I am not sure he shifted his position. His first statement was full of weasel words to allow him to take almost any position that was necessary in the future. Thar is, his first response was not a position at all, but a placeholder for a future position.

By the law, they need to have some very good reason to question them, How do they determine if it is an intruder, or the person has permission to be in the car? They can not arbitrarily stop and detain. However, if the owner of the car is present, or has reported the intruder, they can act. It does not matter how many officers there are on the force, they are constrained in what they can do by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If they act in contravention of this, then they are subject to complaints from the public about their rights being violated. But if an intruder gas been reported, and the officer catches them in the act, and has probable grounds, the officer will charge them. Unless they are under age. That is a completely different scenario and a different court system.

Permanent daylight - that would be some trick, to legislate. Problem is, somewhere there would be permanent night. I don’t think that would go over well.

You seem ti be living in some fantasy world of your own design, certainly not the reality in Canada. Why are you making all of these things up? Do you expect Canadians to believe you?

More than our taxes will ever pay for, that is assured. Given that there were 239 car thefts per 100,000 Canadians in 2024, (that is not even car break-ins, but car theft) I would suggest we would suggest a ratio of 1 police officers per 1,000 people would suffice.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/250722/dq250722a-eng.htm

That is entirely up to the courts, and the judge, to decide. This is Canada, where the Rule of Law and the decisions of the court still mean something.

But really, why be concerned about it? The chances of any Canadian ever coming close to the lie are in the vicinity of winning the lottery - one in tens of millions odds.

Or organization that has a hidden agenda to destabilize society and replace it with one of their own making.

The sad thing is, I had high hopes for Lemmy.ca, but it seems these same 100 accounts are starting to clog up the Lemmy user space. I keep seeing the same-old-same-old from a cadre of accounts that seem to work in tandem.

Do you have any idea as to exactly how many police they would need to actively investigate every car break in? You sound exactly like the criminal element in America that is demanding they defund the police to make it easier for criminals to prosper. This is Canada, not America.

And yet the public gets in an outrage when known criminals get put back on the street and then re-offend, some in heinous crimes. Given his background and the number of convictions, I am sure he has his solicitor on speed dial. He was previously charged with attacking people with a baseball bat, and you want the police to believe him? Just ignore the blood, and let him go? Exactly how were the police to believe that the ‘victim’ was legitimately an intruder, and not someone the knife-wielder actually invited into his home, they got into an argument, and this guy took a knife to him? Police are not mind readers, and they are used to people lying to them. No way are they going to believe either side. Charge them, get them off the street, and let the system run its course.

Yet not a word so far in these comments that almost 10% of Meta’s income stream comes from scam posts. No wonder Meta really does not want to do much about these scams.

In 2025, Meta made approximately $196.2 billion from ads. This included $16 billion from ads for scams and banned goods. While these are against its policies, enforcement is often reactive rather than proactive.

But of Meta made $16 billion from these posts, imagine how much the scammers made?

They are doing what they are capable of within their budgets, that are constrained by the taxpayer.

This case makes it clear. Once the authorities determine through an investigation all of the facts, and what actually happened, and collect all the facts, they will determine if the level of self-defense was appropriate.

My point exactly. We do NOT have the unrestricted right to defend by any means possible, specifically to AVOID the situation I described.

So a privatized police force, on contract to only the wealthy who can afford them, accountable only to their employers?

My point was to demonstrate the end result of the unrestricted right to defend by any means possible. What exactly does ‘intruder’ mean? It goes both ways. If it applies to a law-abiding citizen, it applies to everyone, criminals included.

The amount of times myself or someone i know has called them, only for them to say “not much we can do, just file a report online”

Exactly how high do you want your taxes to go? Complete coverage for all o the calls would be prohibitively expensive, and I suspect you would be one of the first people to protest your high taxes.

"Open season’ has a tendency to develop into open warfare against anyone you do not like. Unrestricted ‘self defense’ is wide open to abuse, like it is in America.

The Mexican cartel that thought they had a right to defend themselves by using a rocket against a police helicopter.

I am SO glad you do not rule our country.

It is only a very small step from what you said to the male head of the household having the right of life or death over the wife or female children. The right to do whatever he pleases with the wife and children. The right to be as racially prejudiced and the right to do whatever he pleases to any non-white male, because of course all he has to say is ‘they were an intruder’.