Pierre Poilievre proposes changing the law to allow people to defend their home and families without all the present complicated requirements.

[blackbird]

"Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre is calling on the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to clarify the reasonable use of force in the face of a high-level threat, such as a home intruder."

PP made an announcement yesterday calling on the Carney government to amend the criminal code to remove the long list of requirements placed on residents when defending themselves and their family.  Apparently the present law is complicated and very involved and one must be some kind of lawyer to understand it.  That must be changed to simplify it and make it understandable for everyone.  When a criminal breaks in to a person's home, the victim just doesn't have the time to go through all the complexities of the law to figure out what to do.  He simply has to act to do what he can to protect him and his family at that moment.  The law presently doesn't work that way.

Victims have been charged by police for defending themselves and their family from dangerous offenders armed with a gun or other weapons and have been put through an expensive legal system for many months.  Or they have been locked up in jail before finally being exonerated.  It is very expensive to have to hire a lawyer to defend yourself and your family just because you were trying to defend yourself when criminals invaded your house.  This has to be changed.  PP proposal will change the complicated laws that exist now to simplify it and make it more reasonable for someone to defend themselves and their family.

 

Edited August 29, 2025 by blackbird

[herbie]

This is why I don't like PP or his ill informed advisors.
You already are allowed to defend your home!
But you just can't use excessive force. You can hold a home intruder at bay with your shotgun, club him with it if he's aggressive but unless he's armed with a weapon and attacking you, you can't just blow a hole through him.
You also sure as hell can't kill people for just trespassing on your property like some people seem wont to do.

These repeated bullshit that it's illegal to defend yourself or your home is an outright lie. He's playing up an incident where a guy is charged with using a knife as excessive that the cops will review every damn time. The guy hasn't been convicted of dick shit and if he ever is a jury will decide he used excessive force.

To perpetrate bullshit and continually spread fears that crime is out of hand, especially using ONE in 40,000,000 odds is shameful.

Edited August 29, 2025 by herbie

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

That must be changed to simplify it and make it understandable for everyone.  When a criminal breaks in to a person's home, the victim just doesn't have the time to go through all the complexities of the law to figure out what to do.  He simply has to act to do what he can to protect him and his family at that moment.  The law presently doesn't work that way.

It seems pretty simple, you cross a legal line when you do more than you need to protect yourself and your family.

In other words you can't take a bat to the back of some perpetrators head as they're running out your front door, nor can you knife or shoot them in the back.

 

[Michael Hardner]

15 hours ago, herbie said:

 

These repeated bullshit that it's illegal to defend yourself or your home is an outright lie. He's playing up an incident where a guy is charged with using a knife as excessive that the cops will review every damn time. The guy hasn't been convicted of dick shit and if he ever is a jury will decide he used excessive force.

To perpetrate bullshit and continually spread fears that crime is out of hand, especially using ONE in 40,000,000 odds is shameful.

Exactly right.

The political response is straight out of the playbook that appeals to people who believe that Hollywood crime scenes happen frequently, to the point that we need to have a conversation about it. 

We need to talk about boring things like the economy, unity and the environment. 

Except for the economic nationalism, none of that should raise anybody's blood. 

If it bores you then good, stay out of it.

[Venandi]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

It seems pretty simple, you cross a legal line when you do more than you need to protect yourself and your family.

That has always been the case particularly with "arrest without a warrant" (what used to be called citizens arrest. The main difference between a sworn officer and you (we and us) is that they can make an arrest for the suspicion someone has committed an indictable offence... you and I have to witness the offence. Police officers are held to the same standards when it comes to the application of excessive force. This is one of the things I like about Aikido techniques... that front leg roundhouse kick to the left temple looks bad on video. 

The issue here isn't actually the law IMO... it's the eagerness of the Crown to prosecute any and all instances of self defence and even the use of reasonable force (pain compliance for instance) during the course of arrest without without a warrant. It seems to be intended as a deterrent, the charges are virtually automatic and the dismissals mostly the same... it comes at a cost to the individual though.

