Self Defence in Canada (split from Gun Control 2.0)

[Haggis]

Trouble sleeping? Try this: Executive Summary - Bill C-26 (S.C. 2012 c. 9) Reforms to Self-Defence and Defence of Property: Technical Guide for Practitioners

 

[KevinB]

Thank-you- very much appreciated.

And I swear officer (and the timestamps support) that my added hypotheticals were edited in before reading your post- funny coincidence. The bolded is where I'm coming from. Oddly it those "non-discharge" scenarios that give me more concern wrt to the law.

From my understanding of Canadian Criminal Law (and I haven't lived in Canada for 21 years), in your scenario B, the Intruder is committing an Indictable Offense by breaking into the home with a deadly weapon.
That would allow the homeowner to:
1) Call 911
2) Arrest or Detain the intruder until Police arrive
3) Given the fact the intruder was armed, the homeowner should be able to articulate why they felt threatened, and why they had their firearm to ensure the suspect remained compliant.

As long as there was no misdeeds on the behalf of the homeowner they should be in the clear.
I.E. don't threaten them with various things if they are being compliant.

As has been reiterated numerous times in this thread, calling 911 is a key aspect - obviously if the choice is get your gun, or call 911, get the gun first - and then when safety able, call 911.

 

[NavyShooter]

"I wish to speak with my Lawyer before I make any statements."

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Let's not forget the thousands of dollars, restrictions and time that the homeowner is going to incur trying to defend himself from the Crown.

Aggravated assault Not many civies or even soldiers, will be thinking clearly. Adrenaline, fear, flight or fight, unknown assailant, what is their purpose there, what are they armed with, how far are they prepared to go with their attack. All questions you must answer to yourself, in seconds, before acting to ensure you neutralize the threat without opening yourself up to a Crown with skewed priorities.

Although not the case here, if you use a firearm to protect yourself and family, it'll be seized along with any other firearms you own and will stay that way until you have a favourable decision. Probably a couple of years +/- after the incident. If they determine you used excessive force, you'll likely loose everything. Of course once they charge you, you can also likely expect more firearms charges under firearm and ammo storage laws, dangerous usage, etc. They might let you plead it down by surrendering all your guns, PAL and accepting a lifetime firearms ban.

"I wish to speak with my Lawyer before I make any statements."

Best advice. Identify yourself, show ID, then clam up until your lawyer is sitting next to you.

Probably a good time to mention, for a $25 yearly fee, the CCFR provides lawyer services with firearms educated lawyers, for firearms related incidents.

Legal Services Bundle - Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights

firearmrights.ca

We need some form of Castle Law here.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

As has been reiterated numerous times in this thread, calling 911 is a key aspect - obviously if the choice is get your gun, or call 911, get the gun first - and then when safety able, call 911.

Before or after. It won’t make any difference to the response time.

 

[suffolkowner]

self defence is an affirmative defence that you pretty much have to claim on your own behalf. If we show up and we’re looking at some dude laying on the floor whose innards are now his outtards, and we don’t have someone telling us what happened so we can form a reasonable belief that it was self defence, well, in that absence of a story we’re investigating discharge firearm with intent, and some version of a homicide offence. Someone who defends themselves will have to tell police or the courts that they were defending themselves. Probably the first source for that info will be from 911 dispatch audio, but more info that that will be needed.

Good chance that in such a hypothetical the resident will be getting arrested at least initially. An arrest doesn’t mean they must be charged.

All that said I’ve never had that call for real. That’s just my take from having thought about it over the years, either as a responding officer (which given what I do now I likely won’t be), or as someone who finds themselves in that position.

the above is a bit of a problem for me. Shouldnt the default position be that a homeowner was exercising self defence when faced with an intruder?

 

[brihard]

the above is a bit of a problem for me. Shouldnt the default position be that a homeowner was exercising self defence when faced with an intruder?

No. Lots of reasons that wouldn’t be a valid assumption. Someone catches an intruder in their home, chases them as they try to escape and shoots them. That’s not a valid self defense claim. You’re opening the door for all kinds of other stupidity with a presumption like that.

The law as it exists allows for quite a bit. If you’re going to badly hurt someone, it can be completely reasonable to do so, but it’s also completely reasonable to bear the onus of explaining why.

I’ve attended enough calls of “drunk guy accidentally makes it ‘home’ to the wrong house”. I prefer not dealing with those as homicides because it’s weapons free.

 

[suffolkowner]

No. Lots of reasons that wouldn’t be a valid assumption. Someone catches an intruder in their home, chases them as they try to escape and shoots them. That’s not a valid self defense claim. You’re opening the door for all kinds of other stupidity with a presumption like that.

