Forget it, Muffin. It’s Americatown.
Under which law is the homeowner least likely to be held at fault for murdering the burglar?
You see, it works both ways. The trick is to put a legal system in place that separates the shit from shimola, so that people can defend themselves, but at the same time can not murder on a thin excuse.
It is not good enough to permit a homeowner to murder a burglar simply because the burglar is there. It is not good enough to fail to permit a homeowner to defend his or her home and family. That why we have the law that permits defence that is reasonable in the circumstances. Being unreasonable does not cut it.
This is very interesting and I wondered if it was an option (mostly because that’s what I imagine I might do). How does one prove that one was in such a state?
I didn’t think you would answer, knowing you (and Spoons along with the rest of your lot) will eventually be cornered. Maybe you got your shingle in the wrong part of town, dunno. And yes, the Zimmerman case is a perfect example of how interpreting these laws can easily go against one or the other of the participants in unexpected ways.
Apparently you did not understand this part of the class. Here’s your sign: It’s all about the burden of proof. Nobody ever said you can kill burglars at will without justification in your home, and that is not what the “Make My Day” laws say, either. There are many examples of where this act cannot be justified and the homeowner goes to prison: Shot in the back, guy was boinking the wife, 15 rounds expended and crime scene tampering to name a few. But the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. With no evidence to the contrary, the homeowner is always considered justified up to and including use of deadly force.
All somebody in Canada has to do is raise an eyebrow and ask a question to spawn this Dope thread, among other costly legal endeavors in Canuk land.
And there you have your shit and shinola in one pat answer. You have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt you cannot defend your position without absurd assumptions prefacing the argument.
Eh?
You need a big can of shinola.
Exactly where does guilty until proven innocent come into play in your legal system?
I’m curious. Really. :rolleyes:
nm
Want to know something that will really blow your mind? My parents rarely bothered to lock their doors. 
Of course I’d answer the door without a gun. I don’t own a gun, have never even held one, and would get in far more trouble if I were to answer the door with one than I could conceivably get in by answering the door without.
As for the question of self defence, you don’t have the right to defend yourself against someone who isn’t threatening you. Someone being in your house is not, in itself, a threat, but many, probably most, times will be concurrent with one.
Guilty until proven innocent does not play into the Canadian legal system, and my best guess is that it is not part of your legal system either.
And yes, you are very curious. A bit of a nutter, actually.
I locked my doors when I lived in the bad part of town, but where I am now there is no need. If someone wants to break in, they can do it easily enough even if the doors are locked, whereas I or my neighbours being locked out when celcius and farenheight meet isn’t something I’d rather risk.
Take a long, hard look at all of the surrounding factors, ranging from past history of instability to present condition, with particular attention given to expert medical testimony and the circumstances of the incident.
Get back to me once you have actually practiced criminal law.
Brit here and I share the same sense of disbelief.
If I stab someone to death, I should be charged. Period. If it happens that I had to kill the perp, because he was attacking, then the charges should be dropped.
But a legal system that says “Hey, he broke into your house, so have at it. You can be judge, jury and executioner. Doesn’t matter if he’s trying to run away; get medieval” is appalling. An embarrassment.
I agree. I’d argue that the recent Ferrie case is a good example of a reasonable process. Homeowner shoots burglar with shotgun. Police arrest all parties whilst facts are investigated. Prosecution service determines it was entirely legit, reasonable force was used, and homeowners are widely praised by the press, police and MPs.
As I recall from my US constitutional law studies, it is not part of the American legal system either. See US Constitution, Amendments V, VI and XIV.
Kwimby, where did you get your law degree? Actually, perhaps I should ask–did you get a law degree?
So you guys are all lawyers?
Now that makes perfect sense. The more litigation, the more people in jail, the more cases and money for you.
Now I get it. Thanks!
Nope. It doesn’t work that way in Canada (and I was not aware that it works that way in your country either). The relationship is not, as you believe, “The more litigaton, the more people in jail,” but rather the more crimes, the more people in jail. The litigation, as you call it, is the process we use to move heaven and earth to ensure that innocent people are not convicted. Too bad you have problem with that.