That needs to stop. 

As an aside, I fear the danger of letting gun crime (and especially random knife assaults) run rampant in places like Toronto is that otherwise law abiding people will feel compelled to carry protective weapons that they don't even want to. Most don't even understand the existing laws well enough to have a reasonable and defendable story at the scene of the crime after the fact, big mistake IMO.

That can of soup in the small cloth bag isn't a defensive weapon... it's your lunch. And don't be fooled for a single second, the cops will try and catch you up if the story is weak. The conversation can go something like this:

"Good thing you had that can of soup, this is a rough neighbourhood." You reply yes, it's unfortunate that I have to carry this to and from work every day."

The next thing you'l hear is "put your hands behind you back for me please."

Here's another for instance: Excuse me sir is that a "kubotan" on your key chain?" If you say yes, that makes it a defensive weapon, the proper  answer is "I don't know what that is but this is a window breaker in case I have to rescue a kitten from a locked car on a hot day. It was gift from a friend who is a cat lover just like me."

This is the sort of nonsense I think PP wants to address... I predict most of the comments here attacking it will be partisan in nature.
 

Edited August 30, 2025 by Venandi

[CdnFox]

16 hours ago, herbie said:

This is why I don't like PP or his ill informed advisors.
You already are allowed to defend your home!
But you just can't use excessive force. You can hold a home intruder at bay with your shotgun, club him with it if he's aggressive but unless he's armed with a weapon and attacking you, you can't just blow a hole through him.
You also sure as hell can't kill people for just trespassing on your property like some people seem wont to do.

These repeated bullshit that it's illegal to defend yourself or your home is an outright lie. He's playing up an incident where a guy is charged with using a knife as excessive that the cops will review every damn time. The guy hasn't been convicted of dick shit and if he ever is a jury will decide he used excessive force.

To perpetrate bullshit and continually spread fears that crime is out of hand, especially using ONE in 40,000,000 odds is shameful.

Sorry but that's bullshit. 

The law may allow for it but currrently depending on the province you will be destroyed financially and emotionally as you spend your entire life's saving defending yourself in court. 

And expecting people to wake up and experience the fear and terror of a violent home invasion with a person armed with a weapon to stop and rationally think "Hmm, whats a reasonable amount of force to use here" is insane. 

So what we have now is a circumstance where the home owner must PROVE he was reasonable in his defense. 

What they're proposing is that the court should have to PROVE the defense was completely unreasonable before charges are laid, and that the burden of 'unreasonable' should be high, thus preventing someone who defends his home from unreasonable and unfair charges that destroy his life 

So they understand the current law just fine. 
 

As always you're a lying sack of shit.  Well done. 

[Venandi]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And expecting people to wake up and experience the fear and terror of a violent home invasion with a person armed with a weapon to stop and rationally think "Hmm, whats a reasonable amount of force to use here" is insane. 

Very true and not commonly understood. in the absence of experience with such things, surprise and pain changes everything. Rational thinking and fine motor skills are the first thing that get lost. People who routinely shoot ALPHAs at the IPSC range at 25 meters will completely miss a charging bear at 12 feet.

Often the case with many police officers too, they aren't the weapon handling experts most people think, for many it's just part of the job and a qualification once a year. Not much different than a military cook in theatre. I'm not knocking cooks here BTW, in fact I really (REALLY) hate hearing people say things like "I was only a cook." 

As a PS, there are books on such things, for any serious martial artist or anyone with a passing interest in the phenomena I'd recommend a book called "Meditations on Violence." 

The Herbs of the world should take a moment, read the Fox's post 10 times and put partisan BS aside... this can easily effect you too and as it stands now, it will (not can but definitely will) ruin your whole day and then some.

Edited August 30, 2025 by Venandi

[LinkSoul60]

Just another affirmation of why Poilievre turns people off....  Yes Pierre, you're a tough guy and everyone agrees we should be able to protect our families and homes, which our laws already allow for.  This was nothing but a 'keep me relevant' proposal, if you can call it that.  

