Self Defence in Canada (split from Gun Control 2.0)

[lenaitch]

I've noticed that in the past. I thought their external ID used to say 'federal agent". Maybe they decided that 'police' is damned near universally rcognized, even in non-roman alphabet countries.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

21ft rule is terrible. Most LE from a L3 holster cannot get off shots on an average physical ability attacker at 30ft - that is in training where the LEO knows they are going to be attacked.

That's my point Kev. What do you do in a 10ft hallway?

 

[Halifax Tar]

That's my point Kev. What do you do in a 10ft hallway?

FIX... BAYONETS!

 

[KevinB]

That's my point Kev. What do you do in a 10ft hallway?

Frag out ?




The 21ft foot concept was predicated on a knife armed attacker versus LEO w/ holstered pistol, not a defender at the ready.
Each situation will be different, what I’m comfortable with based on training, experience and available resources will be different than others.

 

[KevinB]

Double Tapped

 

[Genetk44]

An excerpt from this story —-> MSN


“ Khill was initially acquitted by a jury, but this was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal and a new trial was ordered. Khill appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada, but was denied by a majority of the court (only Justice Suzanne Côté sided with him). He was tried a second time, only for it to end in a mistrial. He was convicted after his third trial, and the judge read him a sentence of eight years in 2023 — from a page meant for a different offender. Khill’s actual sentence was supposed to be six years, and this wasn’t rectified until 2024.”

 

[KevinB]

An excerpt from this story —-> MSN


“ Khill was initially acquitted by a jury, but this was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal and a new trial was ordered. Khill appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada, but was denied by a majority of the court (only Justice Suzanne Côté sided with him). He was tried a second time, only for it to end in a mistrial. He was convicted after his third trial, and the judge read him a sentence of eight years in 2023 — from a page meant for a different offender. Khill’s actual sentence was supposed to be six years, and this wasn’t rectified until 2024.”

I have a lot of reservations about this case.
Yes I agree that the best COA would have been to dial 911 first.
However when things go bump in the night, many people who have some training will often opt to check it out prior to calling the Police.
That can be due to one, some or all of the following:
Feeling they can handle the situation, and/or
Not wanting to burden the Police, and/or
Knowing LE response to a noise report is slower than that of an intruder, and wanting to verify first.

I have many issues with the SCC Decision:
There are a lot of guns in Canada, in fact until the 90's there where more guns per capita in Canada than the US (let that one sink in).
Criminals are often armed, and getting illegal guns isn't that hard if one really wants one in either Canada or the US.

The fact that the defendant believed the member was armed with a firearm due to their stance seems to have been easily dismissed by the court.
Now, personally I think that if you are going to confront a potentially armed intruder, it behooves you to be able to get PID on the individual - so some sort of visual augmentation is required, from Night Vision to White Light.

Unless you are taking fire - you cannot simply shoot every potential threat.

 

[brihard]

I have a lot of reservations about this case.
Yes I agree that the best COA would have been to dial 911 first.
However when things go bump in the night, many people who have some training will often opt to check it out prior to calling the Police.
That can be due to one, some or all of the following:
Feeling they can handle the situation, and/or
Not wanting to burden the Police, and/or
Knowing LE response to a noise report is slower than that of an intruder, and wanting to verify first.

I have many issues with the SCC Decision:
There are a lot of guns in Canada, in fact until the 90's there where more guns per capita in Canada than the US (let that one sink in).
Criminals are often armed, and getting illegal guns isn't that hard if one really wants one in either Canada or the US.

The fact that the defendant believed the member was armed with a firearm due to their stance seems to have been easily dismissed by the court.
Now, personally I think that if you are going to confront a potentially armed intruder, it behooves you to be able to get PID on the individual - so some sort of visual augmentation is required, from Night Vision to White Light.

Unless you are taking fire - you cannot simply shoot every potential threat.

Khill also tried to claim he was acting on training he received in CAF… As a PRes SigOp. I doubt he ever did any training remotely close to that scenario.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I have a lot of reservations about this case.
Yes I agree that the best COA would have been to dial 911 first.
However when things go bump in the night, many people who have some training will often opt to check it out prior to calling the Police.
That can be due to one, some or all of the following:
Feeling they can handle the situation, and/or
Not wanting to burden the Police, and/or
Knowing LE response to a noise report is slower than that of an intruder, and wanting to verify first.

Agreed on all points.

I have many issues with the SCC Decision:
There are a lot of guns in Canada, in fact until the 90's there where more guns per capita in Canada than the US (let that one sink in).
Criminals are often armed, and getting illegal guns isn't that hard if one really wants one in either Canada or the US.

Right now is suspected there is no less than 7million privately owned firearms in Canada. But no one really knows; and I, for one, would like to keep it that way.

Google Search

 

[Haggis]

The 21ft foot concept was predicated on a knife armed attacker versus LEO w/ holstered pistol, not a defender at the ready.
Each situation will be different, what I’m comfortable with based on training, experience and available resources will be different than others.

It's also highly unlikely that an armed homeowner, particularly in Canada, would be confronting an intruder with a holstered handgun. Most likely a long gun or impact weapon.

 

[KevinB]

Khill also tried to claim he was acting on training he received in CAF… As a PRes SigOp. I doubt he ever did any training remotely close to that scenario.

Well you never know, some armories are in sketchy areas of town
Had it been a CP with Radios and Crypto in it, he may have had a case.

It's also highly unlikely that an armed homeowner, particularly in Canada, would be confronting an intruder with a holstered handgun. Most likely a long gun or impact weapon.

Agreed.


My primary point to make to people is that Lethal Force for Self Defense is designed to be an option of last resort, by taking a life that was trying to take your's or another's.
The Expert Witnesses who will testify (either for or against the defendant) are likely to be current or former LEO's. Given that, one needs to be cognizant of what expectations and requirements for the use of lethal force are in your jurisdiction, and to CY6.

An once of prevention is worth more than a pound in cure...

 

[Halifax Tar]

It's also highly unlikely that an armed homeowner, particularly in Canada, would be confronting an intruder with a holstered handgun. Most likely a long gun or impact weapon.

Stats may dispute that.

I have expect that ratio would be similar in home invasions as well. I do stand to be corrected though.

Google Search

Firearms and violent crime in Canada, 2023

This Juristat article examines the nature and prevalence of firearm-related violent crime in Canada. Recent trends in firearm-related violent crime are presented at the national, provincial/territorial and census metropolitan area levels, as well as for urban and rural regions.

www150.statcan.gc.ca

 

[brihard]

Stats may dispute that.

I have expect that ratio would be similar in home invasions as well. I do stand to be corrected though.

Google Search

Firearms and violent crime in Canada, 2023

This Juristat article examines the nature and prevalence of firearm-related violent crime in Canada. Recent trends in firearm-related violent crime are presented at the national, provincial/territorial and census metropolitan area levels, as well as for urban and rural regions.

www150.statcan.gc.ca

He’s talking about in the context of a homeowner arming themselves in anticipation of self defence against an intruder, and specifically he was relying to a comment about the 21 foot rule which is based on a police officer with a holstered sidearm responding to a sudden deadly threat. I think Haggis is correct- an armed homeowner probably isn’t going to have a holstered pistol. Whatever they have should be in their hands.

 

[Halifax Tar]

He’s talking about in the context of a homeowner arming themselves in anticipation of self defence against an intruder, and specifically he was relying to a comment about the 21 foot rule which is based on a police officer with a holstered sidearm responding to a sudden deadly threat. I think Haggis is correct- an armed homeowner probably isn’t going to have a holstered pistol. Whatever they have should be in their hands.

Gotcha, I misunderstood. @Haggis mea culpa.

 

[Genetk44]

I’m no expert in any of these issues….just a regular 70 year old civvy. It just bothers me and seems wrong that 1) a homeowner who is confronted by a housebreaker at night/early morning, very often woken from a sound sleep, has to worry almost as much about the governments reaction to his/her decisions as to the villians actions. It seems to me that just the act of entering a private home after dark and especially during hours when the homeowner is most likely asleep and presumably most helpless is automatic grounds for use of force including deadly force.

 

[KevinB]

I’m no expert in any of these issues….just a regular 70 year old civvy. It just bothers me and seems wrong that 1) a homeowner who is confronted by a housebreaker at night/early morning, very often woken from a sound sleep, has to worry almost as much about the governments reaction to his/her decisions as to the villians actions. It seems to me that just the act of entering a private home after dark and especially during hours when the homeowner is most likely asleep and presumably most helpless is automatic grounds for use of force including deadly force.

@brihard pointed out a few situations where the "intruder" is not actually trying to commit any sort of crime, but is either intoxicated and doesn't know where they are, or mentally deficient and doesn't know where they are.

Most burglars are simply trying to steal stuff from an unoccupied home and (outside of castle law states), that doesn't give the home owner cart blanche to liquidate them. Many will attempt to flee when they realize the home is actually occupied.
Here is where motion activated lights, all weather cameras, large dogs and alarm systems help.

Each situation is different, waking up to see someone in your bedroom with a knife - is a lot different that seeing someone in the entryway to your home with a knife. This is where the reasonable person aspect comes in. Most people would understand that a knife wielding intruder in your bedroom is an immediate deadly threat, while if you live in a multi story home that is over 4,500sqft the person in the entry way with a crowbar is a threat, and potentially a deadly threat, but not an immediate threat to you.

Time/Distance gives options - the less time and distance you have, the fewer options exist. It is also understood that the average person doesn't have access to many (if any) less lethal options.
I know in Canada you can't have a Taser, OC Spray, or many other valid less lethal systems, and as few people will have experience with unarmed control measures, there is no expectation for anyone to go hands on to defend from an attacker. Nor is there a requirement to downgrade your response tool, if they have an axe, and you have a pistol, shotgun, and an axe, there isn't any reason to use the axe - they have a deadly weapon, and you are allowed to defend yourself.

Issues often occur due to the force is used beyond the required time, like stabbing an already subdued opponent, or causing cruel or unnecessary suffering (kneecapping, cutting off their testicles etc).

 

[Jarnhamar]

@brihard pointed out a few situations where the "intruder" is not actually trying to commit any sort of crime, but is either intoxicated and doesn't know where they are, or mentally deficient and doesn't know where they are.

My concern there would be if someone is drunk enough to a accidentally think they're in their own home they may be drunk enough to attack the "intruder" they find in "their" home.

 

[KevinB]

My concern there would be if someone is drunk enough to a accidentally think they're in their own home they may be drunk enough to attack the "intruder" they find in "their" home.

Fair point - but most drunks can't get in unless the key was left in the door- and if they are smashing a window or door to get in, that ratchets the threat up significantly...

 

[Genetk44]

I think both your comments about drunk or mentally deficient intruders are valid and I in no way want to see us at the point that has unfortunately happened were such persons have been killed by a homeowner….thats a different scenario. But how many untrained people are so clearheaded when suddenly woken up that they can run through the “ oh, he is downstairs armed with a crowbar so no immediate threat versus he is at the top of the stairs with an axe” decision making process? Not many. And under present circumstances Canadian homeowners are at a double disadvantage due to having to consider the general inability to defend against an intruder and also the crown.

 

[brihard]

Issues often occur due to the force is used beyond the required time, like stabbing an already subdued opponent, or causing cruel or unnecessary suffering (kneecapping, cutting off their testicles etc).

I’m professionally obligated to discourage the removal of testicles. While “neuter the intruder” rolls nicely off the tongue, it’s fraught with legal peril.