Assault charges dropped against Ontario man who confronted home intruder
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’.
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’.
No. I think it’s not good faith because your argument was not in any way trying to determine what is reasonable and was instead resorting immediately to extreme edge cases.
No I do not think “any” level of force is justified.
Do I disagree with that ruling? With only the information you’ve provided, no I don’t.
I’m also not interested in adversarial debate, I’m interested in discussion. I’m not trying to win anything here, I’m trying to expand my point of view and better understand how others view the society in which we all live.
Nope. If someone is inside my home and is an armed & immediate threat, I think I should be able to use whatever force necessary to protect myself and my family from that threat. If that person leaves my home, they’re no longer an immediate threat to me, are they? In the example you gave, the person that died was no longer an immediate threat.
In any case, it’s pretty clear that you aren’t interested in discussing nuance for the topic at hand, but rather “winning.” I’m done here.
DarylInCanada