Re: [OT] Canada has *always* had Castle Doctrine

On 2025-09-11 6:14 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:

On Sep 11, 2025 at 2:45:24 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
 

Brian Lilley has done a relatively short, concise video proving that
Canadian law *does* allow for self-defence and goes back to England in
1604 to prove it.
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axWrCJDkz3I [7 minutes]

 You only have it inasmuch as you can use it without ending up in a prison
cell.
 

That's the way it is in America too, isn't it? For example, there was a case in New York state recently where a guy had killed someone who drove on to his driveway. I believe the guy argued self-defence but the jury didn't buy it because there was no clear threat to the homeowner. The homeowner got a lengthy prison sentence.
That seems reasonable since it's entirely possible the driver may have just wanted to pull in for a second to turn around or ask directions. Obviously, if the driver had gotten out of the car carrying a gun and was known to be an enemy of the homeowner, that would have been very different but in the absence of a clear threat, I would probably agree with a jury that said there wasn't sufficient justification for the shooting.
--
Rhino