Canada

My point of view may be tinted by the fact that in my hometown several children ranging from age 3 to age 12 were recently brutally raped and some left with permanent life altering injuries by a well-known and previously convicted sex offender.

First off, that's horrific, and I wouldn't wish that experience on anyone. I'm sorry that those people went through that, and I'm sorry that you had to experience being a part of a community that went through that.

But if I'm understanding you correctly - and please correct me if I'm not - it very much sounds like you feel that the police used too light a hand in that case. There was a person with a known history of the same exact crime, and that person was left to continue their actions without any intervention. You would, I assume, concur with the idea that the accused's past should have played a much stronger role in the investigation and that the police should have been quicker to pursue a charge, yes?

So let's take a closer look at this self-defence case.

Historical court records reviewed by CBC News show he [McDonald, the man who defended himself] has a violent past. McDonald pleaded guilty to three charges, including assault, following a 2001 incident involving a baseball bat. The more serious charge of assault with a weapon was withdrawn. Seven years later, McDonald again pleaded guilty — this time to assault causing bodily harm — in connection with an attack on another man. He was sentenced to a three-month jail term and 18 months' probation. McDonald also admitted to breaching probation and, separately, failing to comply with a release order.

So, the cops arrive at the home of a man with a well known and extensive history of violent assaults, and find in his home a violently assaulted person in critical condition. This well known violent criminal with a history of doing stuff exactly like this says "Oh no officers, he attacked me, I was just defending myself." And the cops look at the person bleeding to death, in critical condition, covered in lacerations (this is established elsewhere in the article, feel free to check), being rushed to hospital, and they look at the known violent criminal with exactly credibility, and they call bullshit.

Just like they should have called bullshit when that sex offender said something to the effect of "Oh no, it wasn't me, it must be some other serial rapist."

You can't have it both ways, can you? You can't have a world where the cops call bullshit on the rapist, while also having a world where the cops immediately suss out that the man with a history of violent assaults did not in fact commit a violent assault in this situation where it really, really looks like he committed a violent assault. They did their jobs; they arrested him, they pressed charges, and then when all of the evidence was in view the Crown determined that the defendant's story actually did line up well enough that they're pretty sure he's not lying. This time.