Konservative bringen Gesetzesentwurf zur Schaffung eines „Stand Your Ground“-Gesetzes gegen Hauseinbrüche ein
http://thestar.com/politics/federal/conservatives-introduce-bill-to-create-stand-your-ground-law-for-home-invasions/article_6adea8e1-e216-5c08-838c-3360f75e32cb.html
27 Kommentare
This sounds good in theory. The problems I see at the top of my head jnclude:
– does it apply if you invite someone to your home and then initiate an argument
– does the home include just the dwelling or the backyard, driveway, front porch?
– does it apply to people living there?
No. We don’t need American style „accidents“ like this one.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/in-missouri-shooting-stand-your-ground-law-at-forefront-of-case
It sends a message that shootings like this are okay.
Sticky sticky sticky, a law that could save lives, could be abused, and the thing on the line is people getting shot…
I’m as progressive as it gets, and grew up rurally where it takes a minimum of 30 minutes for police to arrive depending on where they are in their route (across 5 towns along the highway). Tough business.
A law like this will lead to more police shootings. If people are prepared to start shooting invaders both sides are going to be more inclined to start pulling the trigger.
Another gimmicky idea from the Conservatives that won’t appeal to the majority. Are they going to learn this red meat for the base is only going to help them keep losing.
The conservative obsession with things like home invasions is so weird to me. It’s like they sit around all day just dreaming up scenarios to be scared about. The most ironic part about it also is that the solution to this minuscule problem is reducing poverty, which is literally the opposite of what their policies achieve lol. I guess the answer is that conservative politicians are just trying to capitalize on people’s innate fears, but yeah, crazy to me that anyone buys it.
I’m sure this bill will titillate the part of the CPC base who regularly fantasize about “righteously” gunning down some strung out addict trying to steal a bike from their garage.
At least Postmedia will get an excuse to run a series of opinion pieces focusing on scary but totally unrepresentative incidents and claiming that crime is entirely the fault of the woke Libs and judges and never systemic factors like poverty and inequality.
The last thing we need in this country is more people who feel confident enough to pull and shoot a gun at another human. We need to become less like the US, not more.
I will never support stand your ground laws.
I mean it would be cool if homeowners were not treated like criminals anytime they defend themselves in a home invasion
I just don’t see the point. We already have self defense laws in place that stipulate you need to assess the level of force required to get away from the situation, within reason.
If an armed combatant breaks down your door with a gun you have every right to think your life is in grave danger & take lethal force.
We have a ton of cases pertaining to this. I like to point to R. v Faid.
‚Donald Faid killed his roommate during a struggle involving a knife and a wrench. Faid claimed self-defense, but the evidence showed he stabbed the victim in the back after the immediate threat had subsided.‘
‚He was convicted of second-degree murder. The Supreme Court noted that while he may have started in self-defense, the continued use of lethal force once the victim was neutralized became an „unlawful act“ (excessive force), leading to the conviction.‘
That all sounds reasonable to me. He got penalized after stabbing the person a second time in the back, leading to death. He stopped the attack, but kept on going. He wasn’t penalized for self defense, he was penalized for actions outside of self defense.
I don’t think we need to Americanize to the point of having a castle doctrine, or however you’d think of it.
Isn’t this sort of populism that’s banking on peoples misunderstandings about our judicial process in the context of that guy who got charged and found not guilty who basically set precedent for this type of thing?
Last I checked you’re allowed to use reasonable force, including lethal, in any dangerous situation in Canada.
Like if you take one shot to knee cap or headshot a mugger, no issue in either instance, reasonable force to stop danger.
If you knee cap then head shot, that’s a problem because the force became unreasonable.
I don’t see the point. If someone breaks into my house and I reasonably feel my life is threatened I’d already have a good amount of leeway to use force to defend myself, even up to killing the intruder.
It should be highlighted that the incident which sparked the Conservatives to focus on a ‘stand your ground’ law ended in [charges being dropped](https://globalnews.ca/news/11707991/lindsay-ontario-home-invasion-charges/) last month.
So what exactly are they trying to solve here? Do they believe people who choose to use deadly force don’t deserve any level of scrutiny to make sure it was justified?
Seems like our system worked just fine. The police laid a charge, the crown reviewed all the evidence and found that the self defense argument was supported so they dropped the charges.
This is good policy compared to people getting charged for defending their home during a legit home invasion.
The sky isn’t falling and this isn’t a slippery slope to the outcomes we see in the USA. The law could easily be drafted not to permit things Canadians don’t want to see (as this thread seems to suggest) like inviting people onto your property to hurt them, or for people who simply trespass on your lawn. If the goal is to have an exception for home invasions then the law can be drafted as such and the courts will sort out bogus cases of people improperly trying to rely on the exception. Anyone who thinks you should face criminal charges for choosing to take a baseball bat to a home invader in a day and age where police response times suck, is nuts.
The reality is that having a gun (or being perceived to have a gun) actually *increases* your chances of being shot (4.5x) and killed (4.2x) during an assault. That’s because before seeing your gun, the intruder felt safe having the ‘worst’ weapon. After seeing the gun you are both now possibly in a ‘life or death’ situation. They will try to take you out before you get them. If they know about the gun they might be less likely to chose your home but if they still choose it knowing about the gun, it’s now ‘take them out before they have a chance to get the gun’.
