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

[ExFlyer]

2 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Not very good at this are ya.

Don't need to be good at it...considering you seem to be the opponents LOL

The competition is so lame LOL

 

 

[Venandi]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

As for condoms...seems to me it was you that began that little tit for tat so, it kind makes it your obsession LOL

 

You're confusing balloons with condoms...  your mother seems to have made the same mistake.

If you want to trade insults here you'll have to be a bit more creative and clever about it. I've written 3 limericks for you, now it's your turn.

If you aren't up for that I'll leave the fox to devour your dumb a$$ with my blessings. 

Edited September 5, 2025 by Venandi

[ExFlyer]

3 hours ago, Venandi said:

You're confusing balloons with condoms...  .

If you aren't up to that the fox can eat ..

Nope, not confused...any rubber that you blow up is all the same.

Confux ain't a challenge.

I was hoping that you would not jump on his bandwagon... it has had flat tires for a very long time LOL

[Venandi]

28 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

any rubber that you blow up is all the same.

Best stay clear of wheel loaders and haul trucks then...

Edited September 5, 2025 by Venandi

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

Best stay clear of wheel loaders and haul trucks then...

Will do

[CdnFox]

22 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Not to babble your BS  bit he, you don't listen well LOL

 

 

Oh dear.  I've upset you.  I can always tell when you suddenly can't use English that you've become upset. 

[CdnFox]

22 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Yeah...venandumb...that is you isn't it?

As for condoms...seems to me it was you that began that little tit for tat so, it kind makes it your obsession LOL

The person who brings it up has an interest. The person who keeps going on about it has an obsession.  It would seem tha the obsession is yours ex-rubber

22 hours ago, Venandi said:

You're confusing balloons with condoms...  your mother seems to have made the same mistake.

LOLOL best line of the week  

[CdnFox]

19 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Nope, not confused...any rubber that you blow up is all the same.

Confux ain't a challenge.

I was hoping that you would not jump on his bandwagon... it has had flat tires for a very long time LOL

LOL awwww little guy   You big mad that everyone laughs at you?  

Kid, none of your 'insults' are ever above a grade three level and literally everyone winds up doing better than you. 

Sorry you're just learning this now  

Seeing as Venandi was kind enough to give you one, i'll throw in a limerick myself   

Ex-flyer was very sad

Beause he never knew who was his dad. 

"To make up for this gap

I'll post endless crap

And people will think i'm a Chad!"

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Oh dear.  I've upset you.  I can always tell when you suddenly can't use English that you've become upset. 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

LOL awwww little guy

Edited September 6, 2025 by ExFlyer

[taxme]

On 9/4/2025 at 2:12 PM, Venandi said:

If only your father had taken up the hobby...

If only the best part of the lieberal troll dripped down his old mans leg. The world would have been in a better place than what it is today thanks to imbecile trolls like him still around. 😂

[taxme]

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.

I read that there are something like 12 rules that one must abide by to be able to use to defend yourself from being charged with a crime for defending yourself in your own home. Rules that the victim, ha-ha, must remember when confronting a criminal in your house. Better have the rules handy just in case you get broken into.

The only rule that should apply is that anyone that breaks into anyone's home is that whatever happens to the criminal works for me. 

[herbie]

1. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
2.You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
3. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
4. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
5. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
6. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
7. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
8. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
9. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
10. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
11.You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
12. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you

Taxme's 12 rules to remember

 

Edited September 6, 2025 by herbie

[I am Groot]

On 9/4/2025 at 2:26 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

There should be huge leeway for someone causing violence against someone who breaks into your home.  Outside of torture or some other odd extreme cruelty i think any violence is fair game.  If you're shot leaving the property who cares.  Police would have done the same thing trying to stop them in an arrest if the suspect ran.

Maybe PPs law is even correct here who knows, I just think he's an opportunist doing theater here. 

