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

[eyeball]

38 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

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.

The sort of posters we have around here likely spent months arguing on behalf of people like Gregory and Travis McMichael and who can forget the praise that was heaped on Kyle Rittenhouse.

[User]

26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The sort of posters we have around here likely spent months arguing on behalf of people like Gregory and Travis McMichael and who can forget the praise that was heaped on Kyle Rittenhouse.

Why wouldn't we praise Kyle Rittenhouse?

 

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Get a grip.

I have one. Your attitude here is the exact kind of thing people deserve to be protected from. 

 

[Venandi]

2 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

...your point is based on a headline and what little they've reported, not all the facts.

No, the real point transcends the headline and whatever facts are determined to be relevant WRT to the case proper. Its value lies in bringing a long standing issue into national focus; that's all.

The discussion here is wildly partisan over something that isn't partisan at all and the issue deserves better. It's not about conservatives wanting to shoot trespassers in the back with 00 buckshot. Suggesting that it is qualifies as nothing more than Robo-noise and Flybaby tears to sensible people with valid concerns about this.

Canadian self defence laws are mirky at best, everything is a weapon once it's used as a weapon and carrying that can of soup in cloth bag for defensive purposes is legally problematic... carrying your lunch to work isn't.

At present, knowing the difference and being able to articulate it after the fact (under stress and in the face of deliberately leading questions) has a huge effect on how you'll be treated.

If you're carrying a can of soup to fend off crazies randomly stabbing people on the bus while out on bail for randomly stabbing people on the bus then you had better say it's your lunch.... hitting someone with your lunch in a self defence situation is A-OK in Canada.

Hitting them with "tactical, assault style mushroom soup isn't.

Now, if you really want to get into the weeds, defensive canes that are used defensively is a fun topic. Don't pull the pin on that one though, it's a whole new thread, Herb will hatch multi coloured kittens on the living room rug and be forced into buying a walker to prove he's not a conservative. 

Edited August 31, 2025 by Venandi

[WestCanMan]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

We're talking about a guy who just broke into another man's house with a loaded crossbow a few days ago, genius, not something that has never happened in Canada before.

If there's a thing that happens in Canada, we need to have a discussion about what to do when that thing happens, so that people know what they can do when that thing happens.

You just spent two years cheering for young Canadians to get jabbed with the Pfizer juice for a virus that had no chance of harming them, so who the hell are you to chide others about "being prepared for things that probably won't happen to them?

 

You do a good job of sounding snobbish and level-headed, MH, but the things that you say are no more intelligent than the things that eyeball and ex-flyer say. Just thank your lucky stars that herbie's here.

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Army Guy said:

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 

You're asking the people who think that Omar Khadr is a better person than Stephen Harper how they feel about protecting the things that are near and dear to them. 

If you want actual information from them, ask them what it's like to pick your own bumhole. Aside from that, they're not experts on anything. 

[Venandi]

Cool...

Flybaby just contributed a few drops of blood to a contentious thread on self defence laws and malicious prosecutions in Canada.

With only 4 clicks he solved Herb's copper deficiency and provided dramatic foreshadowing of the liberal values that will prove instrumental in preserving the status quo for years to come.

 

 

[Legato]

10 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

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.

That whole post demonstrates a total lack of understanding.

No ones thinking about politics when in that situation, interesting you think that's the case.

Of course you're not following, the incident was in England. The laws are different, but you know that and post some drivel just to elicit a response.

 

[Venandi]

11 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

... 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.

Before doing that you probably should, thinking clearly is one of the first things that goes astray when fear, pain and surprise conspire against you, fine motor skills are in the same file folder.

Well worth having it clear in your mind (beforehand) what your obligations, rights, and limitations are during arrest without a warrant... that's all part of chasing someone who is attempting to escape.

Catching them is the fun part and if you don't see it that way don't give chase. Conversational exchanges should be limited to: "STOP. YOU ARE UNDER ARREST... GET ON THE GROUND AND YOU WON"T GET HURT.

Don't worry though, you'll forget all about that too.

11 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Did you expect the liberal government to have the RCMP outside your home as protection?

No.

But here's an interesting tidbit to wash your sarcasm down with. The courts consider police to be the "guardians of society," meaning they aren't actually there to protect you as an individual. It's an important distinction that arose out of such things a peace bonds.

With a coded response time of 45 minutes to an hour (for me anyway), you will be on your own until they show up. And when they do, don't automatically assume that they're on your side... 

Edited August 31, 2025 by Venandi

[LinkSoul60]

2 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Before doing that you probably should.

No, self-preservation would be my first and only thought.  Not political parties...

3 minutes ago, Venandi said:

With a coded response time of 45 minutes to an hour (for me anyway), you will be on your own until they show up. And when they do, don't automatically assume that they're on your side... 

