Close Menu
    Kanada

    Konservative bringen Gesetzesentwurf zur Schaffung eines Selbstverteidigungsgesetzes für Hauseinbrüche ein


    Konservative bringen Gesetzesentwurf zur Schaffung eines Selbstverteidigungsgesetzes für Hauseinbrüche ein

    https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/conservatives-introduce-bill-to-create-self-defence-law-for-home-invasions/article_6adea8e1-e216-5c08-838c-3360f75e32cb.html

    View 14 Comments

    14 Kommentare

    1. Kucked4life on

      Conservatives try not to copy republicans challenge: impossible

      Literally down to the same vocabulary.

    3. AllGasNoBrakes420 on

      „self defence law“ is very vague. guess I’ll have to read the article this time.

    4. MusclyArmPaperboy on

      Is this an issue? How many people annually are charged for defending their homes?

    5. Disastrous_Junket455 on

      Coupled with this should be the right to have hand guns for self defence versus a baseball bat or a knife.

    6. jjbeanyeg on

      This law literally already exists in the *Criminal Code*. The current language was added by *the Conservative Party* under Stephen Harper.

      # Defence of Property

      * [**35**]() **(1)** A person is not guilty of an offence if
      * **(a)** they either believe on reasonable grounds that they are in peaceable possession of property or are acting under the authority of, or lawfully assisting, a person whom they believe on reasonable grounds is in peaceable possession of property;
      * **(b)** they believe on reasonable grounds that another person
      * **(i)** is about to enter, is entering or has entered the property without being entitled by law to do so,
      * **(ii)** is about to take the property, is doing so or has just done so, or
      * **(iii)** is about to damage or destroy the property, or make it inoperative, or is doing so;
      * **(c)** the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of
      * **(i)** preventing the other person from entering the property, or removing that person from the property, or
      * **(ii)** preventing the other person from taking, damaging or destroying the property or from making it inoperative, or retaking the property from that person; and
      * **(d)** the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

    7. vyrago on

      Liberals will defeat this enthusiastically and Cons know this. Its all theatre.

    8. Illustrious-Divide95 on

      Conservatives just want to be kike the US. It’s a bit of a sad fanboy vibe

    9. ROSRS on

      The problem isn’t the law

      The issue is the crown prosecutors who drag you through the dirt and try to get you on every technicality because they don’t like self-defense. As mentioned, the law we have is very permissive. Our prosecutors are not however. In the US, cases simply dont go to trial when they are obviously self defense

    10. MaritimeRedditor on

      Isn’t this already covered in section 34 of the criminal code?

      This isn’t hard to explain. You can protect you and your family during a home invasion. You will not get in trouble.

      Now, if you tie the burglar to a radiator, chop off his fingers one by one and knock out every tooth in his head. You might get charged with excessive force.

      But to hit someone with a bat and render them unconscious or even dead? The charges won’t stay.

      But to explain this to the people this law is catering too.. oof

    11. Infamous-Echo-2961 on

      Carney keeps taking any decent idea and implementing it 😅. Hard to generate a platform that seems reasonable to middle voters when they keep getting taken.

    12. TorontoBoris on

      >At Thursday’s news conference, Cobena said her bill would further clarify the law so it is presumed that any force used against someone committing a home invasion is reasonable, unless there’s evidence that it was not.

      Seem like they want to get rid of the „duty to retreat“ which would be to „stand your ground“ against an intruder.

      You currently and have always had the right to defend yourself with reasonable force, AFTER you’ve made reasonable attempts to retreat as the first option to protect yourself.

      >Weisbord said that, practically speaking, it’s not clear what this proposed change would do. The burden is already on the Crown to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, and that includes disproving the claim that self-defence was reasonable, he said.

      But it doesn’t seem to be worded well and it isn’t anymore clear.. So basically a political stunt to stoke homeowners fears and outrage of the imaginer inability to defend oneself.

      >“It seems to me like the Conservatives don’t understand how self-defence law in Canada works,” he said.

      OR.. OR.. Are purposely glib and deceptive as to manipulate their base and stoke their own narrative about crime.

    14. cptmcsexy on

      And the liberals already fear mongering saying people are gonna get shot for knocking on a door.

    Leave A Reply