Self Defence in Canada (split from Gun Control 2.0)

[IKnowNothing]

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.

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

This blurs the line back into the gun control thread- while I would also be in favour of the home owner having more rights/ easier path to claim self defense as a legal defense- there's a clear omission to your list of worries that is pretty common in these discussions from my experience. There's the worry of the villain. There's the worry of the legal repercussions of defenders actions. Not enough is said about the worry of safety repercussions of the defenders actions. But as shitty as it is- being disoriented, just woken from a sound sleep, and confronted with an intruder doesn't obviate a PAL holder's moral and legal responsibility for any bullet or shot that comes from that firearm.

Re- that second blurb- if your neighbour can't be trusted with differentiating between what floor a person is on when they're jacked up and disoriented, do you trust them to have thought about overpenetration and safe arcs? To not get spooked by your shadow in the window and open fire when you look out to check on the disturbance?

 

[foresterab]

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.

The part that comes to mind is also the fear of what's going to happen from the intruder. While I've had s@$!rats try to break into my vehicles I've been lucky on the home front....other folks locally not so much.

Following one elderly resident turning his lights on and calling out to ask what thieves were doing in his yard resulted in 3 of the coming and crippling the man when he refused to get out of his doorway...protecting his invalid wife. Life changing injuries were sustained and they were forced to move from their rural property due to injuries/care needed.

Now every resident in the area is in fear that they will be the next victim injured if they challenge someone. Can't shoot them because of evidence and witnesses. But even if caught the criminal system often has them on the street the next day due to "theft under $5000" charges being considered low risk.

The Law Enforcement Officers are even more frustrated as they know the people involved by name, often location, spend the time to provide cases...and then are viewed as failures because repeat offenders are out again.

I don't know criminal code but I do wonder about a few things:
1) crime with intent (i.e. entering a property is viewed as serious crime instead of dollar value)
2) a higher threshold to prove excessive force when an individual or family is in threat. Especially children and spouses potentially affected.
3) re-examination of what video and photographic evidence is considered acceptable. I know many LEO are handcuffed because a known individual photographed entering a property and then departing is not enough evidence to charge as they were not witnessed stealing items. Or signed warnings were not enough.
4) crimes should also consider the impacts of not just the dollar value but implications of theft. Stealing a persons truck...so they can't go to work and can't afford to replace it...that's a huge impact. Steal a tradesman's tools and he's out of pocket for the theft plus loss of work.
5) drug addict? I believe that if you have screwed up enough to be arrested you also are eligible for breathalyzer and drug testing. If you're showing hard drugs (non-legalized substances) then there should be a modifier added to offense or charge.

I know the LEO's are trying their best. I know many landowners are trying to eliminate the shiny easy targets. But I don't know how to deal with the legal system failures.

 

[Haggis]

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.

My daughter, who lives right next door, had a mentally disturbed but non-violent young man wander into her house, clearly confused and in need of help. Should he have been the subject of deadly force? Dad (me) right next door, went over inmmediately to assess the situation and deemed it a mental health issue requiring an EMS response not a police response.

You see, there's no cookie-cutter solution and each encounter has to be judged on the totality of the situation.

 

[KevinB]

But as shitty as it is- being disoriented, just woken from a sound sleep, and confronted with an intruder doesn't obviate a PAL holder's moral and legal responsibility for any bullet or shot that comes from that firearm.

Well in Canada, you have gone to your safe, and unlocked it, gotten the ammo, loaded your firearm so if you where able to do that, you are probably awake

While I agree with the responsibility of the firearm owner to account for any bullets they fire, I do not see disorientation to be a factor from just being startled awake - sleep deprivation causes a lot of judgment errors, but outside of the immediate time of waking where one may lash out, there is no appreciable disorientation (unless they have alcohol or drugs in their system) as the adrenaline has kicked in for fight or flight.

Re- that second blurb- if your neighbour can't be trusted with differentiating between what floor a person is on when they're jacked up and disoriented, do you trust them to have thought about overpenetration and safe arcs? To not get spooked by your shadow in the window and open fire when you look out to check on the disturbance?

The post you replied to seemed to be quoting me, where I was differentiating the threats -- firstly I think most people would know the difference between an intruder being in their room - and one not. I have cameras, and electronic locks and a few other things to let me know where people are in my house.

If a neighbor shoots at you in your house from theirs - well that is a significant difference from what we had been talking about.