Suggest you look to your local government to see why the response took so long.  Sorry but don't share the same paranoia of the police and self-defence laws.

[Venandi]

11 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

No, self-preservation would be my first and only thought.

I know... that's exactly why you need to think about this stuff before hand... you won't under pressure.

11 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Sorry but don't share the same paranoia of the police and self-defence laws.

Had to laugh at the combination of sentiments quoted above... you are exactly the reason most of us want to see the laws become less mirky. It's not to give you a free pass, it's to prevent the motorcycle gloves (with the reinforced knuckles) you put on from being considered a weapon akin to brass knuckles.

Do you get what I'm saying here or is it totally lost in translation.

Edited August 31, 2025 by Venandi

[LinkSoul60]

53 minutes ago, Legato said:

That whole post demonstrates a total lack of understanding.

No ones thinking about politics when in that situation, interesting you think that's the case.

Of course you're not following, the incident was in England. The laws are different, but you know that and post some drivel just to elicit a response.

 

This is nothing more than Poilievre trying to stay relevant...  A smart person would have waited until the facts were known, but it gives you something to hang on...

Poilievre's idea to amend Criminal Code wouldn't help Canadians acting in self-defence, law experts say

Changes could put public in more danger: lawyer

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-criminal-code-proposed-amendment-lawyers-1.7621888

[Venandi]

8 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Suggest you look to your local government to see why the response took so long.

I live 35 minutes away from the nearest detachment, the response time in my area isn't their fault. The manning levels are someone else's... guess who.

[LinkSoul60]

8 minutes ago, Venandi said:

I know... that's exactly why you need to think about this stuff before hand... you won't under pressure.

Had to laugh at the combination of sentiments quoted above... you are exactly the reason most of us want to see the laws become less mirky. 

Do you get what I'm saying here or is it totally lost in translation.

Sure, I'll think about laws if ever someone threatens my or my families well being.  Not likely....

Has this been a burning issue for you, and just become that after Poilievres comments and not even knowing the details of charges?

Nothing lost, but it's a nothing subject to me other than what I stated right from the beginning....  When we know the facts that may change but until then, nothing more than Poilievre being Poilievre and reaffirming why he turns people off.  

[LinkSoul60]

6 minutes ago, Venandi said:

I live 35 minutes away from the nearest detachment, the response time in my area isn't their fault. The manning levels are someone else's... guess who.

I have no idea where you live or why staffing levels are such, but local police and generally funded through local governments.  

[Venandi]

19 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Has this been a burning issue for you, and just become that after Poilievres comments and not even knowing the details of charges?

No, it's a long standing issue that's hurt a lot of people just trying to get by on the worst day of their lives. Believe it or not, this is probably more of an issue for you than it is for me. I can navigate most of it just fine as is.

The question is can you?

I don't want to see you or (anyone else) financially devastated by a slip-up that occurs under extreme stress once in your lifetime. You seem to think that's not an issue here IMO. 

Here's the thing, I sarcastically mentioned the motorcycle gloves (above) but the question quickly becomes why did you put them on? Was it to protect you knuckles whilst serving up a beating or was it cold outside and they were the first ones you grabbed? Maybe you thought the noise you first heard was a racoon and you put them on to protect yourself from bites. 

LOL, take your choice, which one sounds better? Y'all going to think of this stuff when your hands are shaking, the house is bathed in flashing lights and the police dog is frothing at the mouth in the back seat?

17 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I have no idea where you live or why staffing levels are such, but local police and generally funded through local governments.  

Are you suggesting that RCMP Det manning levels are at full strength in rural areas?

Edited August 31, 2025 by Venandi

[Venandi]

Welcome back Flybaby... got a meme for me?

[blackbird]

I found an article but repolitics would not allow me to post it without it being first approved. 

So I will just quote a few sentences and see if that is allowed.  That way we don't have to wait for an unknown period to see if it is rejected.  You can go to the link below to read the whole article.

quote

“For example, if someone broke into your house and they were armed with a firearm, pointed the firearm at you, and threatened to kill you, you would surely be allowed to use lethal force to defend yourself,” Karapancev explained, adding that the response to an unarmed intruder would have to be “proportionate to that threat,” meaning you wouldn’t be able to use an excessive amount of force to expel someone from your property.

“You wouldn’t be allowed to, for example, shoot the person or beat them to a pulp with a baseball bat in those set of circumstances,” the lawyer said.   unquote

The full article is about the controversial case that recently was reported.

Canada’s self-defence laws debated after Lindsay home invasion

It sound like if an unarmed intruder breaks into your house, you can't use any weapon to defend yourself.  That is how I take it.

I have serious health problems and am an older age and don't have much strength.   So how would I be able to defend myself without a weapon if a strong man broke into my home?   This is bizarre that the government should have laws that give a criminal the advantage over a law-biding citizen who breaks the law by breaking into someone's home and is a serious threat (even if they don't appear armed). 