They all are. Like how many times the Liberals have jumped on Tory policy over the years, only to embrace it once in power. Or hell, how the Liberals jeered at Tory demands over everything from carbon taxes to bail laws, capital gains taxes and EV mandates. And now they're Liberal policies.

[Venandi]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

1. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
2.You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
3. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
4. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
5. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
6. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
7. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
8. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
9. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
10. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
11.You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
12. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you

Taxme's 12 rules to remember

 

Pop Quiz:

1/  A known and wanted criminal breaks down your door in the wee hours of the night, he's armed with a crossbow and strikes you with the butt end of it in the hallway. Which answer is the best assessment of the situation / his motive(s):

a. He is collecting for the Red Cross;

b. He's looking for directions to the nearest Tim Hortons;

c. He needs to borrow a cup of sugar;

d. It's a home invasion and the initial assault (with a deadly weapon) suggests there is clear intent to harm you.

 

2/ With reference to the above question, your most reasonable course of action is to:

a. Write a check payable to the Red Cross and demand a receipt for income tax purposes;

b. Lend him your car keys and enjoy coffee and donuts with the entire family when he returns

c. Bake him some cookies;

d. Assume he means you harm and either resist to the maximum extent possible or cooperate fully depending on the situation and your capabilities.

 

Edited September 6, 2025 by Venandi

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

Pop Quiz:

d in both cases with the understanding that the maximum extent possible falls within what's legally allowed.

I doubt ding dong ditch, we used to call it knicky knocky nine doors when we were kids, would make the cut. What do you think?

The shooting erupted around 11 p.m. on Saturday in a southeast Houston neighborhood when the v̶i̶c̶t̶i̶m̶ perp, 11-year-old Julian Guzman, and his cousin banged on his door as part of a prank known as "ding dong ditch," according to the criminal complaint.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/new-details-emerge-door-knock-prank-homicide-11/story%3fid=125226680

Maybe he meant to grab his squirt gun but in all the hilarity and spirit of the prank he simply made a mistake.

Sure, anythings plausible.

[Venandi]

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What do you think?

I think it's not even close to the same thing; in terms of logical comparison, it's not even in the same galaxy...and I think you know it. 

 

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

....maximum extent possible falls within what's legally allowed.

Since what's legally allowed is a function of reasonableness:

2 hours ago, Venandi said:

A known and wanted criminal breaks down your door in the wee hours of the night, he's armed with a crossbow and strikes you with the butt end of it in the hallway.

I'd say this is a prime contender for the maximum extent possible and the use of lethal force is justified by the presence of the crossbow and his clear willingness to hurt you by virtue of the fact he already has.

Reasonableness is the force required to stop him... shooting him 10 times and then stabbing him 15 times for good measure exceeds the threshold of reasonableness.

Stood on its head, expecting him not to use the crossbow as a weapon a second time is equally unreasonable... you don't have to let him shoot you to establish intent and you don't have to respond with a bow and arrow to satisfy the concept of proportional force. 

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What do you think?

 

Edited September 7, 2025 by Venandi

[eyeball]

 

22 minutes ago, Venandi said:

I'd say this is a prime contender for the maximum extent possible and the use of lethal force is justified by the presence of the crossbow and his clear willingness to hurt you.

A contender perhaps but there is a difference between someone dying as a consequence of your actions and deliberately because of them.

If it's the former then it probably is what it is, if it's the latter then you might be held liable for killing someone. 

Cases where police could have used a non-lethal method to defend themselves come to mind.

[Venandi]

27 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

A contender perhaps but there is a difference between someone dying as a consequence of your actions and deliberately because of them.

If it's the former then it probably is what it is, if it's the latter then you might be held liable for killing someone. 

Cases where police could have used a non-lethal method to defend themselves come to mind.

Don't think I can make it much clearer here, the law itself isn't that complicated and the law itself isn't even the issue under consideration. A lot of folks seem to have lost sight of that.

