You are within your rights to protect yourself with "reasonable force" which is not defined and needs to be determined in the heat of the moment. The requirement for reasonable force is hilariously an unreasonable expectation. How do I know what this person will do? Why is it on the victim to make that instantaneous distinction?
Extremely valid point, but what you are looking for does not exist anywhere. A shooter may claim ‘Stand Your Ground’, but is still subject to the interpretation of a Prosecutor, then potentially a Judge/ Jury.
Not sure I’d trust my fate to the interpretation of events by any of those people, any more than I would trust that some D-Bag breaking into my house, is not going to do more than take what he can and leave quickly.
Yes, it is impossible to know in the heat of the moment if you are over-reacting or not.
My point is, regardless of what the laws are, after everything is said and done, you are much less likely to end up totally F’d, if you err on the side of restraint. There are unintended consequences to escalating things. As horrible as it would feel not to do, engaging is escalating.
Even if you are completely absolved of liability on Canada, there are still repercussions for taking a life. Normal people don’t just walk away from that without some type of mental/ emotional trauma.
I get how frustrating it is. I live in a nice, quiet area, but still, if your stuff isn’t barricaded, it’s a target.
The Following User Says Thank You to metroneck For This Useful Post:
The left keeps saying it's the guns that are the problem. The right keeps saying it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people with the guns. Actually, the US has both a problem with their guns and a problem with their people. They also top it off with a polarization problem where nobody can get anything done by working together or even agree with each other on anything.
Another stupid example from last week.
After a certain age you can no longer drive a car, not apparently owning a gun of okay until you are six feet under.
Nah, it's not just stuff when it's in your house. The consequences for invading someone's home should be extreme. If you don't want to potentially lose your life, or be crippled, don't break into someone's home.
People who confront an intruder shouldn't have to play instant psychologist to determine how far they're willing to go and how much force is reasonable. #### that.
How often does that happen? I’ve been broken into once, but I wasn’t there. It sucked. But thieves usually aren’t stupid enough to break into an occupied space, and if they do neither they nor the occupant (should) want a confrontation.
I actually had to look it up, because I couldn't believe that home invasions could be such a massive driver of people needing weapons in the US. It turns out that they are averaging over 1 million home invasions a year, since 2010. That's breaking into a house while people are home.
I hate to say it, but the reason for this high number could only be two things, to create such mass cultural behavior. Poor education system, and massive income disparity.
And then I go over to the Alberta page and look at the changes in the education system, and the Canada page and look at the changes leading to income disparity. 50 years ago, the US wasn't like this, so are we looking into Canada's future?
1 million home invasions in the US is about 301 per 100,000. Canada's rate is 23 per 100,000 and has been steady for a number of years. These stats may not be up to date - there's not a lot of data online - but they still show a massive difference between the two countries. This helps explain to me the difference in attitudes (i.e. fear) that we see.
1 million home invasions in the US is about 301 per 100,000. Canada's rate is 23 per 100,000 and has been steady for a number of years. These stats may not be up to date - there's not a lot of data online - but they still show a massive difference between the two countries. This helps explain to me the difference in attitudes (i.e. fear) that we see.
Where are these numbers coming from? Break and Enter is higher per capita in Canada. I can't find comparable home invasion stats, which I guess is a subset of break and enter.
1 million home invasions in the US is about 301 per 100,000. Canada's rate is 23 per 100,000 and has been steady for a number of years. These stats may not be up to date - there's not a lot of data online - but they still show a massive difference between the two countries. This helps explain to me the difference in attitudes (i.e. fear) that we see.
To me, it makes more sense if put in the context of households rather than per capita, and from what I see the US has about 131M households, so the rate is 1 home invasion per 131 households each year. Assuming all those figures are correct, that's pretty nuts.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
Where are these numbers coming from? Break and Enter is higher per capita in Canada. I can't find comparable home invasion stats, which I guess is a subset of break and enter.
Burglaries and home invasions have dropped drastically over the last 10 years, mostly as the advent of a cashless society and the dropping value of consumer products has made it an almost pointless crime, most people dont have enough in their house worth stealing, people dont keep cash around anymore, even jewelry is less prevalent
20 years ago you would have a TV and stereo, maybe a computer that would be worth stealing, you cant give that stuff away now, property crime rates now are about the same as they were in 1961 but they havent stayed steady, they rose rapidly to a spike in 1991 and then have fallen rapidly back since then
Last edited by afc wimbledon; 04-21-2023 at 02:27 PM.
Same source as your document, note these are 2000, not current. Hopefully we aren’t catching up.
