Self Defence in Canada (split from Gun Control 2.0)

[Jarnhamar]

It would be nice if victims of home invasion who are charged with offenses could avoid being on the hook for court costs until they're found guilty in court.

 

[dapaterson]

It would be nice if victims of home invasion who are charged with offenses could avoid being on the hook for court costs until they're found guilty in court.

Why only people accused of home invasion? (By court costs I assume you mean the cost of a legal defence, which is easily in the low six figures if it goes to trial - or the mid five figures if it does not).

 

[Jarnhamar]

Why only people accused of home invasion?

Good question. Because someone is making a conscious decision to enter into their home, likely to either steal from them or assault them. They're being put into that position by someone else. A police officer has discretion to charge or not, maybe they flip a coin and decide to lay charges. That's a lot of money for a home owner. Especially when a civil suit against the home invader probably won't cover the bills (and be additional money).


An alternative, though obviously unlikely, would be some kind of home invasion clause with someone's home insurance.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Good question. Because someone is making a conscious decision to enter into their home, likely to either steal from them or assault them. They're being put into that position by someone else. A police officer has discretion to charge or not, maybe they flip a coin and decide to lay charges. That's a lot of money home a home owner. Especially when a civil suit against the home invader probably won't cover the bills (and be additional money).


An alternative, though obviously unlikely, would be some kind of home invasion clause with someone's home insurance.

Something else that costs the homeowner, through no fault of their own, when the home invader sues the homeowner.

 

[Haggis]

There was another home invasion in my county last February in which the victims did use a firearm (possibly that of the intruders, but it's unconfirmed) resulting in the deaths of two of three intruders. No charges have been laid to date and the victims, who were initially taken into custody, were released unconditionally. The third intruder has not been apprehended.

 

[brihard]

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?

34(1)(c) establishes the reasonableness requirement. 34(2) lists the things to be statutorily considered in assessing reasonableness, which is an ‘in its totality’ question. ‘Proportionality’ is listed under 34(2)(g). Grossly disproportionate force is generally not going to be able to be reasonable.

As more is coming out in rumour form I’m more and more curious about the details of what actually happened.

 

[Haggis]

34(1)(c) establishes the reasonableness requirement. 34(2) lists the things to be statutorily considered in assessing reasonableness, which is an ‘in its totality’ question. ‘Proportionality’ is listed under 34(2)(g). Grossly disproportionate force is generally not going to be able to be reasonable.

As more is coming out in rumour form I’m more and more curious about the details of what actually happened.

My wife and I went through a trial in 2016 where the question of proportionality was a key issue. (I can write of this as one party is now deceased and I have no idea where the other party is or if they are still alive.) In that case we had both witnessed a small statured lady with a large kitchen knife defending against fairly large empty handed male who had already struck her. No one suffered an significant injury. 34(2)(g) was considered, for sure. Both were frequent flyers in the justice system with long histories of substance abuse, DV with each other and were under conditions at the time of this assault. 34(2)(e) and (f) outweighed 34(2)(g). In the end, the assault charges under 265(1)(b) were dropped and both pled guilty to breach of probation (733.1(1)(b)). That lady had a horseshoe strategically inserted somewhere.

I'm super curious, too, but more so about the local case I noted above as the rumour mill was on fire for weeks afterwards and I would drive by the scene every day commuting to/from work.

I know that this is a "Gun Control" thread and, thankfully, for political reasons, no firearm was used in the Lindsay case. Perhaps a thread on Self Defence Law in Canada would be good one to start?

 

[brihard]

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

Sorry, I blew by this by accident, not intentionally. I’m going to hold off on that though. Too subjective, and my level of confidence decreases as we get closer to the edge cases. I don’t want to lead anyone astray. We can look to the courts for those cases.

 

[Good2Golf]

Thread for splitting Self-Defence in Canada from the Gun Control 2.0 thread.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Sorry, I blew by this by accident, not intentionally. I’m going to hold off on that though. Too subjective, and my level of confidence decreases as we get closer to the edge cases. I don’t want to lead anyone astray. We can look to the courts for those cases.

Completely understood, thanks for your earlier answer