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

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, herbie said:

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

You.  I already pointed that out.  Odd you'd want to point it out again  

As always you lie and then when called on it and given real facts you have no rebuttal but insults.  You know i'm right and can't say anything to defend yourself. 

Yawn 

[Legato]

Just now, herbie said:

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...

Again a failure to read the obvious. There is no cure for myopia so good luck.

[User]

39 minutes ago, herbie said:

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

And yet... You offer no substantive rebuttal. 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

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

LMAO! Of course you didn't, but it's what you'd be inclined to do isn't it?

 

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

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

Probably yours if the exit wounds are on his chest.

[User]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

LMAO! Of course you didn't, but it's what you'd be inclined to do isn't it?

 

Probably yours if the exit wounds are on his chest.

This is precisely why we need better laws that give protection to people acting in self-defense, because malicious people like you exist in government who want to attack people defending themselves. 

 

[Venandi]

As I read through the posts here I see that some folks truly don't see the problem in need of a fix and won't even acknowledge that there's some vindictiveness and heaping helping of "behaviour modification"  inherent with enforcement efforts.

Yes, self defence is legal in Canada and so is arrest without a warrant, in fact more people should be doing it but you have to be mindful of the pitfalls and have the ability to view a stressful situation with a level of calm and clarity most simply can't muster when immersed in it for the first time. If you happen to be someone who does we have a job waiting for you. 

If you haven't thought about these sort of scenarios ahead of time, you are very likely to run into trouble when pressed. If you have at some length, you will constantly and forever play a curious form of "what if" game in your mind when out and about. 

As I said earlier,  if nothing else of value comes out of this thread do not give a statement to the police when pressed for details immediately after an event of this nature while your hands are still shaking... and don't think they won't be shaking either. Talk to a lawyer first and don't allow the police to pressure you into not doing that.

If you want to take a deeper dive into this read "No More Mr Nice-guy" by Barry Holland. It's based on Canadian law and very likely to open a few eyes unless they're firmly and deliberately glued shut. Barry is a pretty interesting guy and he manages to make a fairly dry subject fun to read. He's also the sort of person who reinforces a pretty basic notion, the most dangerous guy in the room is almost never who you think it is.

 

 

   

Edited August 30, 2025 by Venandi

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

LMAO! Of course you didn't, but it's what you'd be inclined to do isn't it?

 

Probably yours if the exit wounds are on his chest.

At least you admit you believe the criminal is always innocent and the victim is the guilty party.  True to liberalism.

Edited August 30, 2025 by blackbird

[WestCanMan]

10 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

 Can't blame Poilievre for trying to stay relevant I suppose, but pick and choose better spots to do it Pierre...

LMAO.

All Trudeau did from 2012 to 2015 was cry about $90k and the CBC acted like it was the story of the century. 

Poilievre is talking about something that some Canadians care about, and no one cares what a low-IQ cultist like you has to say about it.  

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, User said:

This is precisely why we need better laws that give protection to people acting in self-defense, because malicious people like you exist in government who want to attack people defending themselves.

Get a grip.

At most, all we need here is a public education effort aimed at people who suffer the effects of misinformation and gas-lighting.

There should be little ads and such in media that provide information about these and hotlines that let you people find help.

[blackbird]

On 8/29/2025 at 12:13 PM, 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.

What if the criminal does not leave immediately?  Can the homeowner shoot?  What if it is dark and you can't tell if he has a gun or knife? 

[WestCanMan]

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

What if the criminal does not leave immediately?  Can the homeowner shoot? 

Definitely don't shoot someone who isn't posing an active threat. If you have the opportunity to wait for the police to arrive, do that lol. A bit of patience is better than a lot of jailtime. 

That being said, when in doubt, do what it takes to keep you and your family alive. Even a dog has that right. 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Venandi said:

Yes, self defence is legal in Canada and so is arrest without a warrant, in fact more people should be doing it but you have to be mindful of the pitfalls and have the ability to view a stressful situation with a level of calm and clarity most simply can't muster when immersed in it for the first time.

