I wouldn’t want violence to be the answer to anything, but if balanced and appropriate force is needed to safely retrieve your property, then you should be protected by law.
For example, if you’re going to get your stolen bike back, you should be 100% legally protected if the dickwad who stole is needs to be restrained (for your safety), or if their backyard gate needs to be broken open.
And if the dickwad decides to use violence, you should be 100% protected for using self-defence.
The caveat, of course, is that you better be damn sure that someone is in possession of your property, and that appropriate force, if necessary, is used.
If it turns out that you violated someone’s rights or broke into the wrong property, you should have to face consequences.
Canada’s self defense laws are garbage; we have a duty to retreat, so if you go looking for your stolen property and have to defend yourself, you’re getting in trouble for it.
But I do realize you were talking about what the laws should be, not what they are
Yes, what they should be. And you are right, there’s no protection for law abiding citizens who are the victims. All benefit goes to criminals, and our “10 strikes and we’ll give you another chance” way of doing things is clearly not in favour for the rest of us.
FTR, I don’t think longer sentences against individual perpetrators is the solution. There are always more poor kids to pull into the gang.
The only way to successfully deal with violent gangs is actual good investigation; implicate the people in charge, and put them in jail instead of their patsies. In the USA they’d use RICO to do so if they wanted to, which they don’t. Here in Canada, I’m not sure which law would be the most effective route, but it probably doesn’t matter anyways
As long as you do get any rights to use violence, I absolutely agree.
I wouldn’t want violence to be the answer to anything, but if balanced and appropriate force is needed to safely retrieve your property, then you should be protected by law.
For example, if you’re going to get your stolen bike back, you should be 100% legally protected if the dickwad who stole is needs to be restrained (for your safety), or if their backyard gate needs to be broken open.
And if the dickwad decides to use violence, you should be 100% protected for using self-defence.
The caveat, of course, is that you better be damn sure that someone is in possession of your property, and that appropriate force, if necessary, is used.
If it turns out that you violated someone’s rights or broke into the wrong property, you should have to face consequences.
Canada’s self defense laws are garbage; we have a duty to retreat, so if you go looking for your stolen property and have to defend yourself, you’re getting in trouble for it.
But I do realize you were talking about what the laws should be, not what they are
Yeah, self defense is about defending yourself, and not your stuff.
Yes, what they should be. And you are right, there’s no protection for law abiding citizens who are the victims. All benefit goes to criminals, and our “10 strikes and we’ll give you another chance” way of doing things is clearly not in favour for the rest of us.
FTR, I don’t think longer sentences against individual perpetrators is the solution. There are always more poor kids to pull into the gang.
The only way to successfully deal with violent gangs is actual good investigation; implicate the people in charge, and put them in jail instead of their patsies. In the USA they’d use RICO to do so if they wanted to, which they don’t. Here in Canada, I’m not sure which law would be the most effective route, but it probably doesn’t matter anyways