The guy was charged for a reason, and it wasn't because of weak laws.  These guys knew each and I'm guessing that when the facts of the apparent break-in come out we'll hear about 2 troubled guys who had a disagreement and one of them using excessive force.  Can't blame Poilievre for trying to stay relevant I suppose, but pick and choose better spots to do it Pierre...

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

Very true and not commonly understood. in the absence of experience with such things, surprise and pain changes everything. Rational thinking and fine motor skills are the first thing that get lost. People who routinely shoot ALPHAs at the IPSC range at 25 meters will completely miss a charging bear at 12 feet.

Often the case with many police officers too, they aren't the weapon handling experts most people think, for many it's just part of the job and a qualification once a year. Not much different than a military cook in theatre. I'm not knocking cooks here BTW, in fact I really (REALLY) hate hearing people say things like "I was only a cook." 

As a PS, there are books on such things, for any serious martial artist or anyone with a passing interest in the phenomena I'd recommend a book called "Meditations on Violence." 

The Herbs of the world should take a moment, read the Fox's post 10 times and put partisan BS aside... this can easily effect you too and as it stands now, it will (not can but definitely will) ruin your whole day and then some.

Thank you for the thoughtful post. It made me consider things I had and thought of before.

[Venandi]

47 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Yes Pierre, you're a tough guy...

You don't seem to get this but I certainly acknowledge that you think you do. I doubt any scenario driven hypotheticals or actual past situations I could offer will change your thinking on it. 

Although statistically unlikely, this situation (an early morning home invasion by someone armed with a crossbow) could happen to anyone. I'll offer a final thought for anyone unlucky enough to experience something similar. 

After the event you will likely be distraught, shaken and in a state of shock. That is no time for making statements to the police even though they'll try to get one from you. Don't do it... you'll do yourself no favours by complying. Talk to a lawyer before you do and have the lawyer present during the interview.

Here's another... If you own firearms you can pay a modest fee as a retainer for group coverage up to a specified amount depending on the plan you opt for. Be assured that the police are not experts in firearm regulations including storage and conveyance... If you own firearms I really think it's a mistake not to have this, it has saved a number of folks from financial ruin caused by what (in my opinion) amounts to little more than the malicious prosecution you are likely to opine doesn't even exist.  

Edited August 30, 2025 by Venandi

[Venandi]

55 minutes ago, Venandi said:

I'll offer a final thought...

OK, I lied but this is it... I promise.

Here's an example of the overlap between conveyance and hunting regulations (whether it's hunting season or not). It happened to me last year:

I went to the 3D archery range during daylight hours and planned to be home before sunset.

I was driving the jeep and had a flat tire on the way home, changing it took longer than I expected and my choice of jacking location was poor. At full extension the flat came off OK but I couldn't quite slip the fully inflated spare onto the hub. I was in the process of digging down the inch I needed (with a stick) when a kind gentleman stopped and offered me a shovel. Back on the road home but it was now 35 minutes after sunset and civil twilight was over. 

Had a police officer stopped at the scene my bow which I was legally transporting 5 minutes earlier instantly turned into a weapon by virtue of it being 31 minutes after official sunset.

Had I covered it with a blanket, that would have been OK as it would be considered "cased." Had I unstrung it, that would have been OK too. It would instantly have morphed into a piece of wood with string attached and the arrows would have become pointy sticks with feathers on them.

I didn't even think of that until after I got home though. A simple thing but had it gone sideways, I would have been charged, all my guns would have been seized and the case would have been dismissed a year later at significant expense. 

I could entertain y'all at some length with this stuff... fear not, I won't. One things for sure though, I'm not smart enough to make this stuff up.

 

Edited August 30, 2025 by Venandi

[LinkSoul60]

37 minutes ago, Venandi said:

You don't seem to get this but I certainly acknowledge that you think you do.

You don't seem to understand that we haven't heard all the facts (to the best of my knowledge) yet appear to have made your own assumptions which I'm sure you believe are the unknown facts. I acknowledge that.