This reminds me of the time I was called to attend a kid who'd been mauled by a dog in the native village next door. My fire dept pager went off as I arrived and there was a small crowd of people gathering and yelling. I started checking over the kid who had obvious perforation marks on the calf of his leg but there was very little bleeding. He was surprisingly calm and wasn't crying, although he said it hurt when I asked. He was a tough little guy around 8 or 9.

He was starting to pay more attention to the crowd than his leg. The crowd of about 30 people had gotten bigger and some obviously more angry. The fire dept, the ambulance crew from town and police all arrived just in time for the gunshot that killed the dog. I'll never forget that's when the kid started crying.

If this had been in any big city I'm pretty sure the gunshot would have triggered a 15 squad car response. But once the ambulance left with the kid, so did the crowd and the firetruck went back up the hilI to the hall I answered a few questions the cops had and that was all she wrote. I never did see the dog.

 

 

Edited August 31, 2025 by eyeball

[Army Guy]

10 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...

Actually he (Poilievre ) makes sense in this case....two troubled friends had a disagreement, and one of them broke into the others home with a cross bow which is a weapon according to law...........I'm sure the liberals will try and make it sound like he was showing off his new acquisition to his new best friend... ...to the rest of the world he broke into some one home with a cross bow, meaning to do harm to that other fella....and for his efforts he paid a price....WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND...

If you had your home broken into then you would understand....to most people things are things take what you want, keep in mind i work hard for my stuff, and i would like to keep it, but nothing i own is worth someone life...except my dog, i will hurt you if you harm my dog.......where i draw the line is my family, i will warn you i am armed and have called the police, but if you continue towards me or my family they are going to be dragging you out in a bag...

your getting it all In Canada you can't do that at any time...you will be arrested the cops don't care about your story....THATS FOR THE COURTS TO DECIDE.....and our justice system is not all that fast, so you will spend a long time behind bars with some of the best Canadians IN YOUR PRIOVINCE OR SO THEY SAY.......hope your not depending on a pay check to pay your bills, they don't care,  so you will loose everything your house, your job, because some wing nut want your stuff...might as well put your stuff out on the front lawn....

What is relevant here is you should not have to lose your net worth defending yourself because some wing nut wanted some of your stuff...if you watched some of those forceable entries from break ins recorded from ring cams from Ont, they are scary...you don't know there intentions, but most of them have a firearm....why is that ? is it to protect them from you, or do they intend to do you and family harm...by the time you dig your firearm out of the safe, load ammo, they will have closed the distance between them and you...you will have mere seconds to make a decision fire your loaded weapon or face what ever violence they were planning upon your family... DONT ever think the law is on your side here....your fired a loaded weapon in a residential district, your going to jail...and if you killed your attackers your charged with taking a life...most Canadians can't afford bail for taking a life...so get use to your cell...and the courts are back logged....

 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

At least you admit you believe the criminal is always innocent and the victim is the guilty party.  True to liberalism.

At least you're honest enough to make it clear you want the right to be judge jury and executioner and blow someone away right on the spot.

I know that's not true to real conservatism but it can't help but reflect on conservatives when the Pierre Poilievres of the world start pandering to you.

[blackbird]

22 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Definitely don't shoot someone who isn't posing an active threat. If you have the opportunity to wait for the police to arrive, do that lol. A bit of patience is better than a lot of jailtime. 

That being said, when in doubt, do what it takes to keep you and your family alive. Even a dog has that right. 

The problem is you can't read the intruder's mind.  Why would he not leave?  What if he refuses to leave and is trying to get close to you?  If you had a weapon, he could grab it and kill you.  

If someone invades your home, and refuses to leave, I see that as an active threat.  Thinking you can just wait for police and doing nothing could cost you your life.   It also requires somebody to call police.  If you tried to use the phone, he could get you.

[Army Guy]

7 hours 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.

No one is talking about shooting some one in the back....All of that is covered under the law...Under todays law you might as well help load your stuff it is going to be cheaper...

