Self Defence in Canada (split from Gun Control 2.0)

[Deleted member 175000]

Self defence doesn’t mean shooting people. It means using reasonable force to stop being attacked as per Canadian law. It isn’t a intent to harm or shoot anyone, it is the intent to stop being harmed. One of the case law cited in that 2004 case mentioned specifically that someone defending themselves from attack isn’t dangerous to the public peace, they are protecting the public peace (not going back through it again). Basically the law is as clear as mud on all it, likely intentionally so.

Except absent a clear and imminent threat of actual harm to be stopped, there's no self defence to be argued- it's just a plan to potentially shoot someone. The quoted passages were quite clear.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Except absent a clear and imminent threat of actual harm to be stopped, there's no self defence to be argued- it's just a plan to potentially shoot someone. The quoted passages were quite clear.

‘39 The question arises as to the relevance of a finding that the accused actually used his weapon in a manner which constituted justifiable self-defence. Thus, in R. v. Sulland (1982), 2 C.C.C. (3d) 68, the British Columbia Court of Appeal held, at p. 71:



In my view, one does not commit the offence with which we are concerned if one carries a weapon for self-defence that is an appropriate instrument with which to repel, in a lawful manner, the type of attack reasonably apprehended and if the person carrying it is competent to handle the weapon and is likely to use it responsibly. In the absence of other circumstances, such as conduct calculated to provoke an attack, the purpose is unlikely to be dangerous to the public peace. That an attacker might be repelled forcefully, and even injured, is not a danger that the section refers to. In that case the attack, not the response to it, breaches the public peace. [Emphasis added.]



Insofar as the B.C. Court of Appeal was referring, by the use of the phrase “in a lawful manner”, to justifiable self-defence, Jessup J.A., dissenting in Nelson, supra, seemed to agree (at p. 36):

Having a weapon for the sole purpose of abating a breach of the peace threatened to result from an attack on the possessor is not, in my opinion, a purpose dangerous to the public peace. Self-defence, justifiable under the Code, is not confined to tooth and nail.[Emphasis added.]’

Those seem to favour self defence not violating s 88.

 

[Deleted member 175000]

‘39 The question arises as to the relevance of a finding that the accused actually used his weapon in a manner which constituted justifiable self-defence. Thus, in R. v. Sulland (1982), 2 C.C.C. (3d) 68, the British Columbia Court of Appeal held, at p. 71:

...

Those seem to favour self defence not violating s 88.

They do - in fact I actually mentioned Sulland up thread : " R v Macdonald 2014 and R v Kerr 2004 and how they narrowed the Sulland precedent"

Sulland did set the precedent you mention - in 1982 at the BC Court of Appeals. But... Kerr, in 2004 at the Supreme Court, took the precedent from Sulland and both clarified it and narrowed it- establishing a specific legal test, defining the parameters for the offense, and defining how self defense applies (only with imminent and unavoidable threat)

A more recent decision from a higher court supercedes earlier decisions and is binding on lower courts- that is to say, Kerr trumps Nelson and establishes a new precedent that must be followed across the country.

We see that standard applied and further narrowed in the R v Macdonald decision - where it was found that having been in recent conflict with a neighbour and then having a middle of the night pounding on your door is deemed not enough to reasonably perceive an imminent threat and arm yourself- in your own home.

Edited under the wire to add - this all flows the from the doctrine of collective peace - that while self defence an allowable defence to certain crimes, it should be an action of last resort with the law steering people towards any alternative to violence. Preparation and pre-emptive defensive armament is taken to imply that the defendant is pre-deciding to enter into conflict rather than seeking alternatives to avoid the self-defence situation.


So with a sequence of decisions a law originally drafted to prevent dangerous vigilantism and frontier justice to "civilize" public spaces has evolved to heavily restrict and effectively criminalize preemptive defensive preparation involving weapons, even at home. Hence- a very meaningful area for parliament to intervene to push back against ideological judges legislating from the bench and restore the ability of citizens in their homes to defend themselves.