 

[blackbird]

What is the difference between hitting an criminal with a baseball bat once or twice to try to disable him and beating him to a pulp?   If the guy is seriously injured by being hit by a baseball bat, is the homeowner going to be charged?

How does a homeowner hit a criminal with a baseball bat on the head without seriously injuring him but still stopping him and disabling him from what he is doing?  If you hit him on his arm or shoulder, you are likely not going to stop him or disable him.  He might then grab the bat and kill you.

Criminals also know the sentences for murder in Canada are often very light and he will likely be released on parole after serving half a sentence.

Edited August 31, 2025 by blackbird

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, User said:

Why wouldn't we praise Kyle Rittenhouse?

It's not WJWD.

[blackbird]

14 hours 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.

So tell me if this is reasonable.

A lawyer says this about the recent controversial arrest of a homeowner.

"

“For example, if someone broke into your house and they were armed with a firearm, pointed the firearm at you, and threatened to kill you, you would surely be allowed to use lethal force to defend yourself,” Karapancev explained, adding that the response to an unarmed intruder would have to be “proportionate to that threat,” meaning you wouldn’t be able to use an excessive amount of force to expel someone from your property.

“You wouldn’t be allowed to, for example, shoot the person or beat them to a pulp with a baseball bat in those set of circumstances,” the lawyer said.    unquote

Canada’s self-defence laws debated after Lindsay home invasion

So according to what this lawyer says, it sounds like the homeowner must not use more force than the criminal intruder appears to be using.  So does that mean you cannot use a baseball bat against an intruder if he appears to be unarmed and refuses to leave?  What if he has a gun or knife in his pocket and doesn't show it?  What if as in my case I am an older age and have health problems and am therefore very weak??

How do I defend myself against a home invader who looks like he is unarmed but is a strong younger man?

Am I allowed to use a baseball bat if he refuses to leave?   If he refused to leave and I hit him on the head with a baseball bat, it might disable him, but no guarantee. If I hit him on the head and he is disabled, he might be seriously injured.  And according to what the lawyer says, I might be charged with using excessive force, right??

So how do you square this hole.  This means the law is on the side of the criminal or home intruder.  If you use any weapon even a baseball bat, you might be accused of using excessive force.  What kind of legal system is that?

 That puts the criminals in the driver's seat and the innocent homeowner is the victim.

 

Edited August 31, 2025 by blackbird

[blackbird]

How do you defend yourself using a baseball bat against a home intruder without being accused of using excessive force?

If you hit him anywhere but on the head, you will not stop him and he will probably grab the bat and beat you to death.

In order to stop him, you would have to hit him hard enough on the head to knock him out.  How do you do that without being accused of using excessive force (according to the present law)???

Edited August 31, 2025 by blackbird

[LinkSoul60]

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

Believe it or not, this is probably more of an issue for you than it is for me. I can navigate most of it just fine as is.

The question is can you?

Is that because you know me so well, or is it just your own sense of self awareness?

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

LOL, take your choice, which one sounds better? Y'all going to think of this stuff when your hands are shaking, the house is bathed in flashing lights and the police dog is frothing at the mouth in the back seat?

Rather dramatic don't you think....  If its ever comes to that maybe I'll think back of how Poilievre tried to save me. Until then, I'll wait to hear the facts.

[blackbird]

What is the difference between hitting an intruder on the head with a baseball bat causing him to be knocked out and "using excessive force"?  What is excessive force?   Is knocking him out with a baseball bat excessive force?  How else do you stop him?

[blackbird]

The big problem with the existing legislation apparently is the part about excessive force and laying charges against the victim or home owner.  Such charges could mean the victim is locked up in jail for an undetermined period of time until a judge releases him on bail.  It also likely means the victim has to hire a lawyer at great expense.  We know they can charge tens of thousands of dollars and it puts the victim and his family under stress possibly for many months or even years while the case drags through the slow court processes.  He could also lose his job.

The problem is also the use of excessive force is purely a subjective opinion in some cases.  If the intruder is unarmed but refuses to leave, what can the homeowner do?  He is in a very difficult position.  According to the law if he uses any kind of weapon, even a baseball bat or some other object, he might be accused of using excessive force.  This seems to put the criminal who is in the homeowner's home illegally on the same legal footing as the victim.  This is not justice.  The criminal has no right to be there in the first place.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

How do you defend yourself using a baseball bat against a home intruder without being accused of using excessive force?

You probably don't. As your article notes the standard used by police to lay a charge is much lower than the standard courts use to convict.

You do what you have to do and let the court settle the issue. It just is what it is.

It's funny listening to right wingers complain that the government hasn't provided them with a pile of details and instructions on how to behave - to hold their hands so to speak.

Edited August 31, 2025 by eyeball