The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Eaglelord17]

The title of that article is preposterous to me.

The fact the home invader was armed as well (charged with possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose) blows my mind that the home owner was charged. There has to be something else going on there such as the home invader running away and getting shot from behind or something, otherwise I can't understand why they would charge the home owner.

 

[brihard]

The fact the home invader was armed as well (charged with possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose) blows my mind that the home owner was charged. There has to be something else going on there such as the home invader running away and getting shot from behind or something, otherwise I can't understand why they would charge the home owner.

He was charged with aggravated assault and the intruder was airlifted with life threatening injuries. This will come down to whether the force he was was lawful, including if it was ‘reasonable’ and ‘necessary’. The law does not expect force used in self defence to be measured with exactitude.

I don’t want to speculate about an active criminal case. I would infer from the charges that police believe the force used by the recent and the injury that resulted exceeded what the law can support. It’ll probably be quite a while before we get much of an idea of just what went down in that apartment.

 

[Haggis]

The fact the home invader was armed as well (charged with possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose) blows my mind that the home owner was charged. There has to be something else going on there such as the home invader running away and getting shot from behind or something, otherwise I can't understand why they would charge the home owner.

There's nothing in the article, or others, including the press release from Kawartha Lakes Police, that mentions a firearm being used/carried by either party.

 

[Halifax Tar]

He was charged with aggravated assault and the intruder was airlifted with life threatening injuries. This will come down to whether the force he was was lawful, including if it was ‘reasonable’ and ‘necessary’. The law does not expect force used in self defence to be measured with exactitude.

I don’t want to speculate about an active criminal case. I would infer from the charges that police believe the force used by the recent and the injury that resulted exceeded what the law can support. It’ll probably be quite a while before we get much of an idea of just what went down in that apartment.

It disgusts me that we would judge a victims use of force in repelling a home invasion.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The fact the home invader was armed as well (charged with possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose) blows my mind that the home owner was charged. There has to be something else going on there such as the home invader running away and getting shot from behind or something, otherwise I can't understand why they would charge the home owner.

Its Canada. Nothing surprises me anymore.

 

[IKnowNothing]

This will come down to whether the force he was was lawful, including if it was ‘reasonable’ and ‘necessary’. The law does not expect force used in self defence to be measured with exactitude.

I don’t want to speculate about an active criminal case. I would infer from the charges that police believe the force used by the recent and the injury that resulted exceeded what the law can support. It’ll probably be quite a while before we get much of an idea of just what went down in that apartment.

How much latitude do investigating officers/crown have in applying defenses, proportionality tests etc. to their decision of whether or not to press charges?

The impression I get is that the prevailing standard for self/home defense cases (especially if a firearm or other weapon is involved) is to charge and let the court decide if it was justified. If my impression is correct- how does that compare to other crimes?