this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
46 points (97.9% liked)
Ontario
3253 readers
1 users here now
A place to discuss all the news and events taking place in the province of Ontario, Canada.
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No porn.
- No Ads / Spamming.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
False dichotomy.
Lets say you hear a noise downstairs. You come down and you find your ex girlfriend in the living room. She says, "I'm just here for my phone." You say, "Get out." She says, "Fuck off, I know it's here." You grab a baseball bat and break her elbow with it. Now you're going to jail because that was not a reasonable use of force to defend yourself or your property; she was not an imminent threat and you could have just pushed her out or called the police.
Whatever the situation was, the intruder was nearly killed. That PROBABLY was not a necessary use of force. It looks iffy enough that of course a court or at least the crown needs to take a look at it.
The article specifically states that the intruder was charged with possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. Its likely the victims use of force prevented the weapon being used against the victim.
It's likely? You go too far. It's possible but your reading that it's likely isn't supported by the text.
Huh? How does the text not support this being likely?
If you think there is enough information in this article to draw that conclusion, you are reading into the text. It doesn't have the information you would need to get there. All it says is he was given weapons charges. We don't know why or the nature of the supposed weapon. If he was walking around with the pry bar that he used to open the front door with or whatever, he could easily draw a weapon charge, but that doesn't mean that by using lethal force, the homeowner "likely" avoided having it used against them. The information we have allows for the possibility that it prevented the intruder's weapon use; it doesn't let someone say that did or didn't happen, just that it's possible.
We can absolutely conclude what was likely