I uh... I don't they plan to shoot the packets until they give up their information.

I'm sorry, where was the USA mentioned in this? When the Canadian government tried to have the Canadian ISPs give the Canadian law enforcement agency more information?

I suppose my problem with your conclusion is that if I hear someone break into my house, I can easily lock the door to my room and call the police. And since I assume you have a gun, you can also point it directly at the door after that. Once this has been accomplished, I can be pretty sure that the only way I will be in any danger from the intruder is if he actively attempts to violently break down my door (in which case nobody is going to argue against self defense when there's a bedroom door off its hinges) or if I make the conscious choice to go and track down the intruder.
 
If I do the second, with a weapon, I am willfully and intentionally putting myself in potential danger for the sake of forcing a confrontation that I could otherwise have probably avoided. If your chief concern is safety then going out to locate the potentially violent party and antagonize him with a weapon is not the appropriate course of action. Tracking the person down only makes sense if you're trying to stop him from doing what he's doing regardless of his motive.

Since legal theory (mens rea specifically) doesn't allow illegal actions that can't be described as being done "willfully, knowingly or purposefully" or CAN be described as having been done "recklessly or negligently" the action tracking the person down despite having safer options that any mentally capable person should be able to think of falls under at least the fourth if not also the first three. You are clearly eschewing the potential safety of a locked door of your own free will, knowing full well what you plan to do and with the definitive purpose of using your weapon to stop the intruder. If you say you didn't think of locking your door and calling the police then it's not hard to argue that you're acting recklessly.
 
To be justifiably "Self defense" or "defense of a third party" you have to be in a position where there is no other obvious, non-violent course of actions that doesn't put yourself or the third party at even greater risk. The case of a home intruder is not such a case since there is a much safer (For all parties involved) course of action which our court considers obvious.

just a quick update to what I posted below about different climates of crime and fear.

Per 100,000 citizens:

Canada has 1.5 homicides compared to 541 cases of Breaking and Entering. Or a ratio of about 0.25

USA has 5.0 homicides compared to 716 cases of Burglary. or a ratio of about 0.7. Which is to say, almost 3 times as high
 
These are rough numbers of course but it shows my point that in Canada you are much less likely to be murdered while only somewhat less likely to have your house broken into so the chances of a Canadian's first thought after someone breaks in being "he might want to murder me" instead of "someone's trying to steal my things" are much lower. This is why this debate between us can't go anywhere. We intrinsically think about forceful entry differently.

interestingly. Canada also seems to have a higher violent crime rate. But this is more likely due to our lower threshold of what constitutes "violent" crime rather than more instances of violent crime. (any assault in Canada is categorized as violent crime even if there is no physical violence involved).

emphasis obviously mine. This is the strawman of your side because at every point you encounter any person the threat is nonzero. It doesn't matter if he's willing to harm you. If you don't go and actively confront him then it's a non-point. Only if he actively plans to harm you regardless of what you do does that make it a matter of self defense. I'm WILLING to harm a lot of people should they threaten my with a gun. You quite clearly are as well. That doesn't mean I either want to or plan to go out of my way for such an opportunity or that my willingness to do so means that someone with a gun is justified in murdering me "just in case".

No. I'm not. I'm asking the homeowner to avoid direct confrontation when not required which, actually, puts both parties at lower risk.
 
It seems pretty clear to me that we're just arguing in circles now based on being raised in different climates of risk and crime and holding different assumptions and values. So I'm thinking we should probably wrap this up soon on an "Agree to disagree" note.

Actually, since I'm speaking from the perspective of a Canadian. We're international peacekeepers. Our only directives include defending our country and contributing to international security. Which are the military equivalents of self defense and defense of a third party.

There has to ALSO to be a point where the person defending himself can justifiably say they are actually defending themself and not just shooting a guy trying to rob them.

It has nothing to do with a "fair fight", it has to do with knowing that it's "actually a fight at all".
 
Until the guy actively shows signs of coming after you and not just your flatscreen TV, you're not defending yourself. You're not defending your family. You're just murdering a person.

Yeah, but there's a difference between having the gun and actively seeking the person out with it. If you call the police, pull out your gun and try to stay quiet but they burst into your room with a weapon then even in Canada you'd be protected under self defense.
 
But if you choose to go downstairs, find the person, point the gun at them and provoke an altercation then you are no longer protected up here. That's the difference.

so your response is "1" then?

I don't see what point you're trying to make. I'm saying in Canada we don't consider peace of mind and property more valuable than human life and as a result, do not have those laws.

Yes. It is. That's why the death penalty is not given for breaking and entering. In fact, we don't even have the death penalty in my country. It is considered barbaric.

If someone breaks into your ROOM in the middle of the night you might have a case. But if you hear someone break into your HOUSE and start rummaging around downstairs you should not have the right to murder them.

I know what your country guarantees its citizens. I disagree with it. You have no right to murder anyone who you are not sure is trying to actively murder you or someone you care about. If you hear someone in your child's room, you should have the right to walk in with a gun out, if someone is heading towards YOUR room, you should have the right to, again, get out your gun and point it at the door (but not fire as soon as that door opens unless you have a damn good reason to think the person is literally ABOUT to kill yo).
 
If you take your gun and then go downstairs AFTER the source of the noise then you are actively seeking out the intruder with violent intent and you can no longer claim to be worried about your own safety.

personally I believe criminals should have to work while in jail to benefit society but apparently they tried that and the private sector complained that they couldn't compete.

And rehabilitation is SUPPOSED to be one of the purposes of sentencing by the repeat offender rate implies that it isn't working.

I'm referring to the people saying "anyone breaks into my house and I will straight up shoot him in the face." Basically, unless the person is actively trying to kill you, you can't murder him because he broke into your house as, from what people seem to be saying, America (Texas at least) allows.

the law doesn't predate neighbors. The law is designed for a city/suburb setting where getting to a phone and calling the police is assumed to be relatively non problematic.

Also, the "retreat" law doesn't actually require you to leave your house. You can lock yourself in a room and call the police. The point is just that you should try to contact the authorities before taking the law into your own hands.

how many cases of break and enter result in rape, kidnap and murder? I mean, unless you're a stalker trying to rape a SPECIFIC person it's not exactly the ideal way to go about it since you have no guarantee the person will be alone in the house, plus it's noise any probably in a relatively high population density area and if you ARE a stalker trying to rape a specific person then you probably know how well their home defenses are and are pretty well prepared for whatever they have to defend themselves.

Same with kidnap. Assuming they're breaking it, it's probably planned ahead of time so they'll kinda... I dunno... wait until you aren't home to kidnap your children. Unless you leave your babysitter the location of the guns. And even then, they're probably doing it from the school or something.

The only real worry if you're in the house and someone breaks in is murder and, again, I have to point out, they don't actually have to break in for that. If they're willing to break down your door, make a huge racket and then shoot you they're probably also willing to knock, wait for you to answer and THEN shoot you.

If a criminal feels the need to actually break into your house, chances are, it's because they think you aren't home and they want to steal your shit. Because there are just much, much easier ways to perform other crimes.