 

[ModlrMike]

Somebody walking in looking for help from you is somewhat different from somebody breaking in looking to help themselves.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I have to say, I am very impressed with the quality of the posts in this thread. Very valid points have been made in a very adult manner. I am learning lots!

 

[IKnowNothing]

Well in Canada, you have gone to your safe, and unlocked it, gotten the ammo, loaded your firearm so if you where able to do that, you are probably awake

While I agree with the responsibility of the firearm owner to account for any bullets they fire, I do not see disorientation to be a factor from just being startled awake - sleep deprivation causes a lot of judgment errors, but outside of the immediate time of waking where one may lash out, there is no appreciable disorientation (unless they have alcohol or drugs in their system) as the adrenaline has kicked in for fight or flight.


The post you replied to seemed to be quoting me, where I was differentiating the threats -- firstly I think most people would know the difference between an intruder being in their room - and one not. I have cameras, and electronic locks and a few other things to let me know where people are in my house.

If a neighbor shoots at you in your house from theirs - well that is a significant difference from what we had been talking about.

Sorry Kev- nothing I wrote was meant to apply to what you were saying. My point of contention is that IF you accept the other poster's assertions about the defenders mental load/ not being able to make sound decisions to the degree they described- that defender might just be a greater danger to their loved ones and neighbours than the criminal

 

[KevinB]

Sorry Kev- nothing I wrote was meant to apply to what you were saying. My point of contention is that IF you accept the other poster's assertions about the defenders mental load/ not being able to make sound decisions to the degree they described- that defender might just be a greater danger to their loved ones and neighbours than the criminal

Roger that -- I was trying to clarify my post he had quoted that your responded to and I got sidetracked.

Follow up note; some people have tried to suggest they where not mentally capable or legally responsible for their actions upon being woken up "by things that go bump in the night" and outside of castle law states down here, no courts have bought it, and even in castle law states, the decision to find the home owner not guilty has not been due to the defense of "I just woke up and didn't know what was going on fully" but on the fact that they where in their home and believed they where defending it.

Heartbreaking story a few years ago about a LEO who shot their teenage son who he "thought was an intruder", frankly I would be really concerned about living anywhere that the LEO's could shoot people without having any sort of offensive action or positive ID of a threat...
Small Georgia town Sheriff IIRC...

 

[Haggis]

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.

May I introduce you to Amber Guyger? And she was sober.

 

[Genetk44]

My daughter, who lives right next door, had a mentally disturbed but non-violent young man wander into her house, clearly confused and in need of help. Should he have been the subject of deadly force? Dad (me) right next door, went over inmmediately to assess the situation and deemed it a mental health issue requiring an EMS response not a police response.

You see, there's no cookie-cutter solution and each encounter has to be judged on the totality of the situation.

Yes I did make a follow-on post agreeing to that. These discussions always bring me back to the sad story about the young, lost Japanese tourist who was killed by a wide-awake homeowner, early evening, just for ringing the doorbell hoping to ask for directions. Definately not the sort of thing we want happening.

 

[mariomike]

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.

Don't disturb a man in his bed.

"The old man's still an artist with a Thompson. "

 

[lenaitch]

Whatever they have should be in their hands.

If any kind of firearm, once they retrieve said firearm from an approved locked container, along with the ammunition from a separate locked container. By that time, I suspect the intruder is already back home in bed.

I don't know criminal code but I do wonder about a few things:
1) crime with intent (i.e. entering a property is viewed as serious crime instead of dollar value)
2) a higher threshold to prove excessive force when an individual or family is in threat. Especially children and spouses potentially affected.
3) re-examination of what video and photographic evidence is considered acceptable. I know many LEO are handcuffed because a known individual photographed entering a property and then departing is not enough evidence to charge as they were not witnessed stealing items. Or signed warnings were not enough.
4) crimes should also consider the impacts of not just the dollar value but implications of theft. Stealing a persons truck...so they can't go to work and can't afford to replace it...that's a huge impact. Steal a tradesman's tools and he's out of pocket for the theft plus loss of work.
5) drug addict? I believe that if you have screwed up enough to be arrested you also are eligible for breathalyzer and drug testing. If you're showing hard drugs (non-legalized substances) then there should be a modifier added to offense or charge.

There is a difference between "property" and "dwelling house". Trespassing on land not near a dwelling house, particularly large rural properties, is not typically a criminal offence (absent other factors). Simple trespassing is a provincial statute.

The general premise of criminal law is to criminalize certain acts, not the outcome of those acts. The outcome (dollar value of stolen property, etc.) usually comes into play for procedural and/or sentencing purposes. Absent a 'colour of right' (i.e. a valid belief), breaking into a dwelling house is a crime. Walking onto someone's land, not so much.

