Originally Posted by
line052
So I will chime now. The simple fact is causation, if they had not trespassed on the property, tried to steal, and endanger the family members Stanley would have no defence. Defence of property is illegal in CANADA, SC ruled on this in 1985. The weighted value of life, was more than property possessions. Now in this case because his wife was there one minute and after he came out with the pistol, she was gone and they had smashed into the family car and thought his wife was trapped. That raised the issue of self-defence and justified the "accidental" shooting when he reached into the car.
Joe PA, is correct and absolutely right about Property and the relation to property crimes since 1985. Since 1985, because of the SC ruling it has become illegal (SC Ruling), to defend or protect property in Canada, now what did this do over the next 2.5 generations since then, it signalled property owners have no rights to stop criminals from taking your property. The kids know there is no consequences for property crimes. It is also down the point where your whole house can be cleaned...all you get is a police report #...no investigation. Heck most of you are thinking this is OK, but, have posted on stolen cameras, tree stands and frustrations with trespassers. It's those same people that trespass who know little or nothing can be done and they know the courts have almost chance to prosecute these crimes, or those that are caught have little effect.
The other point that came from this ruling, it also allowed criminals to then sue homeowners over excessive force when protecting property. Happens all the time, and is legal because if you defend your (property), you are breaking the law and SC ruling. You know what I am saying, because you all have seen and commented on these cases.
This is the problem with perception of property crimes in the eyes of criminals and lawyers.
Property owners have no rights. You only have limited rights to self-defence, and only with certain limits you must comply law during any events that occur and it must be reasonable, which are usually fast moving and reactionary in nature. Anyone fighting for your life, does not take the time to think what is reasonable in these situations.
All these rights we think we have, and those that say….just try and steal my TV..I will beat the #### out them. If you do, you will go to jail, and more than likely be sued as well.
So, Yes Joe Pa, I agree 100% with your view. Why, because of how limited or non-existent our rights are in Canada. Yes I believe we should have the right to defend up to and including deadly force to protect your property and life. Does that mean any single one of you in Canada on this forum...would pull out a gun and shoot someone for stepping on your property..NO. I believe 100% would not and neither would I. However, if you pull out a gun and do this now...good chance you will be charged if no "threat to life" is present and you admit to police you did bye-bye guns. Even if the criminal states this...you could be in trouble as a licenced firearms owner.
I had more rights to self-defence in actions overseas, then I do at home. What the heck was defending..when we don't have the same rights at home..we are sent to defend..Freedoms...Democracy.
If the laws changed overnight and people had this right, the overnight perceptions would over property crimes and it would have an impact..if the criminals believed everyone had a legal right to defend property.