The law as it exists allows for quite a bit. If you’re going to badly hurt someone, it can be completely reasonable to do so, but it’s also completely reasonable to bear the onus of explaining why.

I’ve attended enough calls of “drunk guy accidentally makes it ‘home’ to the wrong house”. I prefer not dealing with those as homicides because it’s weapons free.

Well I was crossing out shooting them in the back, tying them up and beating them for a couple days scenarios there.
In this particular case the internet rumours are saying the intruder had a crossbow and even that there might have been more than one.???

 

[Dana381]

Let's not forget the thousands of dollars, restrictions and time that the homeowner is going to incur trying to defend himself from the Crown.

Aggravated assault Not many civies or even soldiers, will be thinking clearly. Adrenaline, fear, flight or fight, unknown assailant, what is their purpose there, what are they armed with, how far are they prepared to go with their attack. All questions you must answer to yourself, in seconds, before acting to ensure you neutralize the threat without opening yourself up to a Crown with skewed priorities.

Although not the case here, if you use a firearm to protect yourself and family, it'll be seized along with any other firearms you own and will stay that way until you have a favourable decision. Probably a couple of years +/- after the incident. If they determine you used excessive force, you'll likely loose everything. Of course once they charge you, you can also likely expect more firearms charges under firearm and ammo storage laws, dangerous usage, etc. They might let you plead it down by surrendering all your guns, PAL and accepting a lifetime firearms ban.


Best advice. Identify yourself, show ID, then clam up until your lawyer is sitting next to you.

Probably a good time to mention, for a $25 yearly fee, the CCFR provides lawyer services with firearms educated lawyers, for firearms related incidents.

Legal Services Bundle - Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights

firearmrights.ca

We need some form of Castle Law here.

Just for clarity the legal services bundle requires you be a member for $40/year + $25/year for the legal bundle.

The legal services you get for your $25/month is a phone call with a lawyer to answer a question. It is not Legal defense insurance.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Just for clarity the legal services bundle requires you be a member for $40/year + $25/year for the legal bundle.

The legal services you get for your $25/month is a phone call with a lawyer to answer a question. It is not Legal defense insurance.

They set you up with a local lawyer, versed in gun law. There are also discounts in lawyer fees to be had. That’s why I provided the link. So people could go directly to the site, read and understand what is and isn't involved, themselves. Rather than speculate on posters interpretations.

Given the costs of the sport, $65/ year is chump change. And everyone with a gun should belong to the CCFR or another national firearms rights group already.

 

[Halifax Tar]

No. Lots of reasons that wouldn’t be a valid assumption. Someone catches an intruder in their home, chases them as they try to escape and shoots them. That’s not a valid self defense claim. You’re opening the door for all kinds of other stupidity with a presumption like that.

The law as it exists allows for quite a bit. If you’re going to badly hurt someone, it can be completely reasonable to do so, but it’s also completely reasonable to bear the onus of explaining why.

I’ve attended enough calls of “drunk guy accidentally makes it ‘home’ to the wrong house”. I prefer not dealing with those as homicides because it’s weapons free.

Someone in the throws of committing a home invasion is not the same as drunk knocking on the wrong door. No one is arguing that.

I googled the definition of Home Invasion in Canada is this what the G machine gave me:

Google Search

I admire you're interest in the fate of the criminal, we need compassionate people. I simply don't share those character traits. Certain things deserve swift and violent ends for the criminal. This would be one for me.

 

[brihard]

Someone in the throws of committing a home invasion is not the same as drunk knocking on the wrong door. No one is arguing that.

I googled the definition of Home Invasion in Canada is this what the G machine gave me:

View attachment 95314

Google Search

I admire you're interest in the fate of the criminal, we need compassionate people. I simply don't share those character traits. Certain things deserve swift and violent ends for the criminal. This would be one for me.

Look at the very specific question I was answering- it was whether self defence should be a legal presumption in the case of, simply, an intruder. I simply said no and gave one single example of why it being presumptive is probably a bad idea. I could come up with lots more. The only point Inwas making was that such a presumption would be overbroad. Absolutely an armed home invader is different from a confused drunk, and that’s the point I was making. The question posed to me wouldn’t have differentiated them.

I strongly believe in the right to self defence and the right to defend one’s one home and family from intruders. I would like to see the pendulum swing a fair bit from where it is now, in favour of the resident of the home. There are legal ways to do that. Mostly though the useful contribution (if any) that I can make here is speaking about the law as it is, and some considerations police would have. I’m being super carefully in any hypotheticals I give, and I’m not going to go to the point of giving specific hypothetical ways the law could be worded.

