The comment released by the police does not refer to it as a home invasion. That is my point. I should have clarified my comment "was never mentioned in any article by the police"

The media is the main culprit in pushing the 'descent into lawlessness' proselytizing. Despite what is in the media, I have not seen any evidence that this was anywhere near a 'home invasion'. Even the body of the articles describes the person as an 'intruder'. which is the most accurate description that fits the available facts. But you also over-reach. CTV's headline has been corrected to "Ont. man charged with assaulting home intruder used knife, court docs say". A home intruder does not constitute a 'home invasion'.

An alleged fact not mentioned in many other articles is

Kalabic says he recently spoke to McDonald, who is “pretty upset about the whole thing,” adding the two men, while not friends, knew one another. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/ont-man-charged-with-assaulting-home-intruder-used-knife-court-docs-say/

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The comment released by the police does not refer to it as a home invasion. That is my point. I should have clarified my comment “was never mentioned in any article by the police”

Fair point. I'm not sure police would use that language, as it's not a legal term as far as I know.

Despite what is in the media, I have not seen any evidence that this was anywhere near a ‘home invasion’.

To add to the above point, the guy was charged with break-and-enter, possession of a weapon with intent, and a few others. He was also already wanted by police. But the fact that the homeowner was in the residence, makes it a "home invasion".

The fact that those two also knew each other adds complexity of the story, for sure. It may even help the defence.

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

If the only evidence the police have is that the 'home owner said he broke in', without any physical evidence of a break in, there is not enough to convict the alleged intruder. If the alleged intruder said 'he was just visiting to chat about say money or a loan or a mutual lover, and the owner let him in, and a fight ensued' the police would naturally charge both parties and let the courts decide. If he was let in, there was certainly no 'home invasion' until he was asked to go. So far, the general public has zero evidence-based facts to go on. Just back and forth accusations, and a very injured person. And the media concentrating on the vague statements of only one participant (actually, it appears they are depending on the statements of a third party who was not even present, but 'just herd that...').

A lot of posters here are putting words into the mouth of police that the police never stated. What we do have is the official statement of the police as cited in this article. Everything else is media hype.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If the only evidence the police have is that the ‘home owner said he broke in’, without any physical evidence of a break in, there is not enough to convict the alleged intruder. If the alleged intruder said ‘he was just visiting to chat about say money or a loan or a mutual lover, and the owner let him in, and a fight ensued’ the police would naturally charge both parties and let the courts decide. If he was let in, there was certainly no ‘home invasion’ until he was asked to go.

For sure, and I agree with all that.

However, the police already charged the guy with break & enter, as well as a weapon charge and one or two other charges. Sounds like they had enough evidence, and only the B&E has to stick for this to be a home invasion. The weapon's charge doesn't help the guy, as it shows some intent to harm the homeowner.

[–] Daryl@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

The police charged both allegedly known characters, probably realizing that the stories each one were giving them were probably minimally related to the true facts, and decided to leave everything up to defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, and juries to sort out. Police just are not paid enough, nor are there enough of them, nor is it even in their pay grade, to sort out scenarios like this. The absolute worst thing they could do is to 'assume the facts not in evidence' and make their charges based on these 'assumed facts', and missing the true crime. They charged him with 'break and enter' simply because some of the evidence available could imply that a 'break and enter' did happen, but it does not mean there actually was a 'break and enter' until a judge determines there was.

It is very common for police to lay charges that seem to fit the available evidence, but withdraw the charges when more evidence becomes available.

If I have a screwdriver in my hand, during some altercation, even if there was a legitimate reason for having it, I could be charged with having a dangerous weapon. The act of possessing the screwdriver itself itself says nothing about 'intent to harm', it is how that screwdriver was handled and used that determines the charge. In this case, that 'intent' could easily just have been inferred by hearsay evidence, and would not stand up in court.