The apples to apples comparison is this:
Quote:
In Canada, police reported that thieves broke into 572 residences per 100,000 population, compared to a rate of 474 in
the U.S. A
It would seem odd that there is a higher rate of thieves breaking into homes in Canada, but US would have 15 times the rate of home invasions (which doesn't seem well defined) if they are referring to the same thing.
Anecdotally, I don't seem to hear of more homes being robbed here vs Canadian friends and family.
Where are these numbers coming from? Break and Enter is higher per capita in Canada. I can't find comparable home invasion stats, which I guess is a subset of break and enter.
It is. A 'home invasion' requires a person to be the target, not property. Thus, if someone breaks into your house looking for your stuff, it's a break and enter. If they break into your house looking for YOU (or the person who lived there before you) it's a home invasion.
It would seem odd that there is a higher rate of thieves breaking into homes in Canada, but US would have 15 times the rate of home invasions (which doesn't seem well defined) if they are referring to the same thing.
Anecdotally, I don't seem to hear of more homes being robbed here vs Canadian friends and family.
The stats can link provides definitions, as does the us justice department:
Both note that definitions vary but both generally state that burglary when someone is home (which is classified as a robbery in Canada) or when violence occurs is a home invasion. Yes, some wiggle room, but doesn’t explain more than 10x difference. Nor does it explain the huge difference in home invasion vs burglary ratio but based on their definitions it is what it is.
I don't have a source handy, but it was mentioned in a recent newspaper story that violent crimes in Canada have been going down over the years and are historically low, but the number of random violent attacks is up. I would guess it's probably a trend in the U.S. as well. It used to be that violent crimes were related to gang activity and personal squabbles. If you were a victim of a violent crime, there was a good chance that you would have know the person who attacked you or put yourself in the situation somehow. These days, it is often just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. These random occurrences make for more sensational news and I think it puts people on edge more, which just increases the shoot first, ask questions later mentality.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The left keeps saying it's the guns that are the problem. The right keeps saying it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people with the guns. Actually, the US has both a problem with their guns and a problem with their people. They also top it off with a polarization problem where nobody can get anything done by working together or even agree with each other on anything.
Another stupid example from last week.
There are stupid people everywhere. They just all have guns in the US.
It is. A 'home invasion' requires a person to be the target, not property. Thus, if someone breaks into your house looking for your stuff, it's a break and enter. If they break into your house looking for YOU (or the person who lived there before you) it's a home invasion.
I will disagree slightly, there is no such thing as a home invasion in Canadian law, a burglary is where your house is robbed when you are unaware of it, you are out or asleep, in the garden etc, a 'home invasion' is legally either a robbery or an assault (or both) that is where you are present and their is an impliction of threat in the interaction 'give me your wallet or I will....' is a robbery, kicking in the front door and taking your TV, even if you run away out the backdoor and are unharmed is still a robbery, kicking in your door, stabbing you and taking your TV is a robbery and an assault, if they break into your house and beat you up but dont take anything it is an assault
Last edited by afc wimbledon; 04-21-2023 at 02:45 PM.
Burglaries and home invasions have dropped drastically over the last 10 years, mostly as the advent of a cashless society and the dropping value of consumer products has made it an almost pointless crime, most people dont have enough in their house worth stealing, people dont keep cash around anymore, even jewelry is less prevalent
20 years ago you would have a TV and stereo, maybe a computer that would be worth stealing, you cant give that stuff away now, property crime rates now are about the same as they were in 1961 but they havent stayed steady, they rose rapidly to a spike in 1991 and then have fallen rapidly back since then
People still hide cash in their home and people know it. It's mostly to qualify for social security by not having money in the bank.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
I don't have a source handy, but it was mentioned in a recent newspaper story that violent crimes in Canada have been going down over the years and are historically low, but the number of random violent attacks is up. I would guess it's probably a trend in the U.S. as well. It used to be that violent crimes were related to gang activity and personal squabbles. If you were a victim of a violent crime, there was a good chance that you would have know the person who attacked you or put yourself in the situation somehow. These days, it is often just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. These random occurrences make for more sensational news and I think it puts people on edge more, which just increases the shoot first, ask questions later mentality.
Its still an absurdly low chance.
But yes - too high. But even then - those random encounters are typically someone going crazy on a bus or on the street. They aren't knocking on your door and then attacking you (I'm sure that has happened so no need to google it). If someone goes crazy and stabs you out of nowhere, even if you are carrying a gun and know how to use it - you're still getting stabbed.