In general I would like to see more deference given to the resident. I would like to see being in one’s own residence confronted by someone who doesn’t live there as a statutorily listed factor to consider in self defence. I’d like to see the benefit of the doubt (which, at trial, will resolve in favour of the lawful resident) applied earlier in the process when charges are considered… BUT, for very practical reasons, I think anyone seriously hurting someone else in self defense still needs to bear the onus to say at least a bit of ‘why?’ specifically so that we can more easily feel comfortable about a self defence theory much earlier on. The right to silence is right and proper and I 100% support that. But it means we don’t have that knowledge to work with at that early stage.

No matter how something unfolds, police arriving to find someone seriously hurt or dead still have a duty to investigate. We’ve gotta figure out our 5Ws to the best of our ability. We’ve gotta secure physical evidence- weapons, gunshot residue, ballistics, blood spatter, video/audio if any, statements if possible, all that jazz.

Above I have a hypothetical example of where I comfortably wouldn’t at a charge. I could have lots more examples where I would be less comfortable and wouldn’t charge, just so that’s clear, but I was basically asked for a ‘perfect’ situation and gave one. If someone defends themselves in their home and is reasonable given the fullness of the circumstances, I want them to come out of the situation OK. I think someone waking up to find someone in their home can do a LOT of reasonable things to protect themselves. I just also realize and accept that even in those instances there are still lots of ways someone could cross the line.

I definitely have no sympathy for those who violently enter others’ homes. My own personal sentiment and the law aren’t totally aligned on that… But none of us are here because of any great interest in my personal opinion.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Look at the very specific question I was answering- it was whether self defence should be a legal presumption in the case of, simply, an intruder. I simply said no and gave one single example of why it being presumptive is probably a bad idea. I could come up with lots more. The only point Inwas making was that such a presumption would be overbroad. Absolutely an armed home invader is different from a confused drunk, and that’s the point I was making. The question posed to me wouldn’t have differentiated them.

I strongly believe in the right to self defence and the right to defend one’s one home and family from intruders. I would like to see the pendulum swing a fair bit from where it is now, in favour of the resident of the home. There are legal ways to do that. Mostly though the useful contribution (if any) that I can make here is speaking about the law as it is, and some considerations police would have. I’m being super carefully in any hypotheticals I give, and I’m not going to go to the point of giving specific hypothetical ways the law could be worded.

In general I would like to see more deference given to the resident. I would like to see being in one’s own residence confronted by someone who doesn’t live there as a statutorily listed factor to consider in self defence. I’d like to see the benefit of the doubt (which, at trial, will resolve in favour of the lawful resident) applied earlier in the process when charges are considered… BUT, for very practical reasons, I think anyone seriously hurting someone else in self defense still needs to bear the onus to say at least a bit of ‘why?’ specifically so that we can more easily feel comfortable about a self defence theory much earlier on. The right to silence is right and proper and I 100% support that. But it means we don’t have that knowledge to work with at that early stage.

No matter how something unfolds, police arriving to find someone seriously hurt or dead still have a duty to investigate. We’ve gotta figure out our 5Ws to the best of our ability. We’ve gotta secure physical evidence- weapons, gunshot residue, ballistics, blood spatter, video/audio if any, statements if possible, all that jazz.

Above I have a hypothetical example of where I comfortably wouldn’t at a charge. I could have lots more examples where I would be less comfortable and wouldn’t charge, just so that’s clear, but I was basically asked for a ‘perfect’ situation and gave one. If someone defends themselves in their home and is reasonable given the fullness of the circumstances, I want them to come out of the situation OK. I think someone waking up to find someone in their home can do a LOT of reasonable things to protect themselves. I just also realize and accept that even in those instances there are still lots of ways someone could cross the line.

I definitely have no sympathy for those who violently enter others’ homes. My own personal sentiment and the law aren’t totally aligned on that… But none of us are here because of any great interest in my personal opinion.

I am fully cognizant that the law is not on my side. I'm not even sure the Law or LEOs are there protect me and my family any more, but that's a whole other topic. And I will admit my bias against police, which I think is well established on these means.

Happy to hear you say "I would like to see the pendulum swing a fair bit from where it is now" and "I definitely have no sympathy for those who violently enter others’ homes" I will be honest I didn't expect that from you. I expected us to be much more at odds on this topic.

There no issue with police investigation, and I agree it needs to be done. I want law and order, but I want it working on behalf of the innocent victim. What I don't like is the victim is having to go to court and defend themselves for defending themselves, and probably facing financial ruin.

Let me be clear, I am not advocating for bands of vigilantes roaming the streets handing out instant justice. But I also don't want good people scared to fight back and defend themselves, or face retribution from the courts when police cant be there.