 

[brihard]

If any kind of firearm, once they retrieve said firearm from an approved locked container, along with the ammunition from a separate locked container. By that time, I suspect the intruder is already back home in bed.

I can get mine out right quick from proper storage if needed, and I expect plenty of others can too. There are ways to set up the least barriers legally possible depending on what safe/locks you use.

 

[mariomike]

Dad (me) right next door, went over inmmediately to assess the situation and deemed it a mental health issue requiring an EMS response not a police response.

Not sure which jurisdiction you live in, but in our town, the way the Paramedic department does it now, after I retired, if it is not an emergency, they refer those calls to Toronto Community Crisis Service (TCCS).

TCCS is a non-police or paramedic mental health crisis response program. Separate from Toronto Police and Paramedic departments.

Sometimes described as "Toronto’s fourth emergency service".

Toronto Community Crisis Service

Support You Need When You Need It the Most The Toronto Community Crisis Service (TCCS) provides free, confidential, in-person mental health supports city-wide from mobile crisis worker teams. TCCS supports Toronto residents 16 years of age or older and is available 24 hours a day, seven days a...

www.toronto.ca

 

[foresterab]

There is a difference between "property" and "dwelling house". Trespassing on land not near a dwelling house, particularly large rural properties, is not typically a criminal offence (absent other factors). Simple trespassing is a provincial statute.

The general premise of criminal law is to criminalize certain acts, not the outcome of those acts. The outcome (dollar value of stolen property, etc.) usually comes into play for procedural and/or sentencing purposes. Absent a 'colour of right' (i.e. a valid belief), breaking into a dwelling house is a crime. Walking onto someone's land, not so much.

Thanks again for making this distinction. I do not support a castle type defense for a guy cutting a corner of my property to reach crown land (US has had some interesting case law for hunting tresspasses in this type of access).

A home is a pretty clear bar to measure against. Where I struggle more for some folks...and where much of the crime has happened locally...is the shop/garage/outbuilding directly adjacent to the home where the livelihood of the individual is at risk of being stolen. The thieves target these in part because they know there is less "importance" put on the crime there. But for many that's considered by them the same as their home or castle...

Just know it sucks to be a rural LEO these days

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I can get mine out right quick from proper storage if needed, and I expect plenty of others can too. There are ways to set up the least barriers legally possible depending on what safe/locks you use.

One of these within reach, bolted to a stud in the wall. You store a loaded magazine in the slot designed for it and your pistol in the main well. Both are very conveniently located with the pistol already presented to grab it out.

A person could access this safe, from the bed, load and be ready in, literally, seconds. All legal.

 

[Navy_Pete]

One of these within reach, bolted to a stud in the wall. You store a loaded magazine in the slot designed for it and your pistol in the main well. Both are very conveniently located with the pistol already presented to grab it out.

A person could access this safe, from the bed, load and be ready in, literally, seconds. All legal.

Pretty hilarous the company name is Vaultek though.

Have any of the storage requirements for handguns changed significantly within the last 20 years or so, particularly with them getting more restricted generally and banned in some municipalities?

Still really not sure where I sit on any of this; I have no problem with legal gun ownership, and requiring people to have some kind of minimal safety training but also think there are some people who aren't responsible enough to own any of them, and that having a bit of a tortured path to get access to them and the ammo isn't a bad thing as it gives someone a bit of a cooling off period if they are angry, and things like home invasions are pretty rare where it doesn't make a difference from a self defence perspective.

 

[KevinB]

Thanks again for making this distinction. I do not support a castle type defense for a guy cutting a corner of my property to reach crown land (US has had some interesting case law for hunting tresspasses in this type of access).

A home is a pretty clear bar to measure against. Where I struggle more for some folks...and where much of the crime has happened locally...is the shop/garage/outbuilding directly adjacent to the home where the livelihood of the individual is at risk of being stolen. The thieves target these in part because they know there is less "importance" put on the crime there. But for many that's considered by them the same as their home or castle...

Just know it sucks to be a rural LEO these days

A local LEO friend of mine here keeps guns in his vehicles, and has a secondary safe in one of his sheds.
In VA Lethal Force cannot be used to protect property, but can be used to ensure firearms aren't accessed by felon's.


Not sure how that would fly in Canada - I am pretty sure the vehicle thing is not legal - but the outbuilding may have a logical reason to have a firearms cabinet?