 

[Deleted member 175000]

Further to, a much more recent example - R v. Bilodeau. Father and teen son pursuing suspected thieves, contact adult son to come help and bring gun "just in case". They claim the intent of possession to use the gun only if they needed to for self defence, but as per Kerr:

[27] Unfortunately, the instruction on this point was “decanted” to the point of inaccuracy. It restricted “dangerous purpose” to “the dangerous purpose of committing an assault”, but a dangerous purpose can be something other than an assault. Perhaps more significantly, the instruction that the Crown had to disprove an “innocent purpose of protection” was too narrow. That is because the trial judge did not leave for the jury a third option (which would have been favourable to the Crown) that possession of the rifle for a “protective purpose” may still have been objectively dangerous to the public. Possession of a weapon for protection can constitute unlawful possession for a dangerous purpose where the perceived attack is avoidable: Kerr at paras 38 (per Major and Bastarache JJ) and 94 (per Arbour and LeBel JJ). It should have been open to the jury to consider whether the confrontation at the intersection was avoidable – for example, by breaking off the chase and returning home.

Both the father and adult son were convicted under section 88, as it was found that self defence didn't apply to their purpose of possession since the threat/ conflict was avoidable.

 

[suffolkowner]

in the end its better to plan and face whatever ridiculous consequences of those plans are then have to face the consequences of not planning
anecdotally it seems like theres been a change in the perception of the onus in these situations with the last few home invasions. Even in the Peterborough one where the charges were dropped

 

[Halifax Tar]

It just doesn't compute in my knuckle dragging NCM brain that we have a system that will essentially punish the victim taking the initiative and fight to the aggressor.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It's a strange way to set down the laws. People can face reasonably foreseeable risks, but have to in effect respond only spontaneously with whatever is at hand.

 

[OldSolduer]

It just doesn't compute in my knuckle dragging NCM brain that we have a system that will essentially punish the victim taking the initiative and fight to the aggressor.

I hear you, but the namby pamby bunch took over.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I wonder if S88 would survive a section 7 Charter Challenge. My rights to life, liberty, and the security of the person don’t end because someone seeks to deprive me of them.

 

[Deleted member 175000]

It's a strange way to set down the laws. People can face reasonably foreseeable risks, but have to in effect respond only spontaneously with whatever is at hand.

Judicial activists going too far to enforce their pacifist doctrine. My worry would be that if something like Bill 270 came into effect they would double down on those ancillary principles and try to generate split verdicts as much as possible.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Further to, a much more recent example - R v. Bilodeau. Father and teen son pursuing suspected thieves, contact adult son to come help and bring gun "just in case". They claim the intent of possession to use the gun only if they needed to for self defence, but as per Kerr:

[27] Unfortunately, the instruction on this point was “decanted” to the point of inaccuracy. It restricted “dangerous purpose” to “the dangerous purpose of committing an assault”, but a dangerous purpose can be something other than an assault. Perhaps more significantly, the instruction that the Crown had to disprove an “innocent purpose of protection” was too narrow. That is because the trial judge did not leave for the jury a third option (which would have been favourable to the Crown) that possession of the rifle for a “protective purpose” may still have been objectively dangerous to the public. Possession of a weapon for protection can constitute unlawful possession for a dangerous purpose where the perceived attack is avoidable: Kerr at paras 38 (per Major and Bastarache JJ) and 94 (per Arbour and LeBel JJ). It should have been open to the jury to consider whether the confrontation at the intersection was avoidable – for example, by breaking off the chase and returning home.

Both the father and adult son were convicted under section 88, as it was found that self defence didn't apply to their purpose of possession since the threat/ conflict was avoidable.

Don't know the details, but I infer they were following/chasing someone, then that does make self defense more difficult to win on.

Now if they had called the police who then declined to come out for whatever reason, that factor might weigh on a jury.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Interesting case in Ont... We punish the victims IMHO.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2090877728165871692

 

[RangerRay]

Interesting case in Ont... We punish the victims IMHO.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2090877728165871692

I don’t know…if cops aren’t allowed to fire blindly in the dark at fleeing dirtbags, now unarmed, while their partner bleeds out beside them, I don’t think this guy had much of a leg to stand on.

From the article linked:

“When the police first interviewed Mr. Munroe, he lied and said that he did not have or use a gun. He subsequently told the police that he used the gun he wrestled from the intruders to shoot at them, saying that he tried to kill them and that, if given the chance, he would have killed them all,” said the appeal decision.

Baker found Munroe “not guilty of any charges related to what occurred in the house while the intruders were still there,” said the appeal decision.

“The trial judge was satisfied that Mr. Munroe was acting in self-defence.”

But Baker found that Munroe “was no longer acting in self-defence when he shot at the intruders from his porch,” said the appeal decision.

“The trial judge found Mr. Munroe guilty of reckless discharge of a restricted or prohibited firearm. He also found him guilty of obstruction of a peace officer for lying in his initial statement to the police.”

He was fine till he started blasting at a fleeing car from his porch then lied about to the cops.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I don’t know…if cops aren’t allowed to fire blindly in the dark at fleeing dirtbags, now unarmed, while their partner bleeds out beside them, I don’t think this guy had much of a leg to stand on.

From the article linked:




He was fine till he started blasting at a fleeing car from his porch then lied about to the cops.

Did you read what the criminal did ?

 

[suffolkowner]

I don’t know…if cops aren’t allowed to fire blindly in the dark at fleeing dirtbags, now unarmed, while their partner bleeds out beside them, I don’t think this guy had much of a leg to stand on.

From the article linked:




He was fine till he started blasting at a fleeing car from his porch then lied about to the cops.

police are agents of the state and should be held to a higher standard in all things

 

[RangerRay]

Did you read what the criminal did ?

I did. It’s really shitty. Although the article doesn’t mention the age of the son or severity of the wounds or if the son survived or not.

Regardless, the law isn’t going to take kindly to blasting in the dark at a fleeing car, especially in a built up residential area. He could have shot someone else’s son. Trained police aren’t allowed to do that, why would an untrained civvy be given grace? Because emotion? If that’s the case, then a lot of people will get off on crimes committed because of emotion.

 

[suffolkowner]

I did. It’s really shitty. Although the article doesn’t mention the age of the son or severity of the wounds or if the son survived or not.

Regardless, the law isn’t going to take kindly to blasting in the dark at a fleeing car, especially in a built up residential area. He could have shot someone else’s son. Trained police aren’t allowed to do that, why would an untrained civvy be given grace? Because emotion? If that’s the case, then a lot of people will get off on crimes committed because of emotion.

does it say exactly what, where and how many shots he fired?

edit

The intruders fled the home, but Munroe chased after them. He stood on his porch and shot at them three times while they were fleeing in their car.

 

[RangerRay]

does it say exactly what, where and how many shots he fired?

The article is missing a lot of information that could be aggravating factors. It does sound like the appeals court was satisfied that the conditions warranted the lighter sentence, which I have no problem with.

To be clear, I wasn’t arguing this guy should get the maximum the Crown wanted. But based on the information in the article, I couldn’t see where he would have got off for his actions after the dirtbags fled.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The article is missing a lot of information that could be aggravating factors. It does sound like the appeals court was satisfied that the conditions warranted the lighter sentence, which I have no problem with.

To be clear, I wasn’t arguing this guy should get the maximum the Crown wanted. But based on the information in the article, I couldn’t see where he would have got off for his actions after the dirtbags fled.

If someone shot my kid, I could see me reacting the exact same way.

 

[suffolkowner]

The article is missing a lot of information that could be aggravating factors. It does sound like the appeals court was satisfied that the conditions warranted the lighter sentence, which I have no problem with.

To be clear, I wasn’t arguing this guy should get the maximum the Crown wanted. But based on the information in the article, I couldn’t see where he would have got off for his actions after the dirtbags fled.

3 shots apparently but no indication of where they landed just not in the upstanding citizens
chased them from his front porch is an interesting phrase IMO.
I feel the Crown appealing the sentencing to be disgusting
The sentence is too onerous IMO. What social value does it provide? What is the risk to society from this individual?
I wonder what justice the invaders faced?