 

[brihard]

I am fully cognizant that the law is not on my side. I'm not even sure the Law or LEOs are there protect me and my family any more, but that's a whole other topic. And I will admit my bias against police, which I think is well established on these means.

Happy to hear you say "I would like to see the pendulum swing a fair bit from where it is now" and "I definitely have no sympathy for those who violently enter others’ homes" I will be honest I didn't expect that from you. I expected us to be much more at odds on this topic.

There no issue with police investigation, and I agree it needs to be done. I want law and order, but I want it working on behalf of the innocent victim. What I don't like is the victim is having to go to court and defend themselves for defending themselves, and probably facing financial ruin.

Let me be clear, I am not advocating for bands of vigilantes roaming the streets handing our instant justice. But I also don't want good people scared to fight back and defend themselves, or face retribution from the courts when police cant be there.

We’re a lot more agreed than you think, and you’ve been misreading me for a while. That said you’ve only got what I’ve given you to work with, and I tend not to shoot from the hip but rather to show up a bit later in discussions here and offer my take from a more legalistic standpoint. Doesn’t mean I’m always talking about my own personal opinion, but that’s not usually useful, whereas ‘what I know’ might be a little bit.

In my line of work (and outside of it) I’ve seen a lot of human awfulness. So I’m very well aware that there are predators and monsters out there, and I want to see people safe from them, and feeling able to protect themselves from them, whether at home or out and about their day. I also want people to feel they can lawfully intervene to protect others from violent crime as it happens, and I don’t expect anything remotely close to perfection in how they do so. I hope that clears up my own personal feelings a bit more for you. And I know you’re not calling for torch-and/pitchfork vigilantism either.

I look forward to learning more about this case and what if anything it can teach us. We needs laws that protect people like Ian Thompson without enabling bad choices like those made by Peter Khill. And then somewhere in the middle of all that we get much more challenging cases like Gerald Stanley. I have no idea where on that spectrum this case falls.

 

[suffolkowner]

Look at the very specific question I was answering- it was whether self defence should be a legal presumption in the case of, simply, an intruder. I simply said no and gave one single example of why it being presumptive is probably a bad idea. I could come up with lots more. The only point Inwas making was that such a presumption would be overbroad. Absolutely an armed home invader is different from a confused drunk, and that’s the point I was making. The question posed to me wouldn’t have differentiated them.

I strongly believe in the right to self defence and the right to defend one’s one home and family from intruders. I would like to see the pendulum swing a fair bit from where it is now, in favour of the resident of the home. There are legal ways to do that. Mostly though the useful contribution (if any) that I can make here is speaking about the law as it is, and some considerations police would have. I’m being super carefully in any hypotheticals I give, and I’m not going to go to the point of giving specific hypothetical ways the law could be worded.

In general I would like to see more deference given to the resident. I would like to see being in one’s own residence confronted by someone who doesn’t live there as a statutorily listed factor to consider in self defence. I’d like to see the benefit of the doubt (which, at trial, will resolve in favour of the lawful resident) applied earlier in the process when charges are considered… BUT, for very practical reasons, I think anyone seriously hurting someone else in self defense still needs to bear the onus to say at least a bit of ‘why?’ specifically so that we can more easily feel comfortable about a self defence theory much earlier on. The right to silence is right and proper and I 100% support that. But it means we don’t have that knowledge to work with at that early stage.

No matter how something unfolds, police arriving to find someone seriously hurt or dead still have a duty to investigate. We’ve gotta figure out our 5Ws to the best of our ability. We’ve gotta secure physical evidence- weapons, gunshot residue, ballistics, blood spatter, video/audio if any, statements if possible, all that jazz.

Above I have a hypothetical example of where I comfortably wouldn’t at a charge. I could have lots more examples where I would be less comfortable and wouldn’t charge, just so that’s clear, but I was basically asked for a ‘perfect’ situation and gave one. If someone defends themselves in their home and is reasonable given the fullness of the circumstances, I want them to come out of the situation OK. I think someone waking up to find someone in their home can do a LOT of reasonable things to protect themselves. I just also realize and accept that even in those instances there are still lots of ways someone could cross the line.

I definitely have no sympathy for those who violently enter others’ homes. My own personal sentiment and the law aren’t totally aligned on that… But none of us are here because of any great interest in my personal opinion.

I dont know if I meant it exactly like that, more from a clear intruder standpoint. Seems like there is too much burden on the homeowner.. Even your examples of Thiel and Stanley, I cant say I would do different or think they should be charged. The Stanley case is a more convoluted series of events.

