You break into a house, threaten the people inside, you get what you deserve. If they break your bones or end your life, THAT is the risk YOU take. Fuck this holding the VICTIM responsible. Not much I like from US law, but stand your ground and castle doctrine really ring true for me after being home invaded, robbed, and beaten by 3 invaders. What did the cops do? fuck all. Next fucker breaks intro my house will be dealing with trauma for the rest of their lives.

edit: Thank you to all who up AND down voted, and engaged in conversation, I appreciate it, and it was cathartic. I won't be responding to any more of this post as I have said all I will on this. Remember to not get too mad at dissenting opinions and try to have a great day.

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Simply put, if the invader is immobilized and no longer a threat, but you continue to beat them, it's not self-defence anymore, it's vengeance. That's the law in Canada and I'm okay with that.

[+] lost_faith@lemmy.ca -8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So, you must not let the adrenaline flow to help you out, got it. I am not a very large man (was an even smaller kid) compared to the average, I have been victimized many times. When I did win a fight in grade school, I almost chocked the kid out completely, he didn't get up right away when I did finally come back to myself, after he hit me once I only saw black shapes in a red haze I had no idea what I had done. I got in shit, he who started it got to leave with no punishment. So yeah... sure

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I only saw black shapes in a red haze I had no idea what I had done

and you want guns and castle doctrine like in Murica? glad this is not the case

[–] lost_faith@lemmy.ca -3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Where did I say guns? If I had a gun I wouldn't have been in the seeing red space, he woulda had a hole in him, one hole more than factory. I don't own guns (for obvious reasons) and don't want one personally, I like our gun laws, I don't like our legal system as there is no justice for the wronged. If the intruder survives their idiocy then they should be punished. If you break into someone's house you are a threat to their existence and should be dealt with accordingly, if they leave when confronted then they leave, if not they deserve everything they get until you regain control.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If I had a gun I wouldn't have been in the seeing red space, he woulda had a hole in him

this is the kind of asshole that shoots kids on halloween for kncking on the wrong door

[–] lost_faith@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Ok, gotta answer this...

No, I am the kind of asshole that gives kids the good candies and chocolates on Halloween and asks them whats up the rest of the year, cause you know, ringing my door bell or knocking is not a threat ffs

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

until you "lose" it and then tragedy ensues

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I have been assaulted and defended myself multiple times in Canada. It's not how you're describing it where you have some duty of care for the person you're actively defending yourself from. Your right to defend yourself logically does not include the right to counter-assault or murder others. Guarantee this guy could have stopped but didn't. That's 99% of the time what constitutes unreasonable force.

Plenty of people hospitalize their assailants and don't get charged. This story is rage-bait.

[–] lost_faith@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, hindsight is 20/20. When you are calm you can realize you went too far. In the moment, you are more concerned with survival, the Adrenalin is flowing and if there is no way to escape ie; physically running is not an option, the fight gets overwhelming. Like I said, break into my house and I will defend myself, if it costs you the use of limbs, brain function, or life, that is a choice YOU made breaking into the house. When I was younger I tried the CORRECT thing, assault, loss of more than I could afford to lose as I liked eating at least enough to live, the cops were totally useless and did nothing, several times. Now I am at the stage of, get the thief to leave but there are very useful objects all over the house, can you say trauma????, and I will NOT be a fucking victim again.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The courts very much factor in if someone is acting in the moment or if they cognitively chose to do something. That's like a huge thing. End of the day if someone can't stop themselves from ground and pounding an unconscious person to death, than they are also a problem. The inability to control yourself or a violent situation are risk factors for anyone who doesn't train martial arts.

[–] lost_faith@lemmy.ca -5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

We will agree to disagree

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 weeks ago

I mean sounds to me like you're conflating your experience with cops to how judges interpret the law; which is simply not true.

It's not a matter of clashing opinions.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So...someone else doing something bad, means you get a pass to do something even worse?

"He tried to steal from me, so I get to murder him"?

Does that really make sense to you?

[–] lost_faith@lemmy.ca -5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You break into a house, you have nefarious intentions. You made a choice to cause physical harm, you pay the price. The victim didn't choose to be broken into, with a weapon to be used against them. The victim doesn't know if that weapon is for intimidation or action.

See, this is the problem, victim is held responsible then bleeding hearts feel bad for the aggressor when he gets what's coming to them. In the moment, you don't have hours to reflect on your actions and adrenaline is one HELL of a drug but yes, keep protecting the aggressors, when they do serve a small amount of time the bleeding hearts try to get them released even when the victims fear their release

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You break into a house, you have nefarious intentions. You made a choice to cause physical harm

You tie a man up, and beat him to death...then, you also have "nefarious intentions". If you didn't intend to do any harm, then you wouldn't.

You stop being a victim when you choose to keep going, after the point where it stops being necessary. If that's simply because you lack any kind of self-control...then it's manslaughter. But if you knew what you were doing, and did it anyway...then it's murder.

It's not fucking hard, dude. It doesn't matter how much you think they "deserve" to die. Murder is still murder.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The guy you're replying to appears to have some PTSD from being burgled and assaulted. I don't think they're really arguing here so much as emoting.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago

Fair point. You're probably right.