Sponsored by EasyDNS https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord 🔹Short Description: 🏒 EP#181 Joseph and Alper Yulmaz contrast Canada’s self-defence (s.34) with U.S. castle doctrine—no duty to retreat, proportionality/necessity, and the modified objective test for homeowners. ⚖️📢🎙️ 📝Meta Description: 📢 In EP#181 Not On Record explains Canada’s self-defence s.34 vs U.S. castle doctrine—no duty to retreat, proportionality, stand-your-ground myths, and how courts assess reasonableness. 🎧🧑‍⚖️🏒 |Not On Record 😍 𝐈 𝐇𝐎𝐏𝐄 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐆𝐔𝐘𝐒 𝐄𝐍𝐉𝐎𝐘 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒! ▶ If you enjoy this video, please like it and share it. ▶ Don't forget to subscribe to this channel for more updates. ▶ Subscribe now: https://www.youtube.com/@NotOnRecord?sub_confirmation=1 ⚠️ 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐌𝐄𝐑: We do not accept any liability for any loss or damage incurred from you acting or not acting as a result of watching any of my publications. You acknowledge that you use the information I provide at your own risk. do your own research. ✖️ 𝐂𝐎𝐏𝐘𝐑𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓 𝐍𝐎𝐓𝐈𝐂𝐄: This video and my YouTube channel contain dialog, music, and image that are property of " Not On Record " You are authorized to share the video link and channel and embed this video in your website or others as long as a link back to my YouTube Channel is provided @NotOnRecord ▶ 𝐑𝐄𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐊𝐄𝐘𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐃𝐒:- #ep176 #notonrecord #hockeycanadatrial #hockeycanada #trialverdict #sportsandjustice #courtroomanalysis #legalpodcast #truecrimepodcast #canadianjustice #athletesandaccountability #legalverdict #sportslaw #highprofiletrial #realcasebreakdown #legalcommentary #truthandjustice #courtroomdrama #canadianlegalnews #justiceinspotlight #sportscontroversy #legaldiscussion #lawandorderpodcast #consentinsports #hockeynews2025 #legalanalysis #justiceforvictims #publicreaction #caseverdict #crimeandlaw #sportsintegrity Please share with your friends and family. Also don't forget to like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell to notify you if I post a new video. Much love and God bless Sponsored by EasyDNS https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord In this episode Joseph walks through Canada’s self-defence law (Criminal Code s.34) and contrasts it with U.S. “castle doctrine” and stand-your-ground frameworks. With articling student Alper Yulmaz joining, they unpack proportionality and necessity, why Canada has no duty to retreat yet still weighs available options, and how courts apply a modified subjective objective test, considering the accused’s size, experience, trauma history, and the context inside a home. Recent tragedies and high-profile charges are discussed without trial-by-media, along with Supreme Court guidance (e.g., Hodgson, Khill), to show that Canadian law is broader and more flexible than many think; designed to protect homeowners while avoiding blanket presumptions that can produce unjust outcomes. R. v. Hodgson, 2024 SCC 25 - https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2024/2024canlii11123/2024canlii11123.html?resultId=faf026722dfb4b3a9e3dc803930bbd9b&searchId=2025-09-07T08:08:30:114/750c412190cc49eba6030d6a4fba89fa R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2021] 2 SCR 948 - https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2021/2021scc37/2021scc37.html?resultId=106af67b2fdf4afd82ff35a092a71ebc&searchId=2025-09-07T08:11:40:226/e117a95adc244d88b9ab89e6f5053778