Im curious to see what the homeowner did to justify charging him. Did he tie the intruder up and stab repeatedly over hours or something?
Is there some threshold for the number of times a homeowner is allowed to stab someone or shoot them, and how did we come to determine that?

 

[IKnowNothing]

Above I have a hypothetical example of where I comfortably wouldn’t at a charge. I could have lots more examples where I would be less comfortable and wouldn’t charge, just so that’s clear, but I was basically asked for a ‘perfect’ situation and gave one.

Would you mind doing another that rides right up to that line, call it 6-5 in favour of not charging?

 

[Haggis]

I dont know if I meant it exactly like that, more from a clear intruder standpoint. Seems like there is too much burden on the homeowner.. Even your examples of Thiel and Stanley, I cant say I would do different or think they should be charged. The Stanley case is a more convoluted series of events.

Im curious to see what the homeowner did to justify charging him. Did he tie the intruder up and stab repeatedly over hours or something?
Is there some threshold for the number of times a homeowner is allowed to stab someone or shoot them, and how did we come to determine that?

According to recent news reports the intruder and resident were known to each other.

The Kawartha Lakes Police Chief was quoted saying the charges were laid because the force use has to be proportional and reasonable. If you read the info at the link I posted yesterday, you would see that he is wrong. The test now is was the force used reasonable. The need for proportionality in response to an assault is gone. The other aspect to consider is did the victim's use of force continue after the intruder no longer posed a credible threat?

Another thing I'm finding concerning is the number of people posting on social media about "FAFO", "shoot, shovel and shut up", "judged by 12 not carried by six" in response to this incident, not realizing those online comments could come back and bite them should they find themselves in a similar situation to Jeremy McDonald, the resident.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Another thing I'm finding concerning is the number of people posting on social media about "FAFO", "shoot, shovel and shut up", "judged by 12 not carried by six" in response to this incident, not realizing those online comments could come back and bite them should they find themselves in a similar situation to Jeremy McDonald, the resident.

I find the firearms forums are peppered with these types. While I believe we need castle laws I don't enjoy the flippant nature some postulate about, as per your examples. And I think it does a disservice to our community as whole.

But I think this is a reaction what is viewed as a failing system of justice in this country, and I can share that sentiment. One doesn't have to look far to see examples of everyday good Canadians being failed our systems and procedures. IMHO we need to correct this before things reach a boiling point.

 

[NavyShooter]

Reasonable means to defend ones' self should never be denied, and if something unreasonable happened in this circumstance, then the homeowner should be held to account in the same way as the attacker should be held to account for their actions that brought them into the house illegally.

I'm definitely a 'gun guy' and over the years, I've done US CCW Training and received a permit for it - it was not useful in Canada, and would only have been useful in some of the US, and only possible if I'd had certain other conditions met for legal possession of a firearm in the US as a Non Immigrant Alien. A big part of that course was the use of force continuum (it's been over 20 years...forgive me for not remembering it all.)

The course was not one about drawing and firing skills, it was a legalese course that talked exactly about the reasonable use of force. As I recall at that time there were few places that had a 'Castle Doctrine' or 'Stand your Ground' law in place to protect the defender.

Use of force by a non-uniformed person is something that has to be very carefully considered. If I'm not in uniform, I'm not likely to be 'running to the sound of the guns' because I legally cannot carry something that would be able to help...I'd probably be headed the other direction to my vehicle to get my FAK and when things calmed or were 'controlled' I'd turn around and head in to offer FA and help triage.

In a home defense situation, it's all about layering. Lights, locks and cameras are merely deterrents. Secure locking mechanisms and doors with window security coatings (laminates) on every window on your ground floor will give you time to respond. The 'crash' of a broken window to someone being in your living room without those layers will be seconds. Add the layers and it will frustrate unauthorized entry, add time, and give you time to think before you respond. Having 30 extra seconds to decide what to do could literally be a life and death amount of time. The window laminates I reference were shown to add at least 60 seconds to forced entry using a sledgehammer against the glass.

We do not know the facts of these circumstances, and I'll await those before I call out any foolish FAFO or '6 vs 12' things.

"Officer, I choose not to make any statements until after I've spoken with my legal counsel." Apply duct-tape over mouth at that point and shut up.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Just what I saw and heard this A.M. I can't vouch for the veracity of the info.

Apparently, the home invader was armed with a crossbow and at some point buttstroked the homeowner. This was supposed to have happened when the owner went to get his phone in the kitchen. It lit everything up and the invader went to investigate and found the owner in the kitchen. The fight ensued. The invader apparently had a number of garbage bags stuffed with the owners belongings.

Take it all with a grain of salt.