• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Self Defence in Canada (split from Gun Control 2.0)

Even with such a verbal prompt every officer is still accountable for the lawfulness of their use of force. Someone of a higher rank saying “shoot him” would not absolve a police officer of legal responsibility for a bad shoot.
110%. My point was more that there has been clear correlation with ‘sympathetic shootings’ from verbal and physical cues from other officers.

I know one case down here that is still working its way through the courts the Grand Jury indicted both the shooter and the partner who yelled shoot.

I’m not sure how it works in terms of any additional nuance in a formal critical incident command context where a Critical Incident Commander is in charge and has, say, a sniper set up. Booter may speak to this.
As @Booter already pointed out there is ideally a pre brief on the mission where the UoF for sniper engagement is outlined.

Years ago when I did a few things out in LA with SIS (before their rebrand) they had a DA go over UoF and articulation before the hits.
“After the 2nd or third shot remember to say ‘Stop Police’ as the witnesses will recall that but not usually the engagement sequence”. SIS went after violent criminals on their third strike and where looking at Life in prison - so they didn’t often go quietly - as a result the result was more of a LE execution squad than a arrest unit. During the OIS’s the list of individuals at the scene was scrubbed of a lot of non LAPD and non LEO personnel. They got a bad rap due to some bad apples, and admittedly the system somewhat rewarded excesses, but it was very effective cleaning up the streets, and reducing the folks needing to be reintroduced to the penal system for life.

Later as a LEO working on the VFTF’s it became clear that very few ‘bad guys’ actually had the stones to try to shoot it out with LE when faced with a clear presence of folks willing to kill them if justified, my opinion was that the SIS setup of plainclothes raids often tended to encourage violent resistance and the resultant shootings of the felons. Most ‘tough’ criminals prey upon the weak and often kill defenseless people, and a straight up gunfight isn’t something they will be willing to do even with superior numbers. Sometimes a LEO being viewed as a stone cold killer has a very deescalating effect. It can go very sideways if the gunfighter mentality takes over though and shootings become the goal, and officers start notching their sidearms with their kills (Albuquerque and Roswell NM SWAT for example - where the State Police and Feds had to step in to break it up).

The more competent you are with a gun, to me often leaves you a greater window to react and not resort to lethal force. But also LE down here in shall issue and open carry states, you need to expect everyone is armed, and so seeing weapons isn’t necessarily an indication of an actual threat, and if you went to Taser let alone sidearm or carbine for every knife or pistol etc you saw, you’d never get anything done and your’d be dictating incident reports the entire shift and not on the road.
 
it appears that Chief MacSween of the York Regional Police has faced some pushback from his recent suggestions that Canadians cooperate fully with home invaders. He's backtracked somewhat.

1757266867181.png
 
He isn’t completely wrong. Families who dip out when there is a home invasion, anecdotally, fair well. But we re in kindve uncharted territory- I’ve never seen so many armed break and enters that weren’t targeted for being involved in drugs or org crime.

These types of crimes were super infrequent. Now they are increasingly less so.

I suppose I feel a certain way about having to leave. I’m of a bunch of minds at once on it. If I was a victim of such a thing I would be fighting forward- so that my family had the opportunity to be safe etc. I’m not going on some prolonged defence gathering them up to get out. I’m creating tactical dilemmas for the intruders…

I don’t know man. We re in weird times.
 
He isn’t completely wrong. Families who dip out when there is a home invasion, anecdotally, fair well. But we re in kindve uncharted territory- I’ve never seen so many armed break and enters that weren’t targeted for being involved in drugs or org crime.

These types of crimes were super infrequent. Now they are increasingly less so.

I suppose I feel a certain way about having to leave. I’m of a bunch of minds at once on it. If I was a victim of such a thing I would be fighting forward- so that my family had the opportunity to be safe etc. I’m not going on some prolonged defence gathering them up to get out. I’m creating tactical dilemmas for the intruders…

I don’t know man. We re in weird times.
What he's proposing is completely dependant on the victims being able to/having an opportunity to leave. If there are valuables the intruders want and can't access (such as a house safe or gun locker) escape routes will probably be cut off.
 
What he's proposing is completely dependant on the victims being able to/having an opportunity to leave. If there are valuables the intruders want and can't access (such as a house safe or gun locker) escape routes will probably be cut off.
People that purposely do a home invasion with people inside, likley want two things, to get a buzz out of terrorizing the people and to get them to give up the valuables, letting the people go is counter-productive to their efforts and puts them at higher risk of being apprehended.
 
He isn’t completely wrong. Families who dip out when there is a home invasion, anecdotally, fair well.
I think as a police chief he should have the presence of mind to see the optics of his comment before making it, especially with the amount of break ins and violence going on.

