Anywhere else, if you can avoid a fight by walking way, your duty is to walk away. But even if you can save yourself without violence by, say, leaving your home you can stay and fight (always acting reasonably).
This view is based, to some degree, on the view that a home is sacred and no one has to abandon a home in the face of an attack. It is relevant to, among others, battered spouses and answers the question 'if it was so bad why didn't you leave?'. There is no obligation to leave.
5 comments:
I love Canada, but there are some things that annoy me about it. The laws regarding home defense has always been one of them.
If someone comes into my house uninvited, there should be no question that I have the right to defend my home, and family, even if that means killing the intruder.
We need to lose this mentality that it's better to lay down and be a victim, than stand up and fight.
That's pretty much what the case says
Is it? Does the act of breaking into my home, in itself, give me the right to defend it? And how can I defend it? May I use a weapon? Would that be reasonable? Is it reasonable to kill an intruder because the act of breaking in is enough to reasonably believe my life is in danger?
The way the police have reacted to people defending themselves or their property I am concerned that simply saying we can defend ourselves is a awfully broad statement without some clarification.
Rat,
Good points all and you have to be careful about going too far from a single case. But here's my read of the law. You are attacked on the street. You can run away to safety or kill your attacker to save yourself -- you must run away. You are attacked in your home and can run away to safety or kill your attacker to save yourself -- you dont have to run away.
Who will determine if you have acted reasonably?
A home invasion or an encounter with an intruder may take only 15 seconds.All facts by the poor homeowner must be processed and judged correctly in that short time, if not they may be considered a criminal afterwards.
The high paid lawyers and judges will have the privilege of analyzing the "facts" for months or even years. They will have the time two argue that B or C would have been appropriate instead of action A and they will do it with perfect hindsight.
The poor victim will have to fear the intruder AND the law.
Perhaps better advice would be to warn would be criminals that their is an automatic assumption that their actions will be considered a physical threat when they do their deeds.
Post a Comment