 

[blackbird]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

At least you're honest enough to make it clear you want the right to be judge jury and executioner and blow someone away right on the spot.

I know that's not true to real conservatism but it can't help but reflect on conservatives when the Pierre Poilievres of the world start pandering to you.

You are really insane bud.   If you have an intruder in your house and you tell him to leave immediately, and he refuses, your life may be in serious danger.  If he refuses to leave, you have the right to do whatever you need to do to neutralize the threat (as the police say).

[Army Guy]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

At least you're honest enough to make it clear you want the right to be judge jury and executioner and blow someone away right on the spot.

I know that's not true to real conservatism but it can't help but reflect on conservatives when the Pierre Poilievres of the world start pandering to you.

I have to ask, is it just conservatives that want to protect their families....what would you do to protect you and yours, are you going to collapse on the floor in the fetal position or are you going to stand your ground and do what ever it takes to defend them, ...be it with a fire arm bat, knife, screw diver, crayon...it does not matter what you killed  them with....your going to jail....the courts will decide if what you did is legal or not...but dont expect the courts to slip you in on your time table, some have waited well over a year in jail wait for a court date...

[blackbird]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

At least you're honest enough to make it clear you want the right to be judge jury and executioner and blow someone away right on the spot.

You are a liar.  Nobody is saying you should blow someone away if they are leaving.  

What if they refuse to leave and are attempting to get close to you?

[SpankyMcFarland]

Talk about jumping the gun here. Let’s wait and see the facts of the matter and how the case plays out. 

[WestCanMan]

8 hours 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.

Stop believing what you see on CBC and CNN. Literally no one saying that they'd shoot someone in their back to save their TV.

When someone here says that they'd shoot someone in the back to get their TV back, then you get to use that line. Got it?

[eyeball]

33 minutes ago, blackbird said:

What if they refuse to leave and are attempting to get close to you?

If they're armed, bigger and more powerful and the danger is that clear and present I'd hit them with whatever I had at hand. Who wouldn't? You need a special law that makes an inevitable choice obvious?

What if it was the kid next door who was simply high and confused about where he was and it was dark and scary. Remember that autistic kid police shot and killed?

His parents are now raising questions about the use of force and the training the officers involved had in responding to calls involving people on the autism spectrum.

“Why did they have to shoot to kill? He walked by the police cars, and it almost looks like he’s like, just nonchalant. They were feet away. Why didn’t they Taser him? I don’t know. I don’t understand,” said his mother Crystal.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article/autistic-teen-shot-and-killed-by-bc-police-laid-to-rest-amid-best-practices-review/

I recall a few conversations over the years with conservatives who always came down on the side that argued against non-lethal means of cops defending themselves.

Personal care robots are the answer...maybe an otherwise good natured T 1000.

[herbie]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

What if the criminal does not leave immediately?  Can the homeowner shoot?  What if it is dark and you can't tell if he has a gun or knife? 

Ten you don't shoot, do you? Come on act like there or degrees of everything not like these bloodthirsty goofs that just want a licence to kill.

Or are you asking for rights that even a cop would be investigated for? How many homeowners have been convicted of excessive use of force? I'll wager you it's even less than the number of cops.
Using it a a political stance merely shows the Conservative plan of pandering to fear via misinformation on crime.

[LinkSoul60]

9 hours ago, Venandi said:

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. 

I get your point but your point is based on a headline and what little they've reported, not all the facts.  Again, I could be off base here but I get the feeling these two guys hang out at the Sketchy bar together and got into for whatever the reason. Won't know until we hear the reasons behind the charge.  Until then, no national self-defence crisis and just Poilievre being Poilievre. 

[LinkSoul60]

6 hours ago, Legato 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.

No, fortunately haven't been in the situation of chasing a thief out of my house.  If I had though I doubt very much I'd be thinking too much about liberals or conservatives or ndp or greens. Interesting you do.  Did you expect the liberal government to have the RCMP outside your home as protection?

Not following... Trudeaus fault for what.... and what does England have to do with anything.