this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
57 points (96.7% liked)

Canada

11645 readers
689 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hmmm. The article indicates a broken window, and further 'medical and forensic evidence'. If the broken window was the point of access, it might indicate that a lot of the cuts sustained by the alleged intruder could be traced to the broken glass. That fact would change the entire scenario. It then becomes 'much ado about nothing'.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DarylInCanada@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There is a very big difference between 'defending yourself' and 'deciding to take the law into your own hand and dishing out your own brand of justice and punishment'.

Doing the first is your right, doing the second is vigilante justice and almost always turns the country into 'rule by organized crime'. Mexico is a good example of what happens when the 'right to defend' leads to 'the right to impose your will regardless of the law'.

[–] deltapi@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Are you saying that if someone breaks into your home with apparent intent to cause harm that you can't defend your person with whatever means necessary? I think that if someone breaks in brandishing a weapon that it should be open season.
This isn't a case of a homeowner beating up a drunk that accidentally broke into a house thinking it was their own and fell asleep on the couch.

[–] DarylInCanada@lemmy.ca 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

"Open season' has a tendency to develop into open warfare against anyone you do not like. Unrestricted 'self defense' is wide open to abuse, like it is in America.

[–] deltapi@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Alright, so if someone breaks in to your home with a crossbow, what is the limit on your self defense?

[–] DarylInCanada@lemmy.ca 1 points 18 minutes ago

This case makes it clear. Once the authorities determine through an investigation all of the facts, and what actually happened, and collect all the facts, they will determine if the level of self-defense was appropriate.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Can you elaborate on how that is the case in Mexico?

[–] DarylInCanada@lemmy.ca -1 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

The Mexican cartel that thought they had a right to defend themselves by using a rocket against a police helicopter.

[–] elibroftw@lemmy.ca 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Unhinged to compare self-defence causing bodily harm to a literal terrorist organization.

[–] DarylInCanada@lemmy.ca 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

My point was to demonstrate the end result of the unrestricted right to defend by any means possible. What exactly does 'intruder' mean? It goes both ways. If it applies to a law-abiding citizen, it applies to everyone, criminals included.

[–] elibroftw@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Intruder as in someone who breaks into a residence. Trespassing is not enough according to Canadian law. And Canadian law already punishes excessive force (there was a conviction regarding a case in recent years where the victim had chased the intruder and thus became a criminal themselves). So you're literally just fear mongering

[–] DarylInCanada@lemmy.ca 1 points 22 minutes ago

My point exactly. We do NOT have the unrestricted right to defend by any means possible, specifically to AVOID the situation I described.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 1 points 18 hours ago

Ugh! No if that's your basis then no!