That’s without even factoring the increase risk of family violence and suicide.
Ya I don’t know how I feel about this. I don’t want to see people charged for defending themselves at home but I have serious concerns about accidents etc
This is awesome and would be such a blessing if it gets passed.
In my legal dwelling (let’s say my room in a shared house) I should be allowed to protect myself in anyway possible, such as standing my ground, to prevent anyone from entering my room that I don’t allow/want, and I should be allowed to defend myself physically against anyone who tries to/is trying to force their way in to my room, and I should be allowed to remove anyone who entered my room that I don’t want/allow.
I would welcome this if passed, and PRAISE be to GOD if it does get passed.
This is very much needed.
As usual, the concept is very agreeable, but the consistent history of conservatives operating in bad faith makes me distrust anything they suggest as a method to achieve this reasonable point. We can’t allow people to start declaring self defense for frivolous things. New laws are needed, but we need actual adults designing them, not maplemaga
You can use reasonable force already under the law if you feel threatened.
This doesn’t solve a real problem, and introduces new ones.
And at the end of the day, if someone is trying to break into your house to steal something, should you just be allowed to kill them with impunity? Is the penalty for theft a murder sentence? I don’t think it should be.
Purely performative. I’m sorry, Canada is not a nation of bloodthirsty citizens, at each other’s throats, ready to pull a gun on our fellow human. We are a nation that strives to help each other out, improve our collective communities, making our collective environment better for everyone.
My bigger concern with these laws is that, over time, it makes people afraid. Like we see this in the states. Car breaks down so you knock on a strangers door for help? Get shot because the owner thought you were a threat. Waiting for a pick up at soccer practice but get in the wrong car, get shot because the wrong cars owner thinks your a threat.
No thanks.
Hopefully they actually take the charter and potential challenges to it into account before they wrote it. Cause that’s going to be the big thing on whether it works or winds up being a waste of time and ineffective.
I can’t help but think a law like this might be neccesary, especially after reading the [story of Jeremy McDonald](https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/local/article/man-accused-of-assaulting-alleged-home-intruder-in-high-profile-lindsay-ont-case-sees-charges-withdrawn/) earlier this year. Via CTV:
—
>Charges have been withdrawn against an Ontario man accused of assaulting an alleged home intruder last August in a case that attracted significant political attention.
>Kawartha Lakes police reported at the time that the man woke up in his Lindsay apartment in the middle of the night on Aug. 18 to find an intruder. They said an altercation left the intruder seriously injured and requiring hospitalization.
>The resident, Jeremy David McDonald, was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon after he confronted Michael Kyle Breen, who allegedly carried a crossbow as he broke into the apartment.
—
To me, it’s *absurd* that someone was charged for defending themself from an armed home invasion [because he used a knife to fight off someone with a crossbow.](https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/ont-man-charged-with-assaulting-home-intruder-used-knife-court-docs-say/) While the charges were eventually withdrawn, it’s a tragedy of justice that Mr. McDonald was treated like a common criminal for defending himself from an actual criminal.
It’s quite frustrating to hear Liberals like Sean Fraser saying „Canadians already have the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves in the event of a home invasion“, given how untrue that statement often is.
Yet another topic I wish we could actually work to solve, instead of just periodically punting around for cheap political points.
I’m deeply opposed to American gun culture but I have some sympathy to line of argument here. I live in an apartment with a single entrance. In the case of a home invasion, what exactly am I supposed to do? Jump out the window? Shelter in the bathroom or bedroom and hope they just rob me? Those arguing against any reform here often make the bad assumption that simply fleeing or waiting until the invaders have already escalated force is always a viable option, cheerfully ignoring the elderly and infirm, the disabled, families with small children, and so on. Or that a police response happening in a timely fashion is a universally reasonable expectation.
I’m sure some of the recent higher profile cases are biasing my perception, but I feel strongly that someone in their home, making snap decisions under extreme stress should be given the benefit of the doubt in all but the most damning circumstances. Prosecutors should be barred from laying charges unless they can convince a judge they have strong evidence not just that excessive force was used, but that a reasonable person in those circumstances could be expected to have acted differently.
At the same time, the American laws are insanity. People feel entitled to murder a visitor on their doorstep for ignoring a *no soliciting* sign, or to execute someone showing no signs of aggression merely for being on their property. Violence enthusiasts openly fetishize the opportunity to ‚defend‘ themselves. Nothing good at all lies in that direction.
There are way to many people that fantasize about being able to murder someone, and who find it to be a travesty of justice that you can’t legally dangle subdued home invaders into a pit of acid.
Nice. We should have every right to defend ourselves from violent intruders in our homes without concerns about the Crown, assuming reasonable force is used.
Will it happen to you? It’s extremely unlikely. You should still have the right to protect yourself and your family if it does.
Conservatives love to get all riled up and self-righteous about what they would do to an hypothetical home invader, but violent home invasions are super rare. It won’t happen to you. This whole bill is so they can have a fun little exercise in some fantasy role-play.