Path: ...!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: [OT] Canada has *always* had Castle Doctrine
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 12:19:49 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <10a1h76$3kjja$1@dont-email.me>
References: <109vftl$2u0gj$5@dont-email.me> <109vhjl$2vjj1$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 16:19:50 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c92c760b74f5984470f72cdf85ffea5f";
	logging-data="3821162"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/yXAI7d0Q8F7md5wBF+h01qY8BB1QMh7o="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:p9jNyydqTnE6CJ9M+CSKuxoTJPw=
Content-Language: en-CA
In-Reply-To: <109vhjl$2vjj1$3@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 250912-2, 9/12/2025), Outbound message

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