Excessive force in protecting one’s guests and property?

Gatecrashers flee whip-wielding dad – National – smh.com.au This reminds me of Canada’s idiotic “Excessive Force” laws whereby, should an attacker enter your home, you somehow need to assess the weapon(s) they are using and are not permitted to use weapons to defend yourself that are too superior to theirs.

In America, and I’m sure it’s the same in Canada and Australia too, it has been shown over and over again that police have absolutely NO OBLIGATION to protect you or your family or your property. This is one reason why the occasional officer who actually does put himself at risk is quite properly issued a commendation or other award as is appropriate. No, the police force’s obligation is to report on the incident, perhaps establish a buffer zone to try to contain a situation and to be the agent to pursue criminals after they have been identified after the fact.

Not to mention the fact that the officers are seldom present when an attack is taking place.
I’m not slamming police officers here, I have the greatest amount of respect for these people who put their lives on the line every single day. But this is simply not something that they are under any obligation to do for us.

As I see it, someone who is illegally on someone else’s property, especially when they are in a home when it can reasonably be expected to be occupied, forfeits any and all rights…. to everything. Any amount of force that a homeowner feels they need to exert to secure their own and their family’s and guest’s safety or even to secure their belongings, is the right amount of force.

The ninnies who come up with legislation demanding that Joe average should have to be concerned for an intruder’s well being either live privileged lives or simply don’t grasp the fact that your average homeowner has neither the experience nor the information at their disposal to take any other action except the one that is most likely to work.
Sitting in an armchair after the fact, second guessing the homeowner’s decisions is a luxury reserved for those not so threatened… and who are still alive.

I’m so thankful for the sensible “Castle Doctrine” laws that many U.S. states are adopting and wish my friends in the UK, Canada and Australia could get their nanny states off of their backs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *