It works quite nicely. Here’s a database which contains most of the reported cases for the last few decades. You’re welcome to dig about and find examples of people who were convicted for assaulting or killing or being succesfullly sued by home burglers. The frequecy of such jugments is vanishingly small, which is why the fellow being arrested in TO made such a splash in the news.
We like to say even one false conviction is too many.
Of course. So do we. Do you have any Canadian examples of a person being wrongly convicted for assaut (or worse) against a home burgler?
I do not believe it is well established at all, and nothing you have said or referred to thus far has supported this claim. In fact, the thread topic and information related to the specific episode in question strongly suggests this is not the case. On the contrary, as has been argued by many posters here, it is in serious doubt. Are you just daft, or what?
Your earnest desire to believe it doesn’t make it so. I don’t like to rely on the chance of some disinterested outsider’s opinion or potentially incomplete or incorrect analysis of what happened after the fact of a life threatening situation. Maybe you do. like I said good luck with that.
Are you reading the same thread I am here? I thought that was what we were arguing about. You have one on the bubble right now.
Has the person in the OP been convicted? Or do we have all the facts about the case?
Oh right, neither of those things. So it’s rather early to be talking about a false conviction.
The problem being you don’t know if the intruder has a knife or gun , so the term non-violent is only a guess for the person finding an intruder. I sure don’t want to hurt anyone if I can avoid it but I don’t feel any need to give someone robbing my home a chance to see if they are violent or not. If you have a gun of your own you can keep your distance and issue orders. A knife is another matter. I wouldn’t let any intruder close enough to touch me without defending myself with any force necessary.
I’d say you also have a right to hold him for thepolice so if you say, “get on the floor and don’t move” and he refuses , or tries to run by you, you also have a right to try and stop him.
I remember knocking on a strangers door asking for help when my car broke down. He let me in and was holding a handgun standing back 10 feet and watching me as I used his phone. Don’t blame him a bit. I made my call and sincerely thanked him and left.
Ha that reminds me of our family vacation to California when I was a kid. Our rental car broke down on the highway so Dad climbed up the bank to one of the houses to call for help. Their back yard was fenced on all sides and the TOP with chainlink and the guy answered the door with a gun in his hand. When he found out we were Canadian he put the gun away and offered drinks while we waited for the tow truck. We had terrible rental car luck on that trip but met some great people.
Waiting to hear from all the Dopers out there inclined to answer the door in the middle of the night without a gun… :smack:
He has not been convicted at this point, let alone wrongfully convicted.
Refer to post 98 in this thread for the law on the issue. For case law interpreting that statute, you can search though canlii. See how many examples you can find of people who have been convicted for assulting or killing a burgler in their home. See how many examples you can find of people who have been wrongfully/falsely convicted for assulting or killing a burgler in their home.
With the case at hand, we do not know if he reasonably used a knife to defend himself and his family and to get the burgler out of his home (that is using reasonable force – there would not be a conviction), or if he went rambo with intent and stabbed the shit of the burgler who had already given up (that is not using reasonable force – there would be a conviction), or if he mentally lost it from the stress of the situation and went rambo (that is not using reasonable force – there would not be a conviction due to mental incapacity). It is too soon to say what the decision will be, and given the lack of publicly known facts, it is too soon to make a reasonable guess as to what the decision will be. Meanwhile, have a look at the the law and the judicial decisions interpeting that law if you want to get a feel for how it works up here.
I’ve never in my life answered the door in the night with a gun. I don’t even own a gun (though I use my dad’s for target practice at the cottage).
Another good example of how luck is clearly not tied to intelligence in any discernible way.
I think you are trying to assert a problem where no problem exists, for you have not established that people are being wrongfully convicted for defending themselves against burglers.
Are you aware of the principle regarding past record being no guarantee of future performance?
Trying to imply Canadian law as written provides any protection from this type miscarriage of justice is ludicrous. Why do you think the Zimmerman trial was and remains such a hot topic here and in the media? Why do you think lawyers rake in huge fees interpreting poorly written law to try controversial cases? It makes it only more likely, if anything.
You keep right on forming ideas not explicitly stated in the law. I’ll keep right on enjoying my right to use deadly force against intruders in my home.
Before hanging out my own shingle, I lived in the roughest area of a city that usually is in the running for the murder capital of the country (and was last year). There was never any need to answer the door with a gun. When the occasional drunk or vagrant knocked on the door, I simply did not open it.
Once I opened it when a bag lady was knocking. She asked if she could have my trash at the curb. I had forgotten that I had left out an old standing lamp for collection, so I figured that she was referring to my Fleetwood Brougham d’Elegance (a.k.a. The Pimpmobile), so I pulled out the ownership, signed it over, and gave it and the keys to her. She got pissed off, so I spent a few minutes persuading her of its virtues (it had all the options). Me: “It has leather reclining seats and retractable sun roof for when you go spooning with your sweetheart.” Her: “I don’t got no sweetheart.” Eventually she took the ownershipo and the keys. A few days later I saw her blowing through a stop sign. Quite a few months later, I came across the car up on blocks at a junk yard, so I expect that she sold it or someone took it from her. I hope she had some fun with it while she had it.
These days I’m out in the bush, so I keep a can of bear spray handy for when the bears are nosing about. It’s nice to not have to worry about security at all, as compared where I previously resided, but even that bad neighbourhood, it would have been paranoid to think that carrying a gun to answer the door was reasonable.
Rather continuing off into the abyss of speculation, theory and hyperbole that so often accompanies the discourse here, allow me to make this simple to understand. Consider only the information presented. Make no assumptions, hold the example given below at face value:
Law#1: No more than reasonable force may be used against a home intruder.
Law#2: Homeowners may use any force up to and including deadly force against a home intruder.
Scenario: Homeowner shoots and kills a burglar in his home.
Under which law is the homeowner least likely to be held at fault for the burglar’s death?
I will allow a critical caveat to appease your concern after you answer the question.
I’m kinda glad we value life in Canada, and encourage our citizens to NOT kill each other just because they might have an excuse (like being stolen from).
I also kinda feel sorry for people who answer their door with a gun in their hand; must be a horrible way to live.
I just can’t fathom it.
I’ll agree certainly have different values of life: Our own above a violent criminal’s. 
I realize that Canadians form a significantportion of Florida residents, but Canadian law does not apply there. Also, the Zimmermanmatter had nothing to do with a home burglery.
Aside from police officers, up here is it is not legal to stalk with a handgun. Had Canadian law applied, and had Zimmerman obeyed it, the kid would not have died.