Someone could probably argue that the best way a woman can survive a rape is to go along with it. Sometimes it can be better to not offer advice IMO.
 
What he's proposing is completely dependant on the victims being able to/having an opportunity to leave. If there are valuables the intruders want and can't access (such as a house safe or gun locker) escape routes will probably be cut off.
Matt Gurney and Jen Gerson on this week’s The Line podcast discussed this very thing.

They also raised the very valid point that if people are conditioned to submit to criminal acts meekly, general deterrence fails and criminal acts with become more common and more brazen (a criminal has nothing fear).

If, however, homeowners fight back during a home invasion and criminals begin to detect that they have, say, a 1 in 10 chance of getting a shotgun blast to the chest if they violently kick in a door, that tends to have a moderating effect on crime.
 
In some situations, it might good advice. On the street, guy pulls a knife and demands your wallet, I might give it to him. But if someone breaks into my house at 0-dark:30 hrs and I can’t get my family out another entrance, compliance is not an option. I don’t know if he wants my TV or to harm us.
 
You are asleep in your bed, second floor. The door is kicked in and the mob is inside. You are still coming out of your sleep going WTF is that? If one of these punks decide he needs to get his spurs or they don't want witnesses, the Chiefs comments and direction are fucking useless. You are either at their mercy 100% or you going to go bankrupt, spending 10s of thousands of dollars, trying to defend yourself against an overzealous Crown because you chose to protect your family.

The provincial AG has the power to stop the local Crown prosecuting you. Perhaps the Premiers should be shopping for an AG that believes in Castle Law.

I know lots of cops and I don’t think a single one would follow the chiefs advice. Nor do I believe the Chief would himself if faced with the situation.

We need a Prime Minister like Trinidad.
 
Matt Gurney and Jen Gerson on this week’s The Line podcast discussed this very thing.

They also raised the very valid point that if people are conditioned to submit to criminal acts meekly, general deterrence fails and criminal acts with become more common and more brazen (a criminal has nothing fear).

If, however, homeowners fight back during a home invasion and criminals begin to detect that they have, say, a 1 in 10 chance of getting a shotgun blast to the chest if they violently kick in a door, that tends to have a moderating effect on crime.

FWIW, from last February...

2 x dead, 2 x arrested, no charges laid against owner, residents uninjured, happy ending...

 
FWIW, from last February...

2 x dead, 2 x arrested, no charges laid against owner, residents uninjured, happy ending...

That occurred not far from me and the local rumour mill put in some serious overtime on this incident. All I will add is that no charges have been laid, yet.

From what I have heard, the investigation is still ongoing.
 
You are asleep in your bed, second floor. The door is kicked in and the mob is inside. You are still coming out of your sleep going WTF is that? If one of these punks decide he needs to get his spurs or they don't want witnesses, the Chiefs comments and direction are fucking useless. You are either at their mercy 100% or you going to go bankrupt, spending 10s of thousands of dollars, trying to defend yourself against an overzealous Crown because you chose to protect your family.

The provincial AG has the power to stop the local Crown prosecuting you. Perhaps the Premiers should be shopping for an AG that believes in Castle Law.

I know lots of cops and I don’t think a single one would follow the chiefs advice. Nor do I believe the Chief would himself if faced with the situation.

We need a Prime Minister like Trinidad.
Hey did you not hear the AG for Canada? You know that clown that said "this isn't the Wild West. It's Canada"

Yeah that useless tool.

Useless GIF by hero0fwar
 
Hey did you not hear the AG for Canada? You know that clown that said "this isn't the Wild West. It's Canada"

Yeah that useless tool.

Useless GIF by hero0fwar
It apparently doesn't matter about the dunce in Ottawa.

I asked GROK:
In the case of a home invasion causing harm or death who is responsible for laying charges and prosecuting the individual. Who has final say as to whether charges are filed. Provincial or federal AG?

