Self Defence in Canada (split from Gun Control 2.0)

[The Bread Guy]

This out today from Team Blue ...

Stand on Guard - Conservative Party of Canada

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 ...

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 families and themselves. Conservatives are calling on the government to introduce a bill enacting this principle this fall, failing which one of the party’s Members of Parliament will do so in a private member’s bill.

The amendment to section 34(2) would deem the use of force to be presumed reasonable when used against an individual who unlawfully enters a house and poses a threat to the safety of anyone inside.

(...)

Under Section 34 of the Criminal Code, Canadians have the right to use force to defend themselves and others from threats of force. But the law is vague and subjective. Too often, ordinary Canadians face years of expensive trials while violent repeat offenders walk free on easy bail because of Liberal laws C-5 and C-75.

(...)

Conservatives will change the law so Canadians can act with certainty when their loved ones are put in danger. Our amendment:

1. Protects the Innocent. If a violent intruder breaks into your home and threatens your family, the law will finally be on your side – not theirs.
2. Presumes Reasonableness. Force used to stop a home invader who poses a threat will be deemed reasonable; there will be no more second-guessing after the fact.
3. Ends Legal Limbo. Canadians defending themselves should not spend years in court while criminals walk free. This law gives clarity to citizens, police and prosecutors.
   
   (...)

... and an anecdote shared:

Google News hits on this story here.

MSM take on the announcement:

Poilievre wants 'reasonable' self-defence defined in Criminal Code

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.

 

[OldSolduer]

MSN

This is a good one. Despite the "Victim" getting what he deserved I think they went a bit far.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am guessing that "self defense rights for Canadians" were not on the Liberals bingo card for the next bit....

 

[lenaitch]

This out today from Team Blue ...

Stand on Guard - Conservative Party of Canada

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:

Poilievre wants 'reasonable' self-defence defined in Criminal Code

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.

Presumed reasonable . . . until the court says it wasn't. Sounds like the presumption of innocence to me.

If the intent is to not have a homeowner charged in the first place, this probably won't do it.

 

[brihard]

This out today from Team Blue ...

Stand on Guard - Conservative Party of Canada

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:

Poilievre wants 'reasonable' self-defence defined in Criminal Code

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.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Agreed this needs to be fleshed out, but...

I think expecting specifics from a country that uses a subjective word like reasonable in their self defence law making might be a bridge to far for Canada.

Just like CAF orders we like to leave room for local commanders and personal interpretation to weasle their way around.

 

[brihard]

Agreed this needs to be fleshed out, but...

I think expecting specifics from a country that uses a subjective word like reasonable in their self defence law making might be a bridge to far for Canada.

Just like CAF orders we like to leave room for local commanders and personal interpretation to weasle their way around.

Some subjectivity is inevitable, and the law must leave room for that to be assessed by courts. Otherwise the statute would have to codify every conceivable situation. Use of force situations are not usually crystal clear, cookie cutter happenings. There’s often a mismatch between the eventually established bare facts, and what the person using force reasonably perceived at the time. Use of terms like ‘reasonable’ allows for the necessary wiggle room. It would be extremely easy to think of a ton of ‘use of force in home’ scenarios that would be *un*reasonable and which a self defence law would not be intended to protect.

 

[Blackadder1916]

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.

Reading through your spitball, seeing terms such as "lawful occupant", the question popped into my little grey cells how such a "Stand On Guard" right principle would apply in more communal settings (college dorms, barracks, etc). In shared accomodations, would unwanted intrusions into the separate personal space of one of the occupants by another occupant be considered "home invasion"? Admittedly, I'm stirring the pot a little because I see this proposal by the resurrected Leader of the Opposition as poor politicking in terms of both the message and particularly in choice of messenger.

 

[suffolkowner]

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’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.


Seems to open ended to me. Are we asking for a more rigorous standard from a private citizen than a trained LEO?

 

[brihard]

Reading through your spitball, seeing terms such as "lawful occupant", the question popped into my little grey cells how such a "Stand On Guard" right principle would apply in more communal settings (college dorms, barracks, etc). In shared accomodations, would unwanted intrusions into the separate personal space of one of the occupants by another occupant be considered "home invasion"? Admittedly, I'm stirring the pot a little because I see this proposal by the resurrected Leader of the Opposition as poor politicking in terms of both the message and particularly in choice of messenger.

Dunno, but I’m only trying to speak to situations of defending one’s own residence, and what might go into establishing a presumptive reasonableness that’s actually workable. I don’t think it’s clean or easy which is why I had several caveats and clarifications.

In your own home it’s easy to know who doesn’t lawfully belong. Shift to a congregate setting and that immediately gets way trickier. I won’t try to address that… I think our existing self defence laws where one’s actions are predicated on the articulable perception of the threat from the aggressor would generally suffice.