Protecting your family and home is basic human instinct. It is not a politically or law based reaction, it's a natural reaction and basic human instinct, even for liberals.  Whether it be with your bare hands or any other weapon available you're going to protect your home, family and yourself regardless of what the law says.  There's a point though where common sense applies... assume someone was walking through your backyard and you chose to go beat them into submission because you perceived them as a threat to your home and family.  In yours and Poilievres world, is that acceptable?

But back to it....  the entire facts of 'break-in' and arrest haven't been made public.  I've seen and read what you have and saw the interview of a common 'buddy'. Could be wrong but I get this feeling we're going to find out it's like I said....'2 troubled guys who had a disagreement and one of them using excessive force'.

Nothing more than the typical Poilievre tough guy talk that turns people off....

[Legato]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Just another affirmation of why Poilievre turns people off....  Yes Pierre, you're a tough guy and everyone agrees we should be able to protect our families and homes, which our laws already allow for.  This was nothing but a 'keep me relevant' proposal, if you can call it that.  

The guy was charged for a reason, and it wasn't because of weak laws.  These guys knew each and I'm guessing that when the facts of the apparent break-in come out we'll hear about 2 troubled guys who had a disagreement and one of them using excessive force.  Can't blame Poilievre for trying to stay relevant I suppose, but pick and choose better spots to do it Pierre...

Just another affirmation that you know sweet eff all.

I have been in that situation, believe me, you don't stop to think mmmm how much force is too much. I had my wife and a one year old child in the house.

I caught the guy trying to walk out with my TV in his arms, he got straight knuckles to the bridge of his nose.

Called the police, gave them details, heard nothing back.

[LinkSoul60]

2 minutes ago, Legato said:

Just another affirmation that you know sweet eff all.

I have been in that situation, believe me, you don't stop to think mmmm how much force is too much. I had my wife and a one year old child in the house.

I caught the guy trying to walk out with my TV in his arms, he got straight knuckles to the bridge of his nose.

Called the police, gave them details, heard nothing back.

Comprehension is a challenge for you isn't it....

Good for you in using basic human instincts.  Well done.  Guessing it was Trudeau's fault the police didn't follow-up?

I'd ask where I said or inferred that protecting yourself, your family, or your home wasn't justified but you're going to read what you believe regardless of what's said.

[Venandi]

26 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

You don't seem to understand that we haven't heard all the facts (to the best of my knowledge) yet appear to have made your own assumptions which I'm sure you believe are the unknown facts. I acknowledge that.

NO... that's not the point here. 

PP is trying to address the self defence (and overzealous prosecution) issue in its entirety which is widely acknowledged as being problematic.

Reducing this to one single event and judging a broken set of laws based on the outcome is to entirely miss the point of what he's trying to accomplish. 

[blackbird]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

It seems pretty simple, you cross a legal line when you do more than you need to protect yourself and your family.

In other words you can't take a bat to the back of some perpetrators head as they're running out your front door, nor can you knife or shoot them in the back.

 

No, it is not that simple.  The laws surrounding home invasion and what people can do are complicated and not something that the average person has time to think about when a criminal breaks into your home and threatens you and your family.

If you pointed a shotgun at an unarmed intruder and told him to leave immediately, and he didn't leave, what would you do?

What would you do if he had a knife and you had a shotgun?  

If an intruder had a knife, and you had a baseball bat handy, what would you do?

If an intruder was coming through the door and you had a baseball bat, would you have the right to hit him with it?

Edited August 30, 2025 by blackbird

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Just another affirmation of why Poilievre turns people off....  Yes Pierre, you're a tough guy and everyone agrees we should be able to protect our families and homes, which our laws already allow for.  This was nothing but a 'keep me relevant' proposal, if you can call it that.  

The guy was charged for a reason, and it wasn't because of weak laws.  These guys knew each and I'm guessing that when the facts of the apparent break-in come out we'll hear about 2 troubled guys who had a disagreement and one of them using excessive force.  Can't blame Poilievre for trying to stay relevant I suppose, but pick and choose better spots to do it Pierre...

