This out today from Team Blue ...
Protect your home. Protect your family. Protect yourself. Brampton, ON – Today, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre announced the ‘Stand on Guard’ principle: a proposed amendment to the Criminal Code that would ensure Canadians won’t be thrown in jail for simply defending their homes, their...
www.conservative.ca
Also
archived here.
Guts of the announcement ...
... and an anecdote shared:
View attachment 95467
Google News hits on this story
here.
MSM take on the announcement:
OTTAWA - The federal government needs to amend the Criminal Code so the use of force, including lethal force, is considered reasonable to defend your home and family if someone
www.thecanadianpressnews.ca
"Poilievre calls for more legal protection for Canadians defending homes from intruders"
Most other MSM so far is sharing The Canadian Press version.
This makes for easy politicking, but I’d need to see specific proposed wording for the law. Saying a use of force is ‘presumptively’ reasonable sounds great, but it doesn’t mean an investigation won’t still happen, and any ‘presumption’ just means the way you lean to start, potentially reversing an onus.
There’s no statutory presumption that police use of force is reasonable but, de facto, that’s essentially how it’s treated- though any use of force resulting in death or serious harm is investigated, in most cases by an independent external agency.
I could see, and would generally be fine with, an amendment to section 34 establishing a rebuttable presumption along these lines. I think it would be reasonable policy and would definitely be publicly supported… BUT we would need to be prepared for some ugly cases where individuals think it means they can take things to excess.
I’d suggest that it should include wording along the lines of: “such use of force in defense of oneself or others against an intruder in a dwelling-house shall be considered presumptively reasonable only to the extent necessary to deter or repel a real or perceived attack, or to effect an arrest of an intruder under section 494 of the Criminal Code.
For greater certainty, a lawful occupant of a dwelling house is not expected to measure with certainty the degree of danger presented by an intruder, however any use of force must not be manifestly disproportionate.
For greater certainty, the lawful occupants of a dwelling house does not have a duty to retreat from a real or perceived attack from an intruder.
The presence of other lawful occupants in the dwelling house who are potentially vulnerable dangers by an intruder is to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of the lawful occupant’s perception of a threat. For greater certainty, it will be a mitigating factor in assessing any force used by the lawful occupant where young persons, persons with physical or mental infirmities, or persons otherwise less able to defend themselves are also present in the residence.”
That’s just me spitballing off the top of my head, but this would help build an explicit provision to afford lawful occupants of a residence greater latitude to use force in self defence, and in defense of others. It would also codify that defense of self or others in residence doesn’t let you keep beating the piss out of someone once the threat is gone or subdued, and it explicitly links the use of force to a legal citizen’s arrest. It also really buttresses a ‘last line of defense’ argument for protecting others less able to protect themselves.
Just my two cents as I think out loud.
