Jag Virk, the 22-year-old’s lawyer, told reporters that his client is innocent and will argue self-defense. “It was a home invasion, intruders in his house, armed, dangerous, and he protected himself and his mother,” he said.
What I find odd is that this is not well established in Canadian law. This seems like a clear case of self defense in your own home. If you can’t use deadly force against people who threaten you with deadly force in your own home then Canadian law does not permit you to defend yourself.
That would give home invaders an incentive to murder you on sight if you are home when they rob you. They are more likely to escape unidentified if they kill you and you are unlikely to shoot back knowing you will go to jail for it.
If you can’t use deadly force against people who threaten you with deadly force in your own home then Canadian law does not permit you to defend yourself.
Thanks Justin Castreau
I don’t know how much influence he has on self defense law, but one of the shows that he does not want Canadians to be able to defend themselves with firearms. He is pushing the notion that firearms are only for “hunting and sport”, and he’ll probably restrict or ban those uses once he’s finished taking handguns away.
The USA is lucky to have their right to bear arms enshrined in a law that is near impossible to change. They still attack gun rights from every angle they can, but at least it’s an uphill battle for them. In Canada all you need is a generation convinced by movies and TV that guns are only used for senseless violence and you’ll be a hero for taking them away.
everything is about precedent.
your observations are correct. so the conclusion is as you said... they don't want you to be able to protect yourself.... why?
(post is archived)