, just like you LOL

OK LOSER Love it when you and your buddies have nothing of value and just complain about me down voting you LOL Guess they are LOSERS too, just like you LOL

I am not surprised such a stoopid statement comes from you. It is expected LOL

OK. LOSER

I am not surprised such a stoopid statement comes from you. It is expected LOL

The trial and topic is defending yourself in your home when faced with home invasion. Chances are the prosecutor will not even proceed. I am sorry you feel I am not serious. I thought the discussion was civil but it is too bad you cannot recognize that and cannot accept a different opinion. Prove that a lawyer is required.... go ahead. Prove it. I am actually surprised that you are not aware to know you can represent yourself , especially in a case where chances of it actually going to trial are minimal at best.

OK LOSER

OK. LOSER

I tried to have a decent conversation with you but... No, you do not need a lawyer. "The court will want to know if you are hiring a lawyer or representing yourself" "Canada has a legal aid system that provides access to justice for economically disadvantaged persons who cannot afford a lawyer, though the delivery is managed provincially and territorially."

OK LOSER

OK. LOSER

Obtuse? All I said was that in this type of case was that it would probably be thrown out of court in minutes. If you did need a lawyer...which is improbable, from your link "Hourly rate for defence lawyers in Ontario: $150 – $800 per hour" Or you could get legal aid.

You used an American court situation which you assumes was the same. It is not a valid example or comparison. Canadian courts are not even close to the American system. My point was and is, if the issue went to court and it was clearly a defence of hearth and home, it would be thrown out. My other point is that people are making incorrect assumptions and should become aware of the actual law and where it came from, and I have added links several times, .

Here is the law...it does not put the "victim" in a vulnerable position. It was PP's government that put the law into place. It is him to try and amend his law. The self defence law portion of C-26 was proposed by a conservative, (Rob Nicholson) and was passed in the house by the conservatives. My argument and disagreement is primarily with a number of posters trying to make this a liberal law and should be stricken because it is liberal and, as I see it, not understanding what the law actually is. https://openparliament.ca/bills/41-1/C-26/ Here is the actual law. It is very clear and no hysterics or political BS associated with it. "34.(1) A person is not guilty of an offence if (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person; No change from old law." https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/rsddp-rlddp/p5.html Case law https://www.dunnandassociates.ca/news/you-have-the-right-to-self-defence-within-limits/ Ontario law https://www.kruselaw.ca/video/home-invasion-self-defence-in-canada/

Oh...you are assuming the case of home invasion in Canada will have to go on trial in the US??? Who is going to appeal??? While in Canada, it may take a bit of time to get on the court docket, it can and most probably be dismissed in a few minutes. Read the law...get informed.

OK. LOSER

OK LOSER