Answer:
In Canada, in the case of a home invasion causing harm or death, the responsibility for laying charges and prosecuting the individual primarily falls to the provincial authorities, specifically the Crown Attorney's office under the direction of the Attorney General of Ontario. Here's a breakdown of the process and responsibilities:
  1. Laying Charges:
    • Police: The process begins with the police (municipal or provincial, such as the Ontario Provincial Police) investigating the home invasion. They gather evidence and, if they believe there is sufficient evidence, lay charges under the Criminal Code of Canada (e.g., for offenses like break and enter, assault, manslaughter, or murder).
    • Crown Attorney's Role: In Ontario, once charges are laid, the case is reviewed by the Crown Attorney's office, which operates under the provincial Attorney General. The Crown Attorney assesses the evidence to determine whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether prosecution is in the public interest. They have the authority to proceed with, amend, or withdraw charges.
  2. Prosecution:
    • The prosecution of criminal offenses, including those related to a home invasion, is handled by the provincial Crown Attorney's office in Ontario. This is because, under Canada's Constitution Act, 1867, the administration of justice, including the prosecution of Criminal Code offenses, is a provincial responsibility (section 92(14)).
    • The Crown Attorney's office, acting under the authority of the Attorney General of Ontario, manages the prosecution process, including presenting the case in court.
  3. Who Has Final Say on Whether Charges Are Filed?
    • The provincial Crown Attorney, under the direction of the Attorney General of Ontario, has the final say on whether charges proceed to prosecution. After the police lay charges, the Crown reviews the case and decides whether to pursue it, withdraw charges, or modify them. This decision is based on prosecutorial guidelines, including the strength of evidence and public interest.
    • The police can recommend charges, but they do not have the authority to proceed with prosecution; that power rests with the Crown.
  4. Role of the Federal Attorney General:
    • The federal Attorney General (also the Minister of Justice) has a limited role in criminal prosecutions. Their jurisdiction primarily covers federal statutes (e.g., drug trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or terrorism offenses) and specific Criminal Code offenses explicitly assigned to federal prosecutors (e.g., certain national security or organized crime cases).
    • For a home invasion causing harm or death, the offenses (e.g., murder, manslaughter, or break and enter) are under the Criminal Code, which is federal law, but the prosecution is delegated to the provinces. The federal Attorney General does not typically intervene or have authority over such cases unless they involve federal jurisdiction (e.g., a case involving a federal facility or a specific federal interest).
    • The federal Attorney General does not have the final say in these cases; that authority lies with the provincial Crown.
  5. Exceptions and Cooperation:
    • In rare cases, if the home invasion involves complex issues like organized crime or national security, the federal government (through the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, under the federal Attorney General) might take a role, but this would be an exception.
    • The federal and provincial attorneys general may collaborate on policy or high-profile cases, but day-to-day prosecution decisions for crimes like home invasion rest with the province.
Summary:The Attorney General of Ontario, through the Crown Attorney's office, is responsible for prosecuting a home invasion causing harm or death and has the final say on whether charges are pursued. The federal Attorney General has no direct jurisdiction over such cases unless they involve specific federal interests. The process starts with police laying charges, but the Crown (provincial) decides whether to proceed based on evidence and public interest.
 
Ford wants Castle Law. I don't think there is much to do about that, when it comes to the Criminal Code. However, given the above and that the provincial AG has jurisdiction, the AG can just tell his Crown Attorney's not to charge homeowners who stand their ground and injure or kill a criminal invader. The AG is appointed by the Lt Gov on the advice of the Premier. I'm sure Ford and Downey (ON AG) could come to some arrangement that wouldn’t result in charges to a homeowner.
 
Someone with better legal knowledge than me will have to get involved here but the provincial Attorney Generals generally cannot directly interfere with a Crown Prosecutor's decisions, as Crown prosecutors operate and are guided by legal duties, not political directives. While the AG is the ultimate head of the Crown's office, the day-to-day prosecution of cases is handled independently to ensure fair and impartial justice and the AG cannot be seen as interfering politically in cases. I think you are possibly thinking more of what is seen in the states but I have no confidence in any of this answer. It’s not my thing. Hopefully a smarter person can correct me- provincial AG in Canada is arms length.
 
That occurred not far from me and the local rumour mill put in some serious overtime on this incident. All I will add is that no charges have been laid, yet.

From what I have heard, the investigation is still ongoing.
I suspect that since it has been rattling around since February, a Crown Brief has been assembled and forwarded to the Crown (local, regional or MAG in Toronto) and it is sitting there. Whether it is in a pile in an in-tray or being assessed for a carefully crafted response (one way or the other) who knows. Whoever makes the ultimate decision owns it.

Police in Ontario do not have to seek Crown approval to lay charges but it absolutely does happen in complex, high-profile or sensitive cases.

I doubt the MAG would ever issue definitive, prescriptive or proscriptive guidelines to its Crowns. They want to maintain prosecutorial discretion and do not want to own a decision.

*****

I'm of a couple of minds regarding the proliferation of home invasions in the GTA. On one hand, they could simply be random criminals doing untargetted invasions, but there are a lot of ethnic enclaves in Toronto's suburbia and I wouldn't rule out ethnic organized crime, either going after their own community, a rival community or trying to exercise control over a particular turf. Certain cultural communities are known to favour large amounts of jewelry or cash. Not a lot of home invasions in farm country.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top