The use of lethal force in the example above is a deliberate decision and it's also justifiable by virtue of the circumstances. I think you are falsely equating it with murder... clearly not the same thing either morally or legally. Keep in mind as well that the use of "lethal force" isn't defined or determined by whether someone actually dies or not. In like manner, the fact that someone does die from a Taser deployment doesn't qualify Tasers as "lethal force."  

BTW, no police officer is likely to use less than lethal force (pepper spray or Taser) against someone armed with a crossbow who has already used it in an assault.

I'm guessing there are force escalation models online... I don't care enough to look them up for you and I don't think it would even matter if I did. Cheers

Edited September 7, 2025 by Venandi

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, herbie said:

1. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
2.You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
3. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
4. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
5. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
6. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
7. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
8. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
9. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
10. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
11.You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
12. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you

Taxme's 12 rules to remember

 

1 - If they entered your home, which is your castle and last retreat, illegally it's reasonable to assume they mean to harm you.

2 - If they entered your home, which is your castle and last retreat, illegally it's reasonable to assume they mean to harm you.

3- If they entered your home, which is your castle and last retreat, illegally it's reasonable to assume they mean to harm you.

4- If they entered your home, which is your castle and last retreat, illegally it's reasonable to assume they mean to harm you.

5- If they entered your home, which is your castle and last retreat, illegally it's reasonable to assume they mean to harm you.

6- If they entered your home, which is your castle and last retreat, illegally it's reasonable to assume they mean to harm you.

7- If they entered your home, which is your castle and last retreat, illegally it's reasonable to assume they mean to harm you.

8- If they entered your home, which is your castle and last retreat, illegally it's reasonable to assume they mean to harm you.

9- If they entered your home, which is your castle and last retreat, illegally it's reasonable to assume they mean to harm you.

10- If they entered your home, which is your castle and last retreat, illegally it's reasonable to assume they mean to harm you.

11 - If they entered your home, which is your castle and last retreat, illegally it's reasonable to assume they mean to harm you.

12- If they entered your home, which is your castle and last retreat, illegally it's reasonable to assume they mean to harm you.

And that has been established in canadian law and english law for centuries. 

Your home is your castle. If someone would violate that sactuary, you have to assume they would violate your person just as readily and the use of force to deal with the threat is perfectly valid. 

No further threat is required. Our courts have confirmed that many times. 

The issue here is whether or not the homeowner must prove his actions were reasonable, or if the state must first prove they were unreasonable. 

This is a no brainer for most canadians but your echo chamber tells you otherwise so you blather away like a fool

[ExFlyer]

On 9/5/2025 at 12:35 PM, CdnFox said:

Accurate and truthful babble

If only you could be accurate and truthful LOL

BUT....

 

[taxme]

On 9/6/2025 at 12:31 PM, herbie said:

1. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
2.You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
3. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
4. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
5. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
6. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
7. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
8. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
9. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
10. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
11.You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you
12. You can't kill them unless they're threatening to harm you

Taxme's 12 rules to remember

 

You must enjoy wasting your time typing up the same sentence 12 times. You don't have much of a life now do you? One only needs one rule and not 12 rules of the same rules, stunned. The main rule here is that if anyone enters someone's else illegally, and if the home owner has no idea as to whether the criminal is there to steal or kill, kill him. Why risk waiting for the criminal to possibly pull out a gun a shoot the home owner first.

In Florida, the police have no problem with a home owner shooting anyone breaking into their home. As a matter of fact the police encourage a home owner to do so. Here in lieberal Canada, the lieberal police tell you to place ones fob to their car on the doorstep. WTF. When criminals here that, it is pretty sure that many criminals will be looking for a fob on a doorstep of some home owner and hopefully find one and than take off with their car. The police here in Canada have become a bunch of lieberal woke buffoons just like you, lefty.  In Canada today, the victim is now the criminal. ☹️