Not in Canada, it isn’t.
ISTM that Zoobi’s posts/arguments firstly constitute some sort of ad-absurdum hypothetical about how far you can stretch “felony murder”, but also apparently involve some sort of additional assumptions about the further state of mind of said violent idiot, and about the culture in general re: use of deadly force.
…
Never liked the “felony murder” thing, especially in those systems where your incidental connection exposes you to the full burden. We normally put all sorts of conditions to the degrees of “murder” - premeditation, malice aforethought, depraved indifference, etc. but we’re now going to have “was peripherally connected somehow” as enough to meet the standard? At least limit it to participants in the actual felony. Come up with another offense for others.
yes, that appears to be consistent with the discussion on Canadian law in the Wikipedia article I posted earlier. My only point in doing so was to point out that there appears to be no consistency on this throughout the world, and your efforts to paint the US as some outlier on this area of law is not correct.
“Stand Your Ground” laws as they are understood in the United States are a uniquely American legal doctrine and are not found in the same form in other countries. While every nation has laws permitting self-defense, most legal systems outside the U.S., particularly in places like the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, incorporate a “duty to retreat,” a concept that is the direct opposite of standing your ground.
This fundamental difference in legal philosophy creates a fascinating contrast in how societies approach the use of force for personal protection. It’s not just a minor legal tweak; it reflects deep-seated cultural and historical views on individual rights versus public safety.
For the 3rd Time, Castle Doctrine is not the same as general “stand your ground” laws! It is a specialized set of circumstances. I don’t know how to make this more clear to you. Please read the Wikipedia article I linked to above, particularly the section on the status of the doctrine outside the U.S. Oh what the heck, here it is again: Castle doctrine - Wikipedia
You’re totally missing the point, but, oh well, it’s all off-topic anyway. That’s all I’m going to say on this digression. I think I’ve made my point: the US is unique in a whole plethora of circumstances ranging from extraordinarily severe sentences, convictions for crimes the accused never committed (“felony murder”), and an emphasis on draconian retribution rather than rehabilitation.
I thought the exact same thing.
I cannot imagine how that case went down. Yes, the other teens were guilty of a crime, but how a murder charge was brought against them is puzzling me.
18 is an adult. And one is in you house, your “castle’ which is a felony to start.
The victim would still be alive if he hadnt knowingly lent his car to a gang of housebreakers.
From what i read, he initially told the police he knew it- later, likely on advice of counsel- he changed his story.
The JURY thought he knew and thus lied during his second tale. 12 peers. But again, I agree with the Governor and his act of mercy.
More or less what the more liberal US states say. The really radical ones have gone too far- IMHO “stand your ground” should be limited to your home or your family.
Yes, but you can still be imprisoned for life for being an accomplice to murder-
So, in most cases of “felony murder” they would be accomplices and subject to life imprisonment. Not all, of course.
I am not sure what your cite is supposed to be arguing, but from it-
Norton said it’s “far too early to speculate” how the Crown will proceed.
“I do maintain confidence that, in due course, Mr. McDonald will be exonerated,” he added.
Breen also appeared in court Thursday and his case was postponed to Oct. 9
The case has generated widespread interest, with Ontario Premier Doug Ford saying the decision to charge the apartment resident shows “something is broken.”
So, he may not even have to face trial, and that the Premier disagrees with the arrest.
Someone died, during a felony which they perpetrated. If they had not broken into the house, no dead person- the felony caused the death. I admit in this case it is a bit of a stretch.
Yup completely justifiable from a legal point of view. It’s completely allowed to use whatever weapons, the state allows be to own legally, to use to defend myself against this burglar.
But that wouldn’t make it morally acceptable to kill a kid so he couldn’t take my Nintendo Wii.
If I had access to gun in that moment it would have haunted me to this day
of course, if you knew that was his intent at the time. But if you wake up in the middle of the night upon hearing a noise, walk downstairs, see a person in your house moving toward you, you don’t know that all they intend to do is take your Wii. Maybe they intend to kill you, maybe to sexually assault you. And because that MAY be their intent, you have a right to defend yourself in that instance. THAT is what the castle doctrine is trying to address.
I’m sure it would have. To kill a person, under any circumstances, has to be an extremely distressing event. I can’t even imaging being in that scenario. But because you didn’t know that person’s intent, and had reasonable fear for your safety, you would have been legally justified in killing that person.
Exactly. That risk is very high.
Not really that much of a stretch, but to call it murder (first or second degree) is excessive. In both of the cases from the OP, the charge could be reckless endangerment (assuming the guy who loaned the car in the one case had a reasonable expectation that a crime would be committed) but murder is going to far. But, it has the harshest penalties, so that is what gets applied. Because, somehow, the prosecutors still cling to the belief in deterrence.
Yes, I understand. Because all those things happened to me (except there was no downstairs, it was a single storey home, this is not hypothetical). Legally I would have been completely in my rights to use deadly force. Morally I’ve just killed some kid for my Wii.
Yes he could have been attempting to murder or rape me. But he wasn’t. He was just trying to steal my Wii. If I’d killed him the only thing I’d have killed him for is to stop him stealing the pile of replaceable tat in my house.
That would have been an unconscionable immoral decision that would have haunted me for the rest of my life
No it’s not. Your average burglar is not trying to kill you. They are trying to steal your shit. That’s what burglars do.
If someone is actually breaking into your house with the intent of killing you they aren’t going give you the chance to wake up, retrieve your weapon and confront them in your hallway for a shootout
But not in your own home! As shown in all the cites above. Both in the UK and the US you have a right to stand your ground (i.e. no duty to retreat) in your own home.
The crazy American “stand your ground” laws only extend that to outside your home (in some states), so are irrelevant to the OP.
The trouble is that the real world isn’t so clear-cut and people have been charged and convicted, both in the UK and in Canada, for using excessive force against intruders, as in this example of Tony Martin in the UK who was charged and convicted of murder, later downgraded to manslaughter, for shooting an intruder at his farmhouse:
Here’s another example of a UK homeowner going to jail for fending off an intruder. Now admittedly, in this case the intruder had fled the home and was accosted on the street outside, but if you read the details of the case, the judge seemed unconcerned with where the attack on the burglar took place, but rather with the severity of the attack which left the intruder with brain injury:
And there’s the case in Hither Green previously mentioned. In that case, the homeowner was arrested, but after an inquest the decision was made not to charge him. It could have easily gone the other way – you just never know, because the law is pretty vague about what constitutes “reasonable force”. You do not have carte blanche in the UK, Canada, and many other countries to defend yourself any way you see fit, even in your own home, as you do in most US states.
In neither of those cases was the right to stand your ground in your own home in doubt.
The first hinged on the fact that the burglar was fleeing his house (he was climbing out of the window when he was hit by the lethal shot) so did not present a threat to the homeowner. In addition the gun itself was not actually legally owned.
The other did not take place in the home, he tracked the burglars down in the street and attacked them.
Either case (depending on the jurisdiction and the mood of the prosecutor) could have been brought in the US.
And, the thing the judge found important- continued to attack and thus killed one perp after he was laying on the ground, helpless.
Even in the most strict “stand your ground” states, if you shot an intruder in the back after he left your property, then walked over and finished him off with a shot to the head- you’d be arrested.
You must be reading a different article. No one was killed. One perp was hit so hard he suffered brain injury, the other one escaped.