 

[Haggis]

I don't think Brihard is advocating for a higher standard for civilians at all. Recall he stated that "use of force resulting in death or serious harm is investigated, in most cases by an independent external agency". Even if such use of force doesn't result in criminal charges (i.e. it was found to be lawful) the officer could still be subject to administrative or remedial training from their agency to better prepare them for the next time if it's found that the force used was not in accordance with agency policy or training, yet still lawful, as in not excessive. That would not happen to a civilian now, or under "Brihard's Law".

It's also important to remember that use of force by a LEO is not always "self defense". It is sometime pre-emptive to prevent a situation from becoming worse. This is allowed under CCC 25(1) generally and 25(4) speaks to the use of potentially lethal force.

CCC 25(3) also speaks to when the LEO would not be protected for using potentially lethal force.

CCC 26 states "Every one who is authorized by law to use force (e.g. LEOs or those lawfully assisting them) is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The current methodology is stacked against the home owner (Lawful occupant) and could almost be considered lawfare to actively discourage self-defense. I think the mindset of the Crown and police are going to have to be changed as well. Part of that is conditioning, where people entering those fields are taught that we don't have that right and we are not the US, so they go into their careers with that presumption, which influences how they treat people involved in self-defense case. Not helped by the fact that a number of self-defense case in the last couple of decades involved bad guy on bad guy. It's interesting that an interview with numerous career criminals in the US, is that they actively avoided occupied homes for B&E's as they feared armed home owners more than the police.

 

[Haggis]

The current methodology is stacked against the home owner (Lawful occupant) and could almost be considered lawfare to actively discourage self-defense. I think the mindset of the Crown and police are going to have to be changed as well. Part of that is conditioning, where people entering those fields are taught that we don't have that right and we are not the US, so they go into their careers with that presumption, which influences how they treat people involved in self-defense case. Not helped by the fact that a number of self-defense case in the last couple of decades involved bad guy on bad guy. It's interesting that an interview with numerous career criminals in the US, is that they actively avoided occupied homes for B&E's as they feared armed home owners more than the police.

Remember that our former Public Safety Minister Bill Blair famously stated in 2020 that "Canadians do not arm themselves for protection from their fellow citizens" or words to that effect. Former Chretien-era Liberal Justice Minister Allan Rock also stated that the he "came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in Canada that should have guns are police officers and soldiers" as well as noting that self defence was not a legitimate reason for owning a firearm in Canada. Despite that those statements were made in the context of gun control, they helped strengthen the narrative around self defence away from "arming oneself" in any form.

 

[Good2Golf]

Not so fast, Kev.

There was a case about a guy who buried his guns in concrete in his yard and was found guilty of unsafe storage because the judge ruled the concrete block was "not lockable" and therefore not a proper storage container. I will try to find it.

Can confirm. Even buried cases that are locked are illegal since the RCMP doesn't consider the back yard as a reasonable storage area. A lot more secure than a car IMO.

I’d go with concrete in the basement, to avoid any issues.

You'd have a better chance of seeing a unicorn in your yard in my riding than a PPC candidate at your door. Three elections now, never saw one, never received any correspondence from one.

Or in some ridings, a CPC candidate…like in my, Brihard’s and Remius’ riding.

 

[RangerRay]

When the facts of the case come out, I’ll feel better if it comes out the homeowner went way beyond the line of defending himself (e.g. stabbing the robber as he’s fleeing, etc.). I sure hope this isn’t the case of someone legitimately defending themselves getting prosecuted.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Remember that our former Public Safety Minister Bill Blair famously stated in 2020 that "Canadians do not arm themselves for protection from their fellow citizens" or words to that effect. Former Chretien-era Liberal Justice Minister Allan Rock also stated that the he "came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in Canada that should have guns are police officers and soldiers" as well as noting that self defence was not a legitimate reason for owning a firearm in Canada. Despite that those statements were made in the context of gun control, they helped strengthen the narrative around self defence away from "arming oneself" in any form.

One of the reason they enacted their gun control now, was that the two fastest growing demographics in legal gun ownership were women and visible minorities. Meaning that it would lose it's effectiveness as a wedge issue.

 

[lenaitch]

When the facts of the case come out, I’ll feel better if it comes out the homeowner went way beyond the line of defending himself (e.g. stabbing the robber as he’s fleeing, etc.). I sure hope this isn’t the case of someone legitimately defending themselves getting prosecuted.

I suspect that, unless the facts show that the forced used was patently excessive or there is some other matter at play, the Crown will decline to prosecute.

Agreed this needs to be fleshed out, but...

I think expecting specifics from a country that uses a subjective word like reasonable in their self defence law making might be a bridge to far for Canada.

Just like CAF orders we like to leave room for local commanders and personal interpretation to weasle their way around.

Unless we can somehow craft laws that specifically address every conceivable form of human interaction, the administration of justice will always be grounded in subjectivity. The age-old definition of 'reasonable and probable grounds' that I was taught decades ago comes to mind:

" A set of facts of facts or circumstances that would cause an ordinary, cautious, and prudent person to believe . . . "

Early in my career, I would often use the benchmark of 'what would my dad think' if I was unsure of my grounds. He was a depression-era, farm raised accountant; probably the most cautious and prudent person I knew.