Stand on Guard - Conservative Party of Canada

[u/GhostProtocolGaming]

https://www.conservative.ca/stand-on-guard-2/

The bill makes important changes to Section 34 of the Criminal Code so that force is presumed to be justified if used against an illegal intruder. Conservatives first announced the ‘Stand on Guard’ principle back in August, asking the government to introduce legislation in the fall session.

[u/Lumindan]

Expect no. Thats just the narrative of this echo chamber.

R v Cinous was 11 months.

R v Brown was 6 months.

R v Khill vs 9 years (long ass case btw)

Ian Thompson is another big one, that was like 2 or 3 years?

You know all of reddit is an echo chamber right?

How would you feel if you had to defend your family and then got pressed by the horse cops and had your life flipped? Not everyone has six figures to drop and half a year or more of time they can take off work and put their life on hold.

[u/The_King_of_Canada → u/Lumindan]

R v Cinous

2022, As you said Harper added self defence laws in 2013 so it's irrelevant to your point.

R v Brown

The Supreme Court case about automatism? What was the point you were trying to make here?

R v Khill

Yea. That's because he killed an unarmed man on his property and was only acquitted because they got rid of any Indigenous jurors. That's what's supposed to happen when you shoot an unarmed man regardless of his location. There was no actual self defence. It was a bad situation all around.

Ian Thompson

Ian Thompson was in 2013 before the Safe Communities Act.

You know all of reddit is an echo chamber right?

Yes I know. Glad that you agree this one is too.

How would you feel if you had to defend your family and then got pressed by the horse cops and had your life flipped?

Like that's what's supposed to happen. And you know, I wouldn't kill an unarmed person so it wouldn't get to court.

[u/Lumindan → u/The_King_of_Canada]

2022, As you said Harper added self defence laws in 2013 so it's irrelevant to your point.

Boy you're in for a rude awaken when you realize what laws got changed and adjusted in 2017 and the reality is, that wasn't far enough for self defence in Canada but under a minority government Harper couldn't push it further.

The Supreme Court case about automatism? What was the point you were trying to make here?

The point where it relates to self defence because it determined whether someone could use self-induced intoxication as a defence. Do you know anything about the case? The dude was getting smashed and breaking into peoples homes. It set the bar for other cases.

Ian Thompson was in 2013 before the Safe Communities Act.

and it doesn't change my point, just because you responded doesnt mean you actually address the point that Thompson got dragged through the coals for years. It's life ruining.

Like that's what's supposed to happen. And you know, I wouldn't kill an unarmed person so it wouldn't get to court.

Ah yeah, good ol perfect execution reddit arm chair energy right here. You're clearly infallible and would 100% take down an opponent without harming them in any way.

Absolutely cooked take.

[u/The_King_of_Canada → u/Lumindan]

Boy you're in for a rude awaken when you realize what laws got changed and adjusted in 2017 and the reality is, that wasn't far enough for self defence in Canada but under a minority government Harper couldn't push it further.

So the obvious thing is that he ended with a majority why didn't he push it through?

It set the bar for other cases.

It set the bar for automatism as a defence. Not self defence.

It's life ruining.

And it was changed. You may as well be complaining about slavery. It's not the same then as it is now.

You're clearly infallible and would 100% take down an opponent without harming them in any way.

Not what I said.

Absolutely cooked take.

Huh? What does this mean?

[u/Lumindan → u/The_King_of_Canada]

So the obvious thing is that he ended with a majority why didn't he push it through?

Your guess is as good as mine but typically politicians dont revisit the same ground because it's an easy shot at them if they do.

It set the bar for automatism as a defence. Not self defence.

Did you follow the case? Genuine question. You keep repeating just what the initial change was for automatism, not the nuance behind the break ins and the attacks.

And it was changed. You may as well be complaining about slavery. It's not the same then as it is now.

Not really no, the same defensive calculus is still applied, the cops still charge heavily, the crown still presses the victim.

We're just going for full misinfo now aren't we?

Not what I said.

You realize you will still get dragged through court even if you don't kill someone. You touch a hair on them and it's in the air.

It's wild you're honestly against protecting people from being dragged through court and having their lives ruined. I guess anything to slander a party you hate lol.

[u/The_King_of_Canada → u/Lumindan]

Your guess is as good as mine but typically politicians dont revisit the same ground because it's an easy shot at them if they do.

It's because they don't actually want it to be law just like how they don't care about us gun owners.

Did you follow the case? Genuine question.

I read the Supreme Court decision. Precedent isn't set by nuance. The peoples who house he broke into had the right to defend themselves.

Not really no, the same defensive calculus is still applied, the cops still charge heavily, the crown still presses the victim.

And using evidence to support your point from before you yourself said the law was changed is a waste of time.

You touch a hair on them and it's in the air.

Now who's spreading misinformation.

It's wild you're honestly against protecting people from being dragged through court and having their lives ruined.

The other option is allowing open season to kill anyone on your property. Yea I'd prefer if the lawyers examined the case.

[u/Lumindan → u/The_King_of_Canada]

It's because they don't actually want it to be law just like how they don't care about us gun owners.

You keep repeating this point trying to make your opinion fact despite the fact that it's not true. The Conservatives would lose a lot more if they won then backtracked what they promised. They lose nothing keeping their constituents happy. it's basic logic.

I read the Supreme Court decision. Precedent isn't set by nuance. The peoples who house he broke into had the right to defend themselves.

Yeah and then they also got dragged through court and had their lives up-ended. There's that pesky nuance.

Now who's spreading misinformation.

I'm really not, any altercation if someone breaks into your home is going to messy period.

The other option is allowing open season to kill anyone on your property. Yea I'd prefer if the lawyers examined the case.

That’s a false dichotomy. Why are you resorting to using false logic to prop up your arguments?

[u/The_King_of_Canada → u/Lumindan]

You keep repeating this point trying to make your opinion fact despite the fact that it's not true.

It is true. They hand us scraps and expect us to be happy. Passing bills they know won't pass is proof of this.

Yeah and then they also got dragged through court and had their lives up-ended. There's that pesky nuance.

That's what happens when you witness a crime.

any altercation if someone breaks into your home is going to messy period.

It's less nuanced when they attack you.

Why are you resorting to using false logic to prop up your arguments?

Because there is nothing in this post of any substance so I'm left to assume.