What he said has been echoed almost word for word by people like doug ford after the latest attack

Are you saying doug ford is unelectable? 

In fact this is a sentiment that WIDELY popular across canada right now.  Especially in light of the insane increase in violent crime we've seen under the liberals. 

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Comprehension is a challenge for you isn't it....

Good for you in using basic human instincts.  Well done.  Guessing it was Trudeau's fault the police didn't follow-up?

I'd ask where I said or inferred that protecting yourself, your family, or your home wasn't justified but you're going to read what you believe regardless of what's said.

oh look, yet another thought filled and useful post 🙄🙄🙄

Still struggling with that whole 'Thinking above a 6 year old level' thing i see, 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

If an intruder was coming through the door and you had a baseball bat, would you have the right to hit him with it?

Sure if I had a good reason to believe he meant to hurt me or my family.

It's when the intruder is running away I don't have that right.

What you right wingers always want is a vengeance system not a justice system. That's all this is about.

[blackbird]

33 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure if I had a good reason to believe he meant to hurt me or my family.

It's when the intruder is running away I don't have that right.

What you right wingers always want is a vengeance system not a justice system. That's all this is about.

You are lying.  I never said to do anything if he is running away.

[blackbird]

40 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure if I had a good reason to believe he meant to hurt me or my family.

It's when the intruder is running away I don't have that right.

What you right wingers always want is a vengeance system not a justice system. That's all this is about.

You never answered most of the questions.

If an intruder refused to leave and an altercation started between you and the intruder, could you grab something to hit him with and try to subdue him?   How do you know when you have done enough to him so he won't get up and attack you or if he has a knife, try to stab you with it?  How much should you do to try to stop him from doing anything to you?

What if he died or was seriously injured and taken to hospital?  Whose fault is that?

Edited August 30, 2025 by blackbird

[User]

As it was pointed out, the point of these laws is that they create a legal barrier that the prosecutors have to overcome to charge. 

People's lives are ruined just trying to defend themselves. 

In the more right-leaning states, this is why they pass stand your ground laws and the like, as it puts the onus on the government to have to overcome legal burdens to charge you, because you have certain presumptions, like the right to defend yourself, instead of YOU having to prove that OMG, did you really do enough to run away? Which is absurd. 

You see this play out in left leaning states where malicious DA's will do exactly what they did to someone like Kyle Rittenhouse, where we have actual video evidence of the kid running for his life, see people literally attacking him while he is on the ground, and they STILL charge him. 

 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, User said:

You see this play out in left leaning states where malicious DA's will do exactly what they did to someone like Kyle Rittenhouse, where we have actual video evidence of the kid running for his life, see people literally attacking him while he is on the ground, and they STILL charge him. 

 

In canada it's known as "punishment by process". That's where the state knows you'll be found innocent but they don't like what you did so they deliberately drag you through the system in the most painful manner to punish you for your 'crime', and even though you're innocent and will eventually win they've sent a message to others that they will destroy you if you daaaaaaare to defend yourself like that. 

[herbie]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry but that's bullshit. 

The law may allow for it but currrently depending on the province you will be destroyed financially and emotionally as you spend your entire life's saving defending yourself in court.

Look who's spewing the bullshit our like a fire hose.

[Legato]

3 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Comprehension is a challenge for you isn't it....

Good for you in using basic human instincts.  Well done.  Guessing it was Trudeau's fault the police didn't follow-up?

I'd ask where I said or inferred that protecting yourself, your family, or your home wasn't justified but you're going to read what you believe regardless of what's said.

You odiously have never been in a similar situation and are going to always shill for the Liberal protect the perp mentality.

Trudeau's fault absolutely, to bad this was in England.

 

6 minutes ago, herbie said:

Look who's spewing the bullshit our like a fire hose.

You being the expert.

[herbie]

5 minutes ago, Legato said:

You odiously have never been in a similar situation

Neither have you or 39,000,000+ other Canadians. Talk about people consumed by fear...

They're coming to GET you Barbara, they're coming to GET you...