- Reaction score
- 10,286
- Points
- 1,160
Don't forget about Climate Change driving people to commit crime. That's why our carbon tax and switching to EV is so important. It will prevent crime where it starts.
Self Defence in Canada (split from Gun Control 2.0)
- Thread starter Jarnhamar
- Start date
Don't forget about Climate Change driving people to commit crime. That's why our carbon tax and switching to EV is so important. It will prevent crime where it starts.
- Reaction score
- 21,049
- Points
- 1,010
There a more than a few farmers in Western Canada that would like to talk to you about your theory that home invasions only happen in urban areas…
- Reaction score
- 5,758
- Points
- 1,260
I remember a certain PM and AG having a falling out when said PM tried to instruct said AG in how to prosecute files. Many people here, myself included, didn’t think that was cool.
- Reaction score
- 8,518
- Points
- 1,160
But that isn’t the case here.
Nobody is advocating having a Premier ORDER an AG or an AG ORDERING a Crown Attorney.
However there is no reason why the three parties can't sit down to a round table and discuss a way forward on the problem.
- Reaction score
- 8,518
- Points
- 1,160
I see the confusion from my statement. The AG telling a Crown to stand down would be interference and shouldn’t happen. I mispoke when I typed this response. However, again, I see no reason discussions can't be held and a way forward found that benefits the province.
- Reaction score
- 15,475
- Points
- 1,160
I think the AG can offer advice to the CA's that self-defense in Canada legally exists and should not be viewed unfavourably and people who use that right should not be subject to lawfare. To believe the CA's have not in the past being motived by politics and by social views to impose behaviours on people that are not normally subject to the legal system by the threat of process and the ability to fiscally destroy someone, even if the individual may eventually win.
Oddly the system is more of a threat to people that rarely cross it, than to those that encounter it on a regular basis.
Oddly the system is more of a threat to people that rarely cross it, than to those that encounter it on a regular basis.
- Reaction score
- 5,423
- Points
- 1,160
I understand that there are rural property invasions, thefts, etc. but are they plagued with actual 'home' invasions? I suspect that using force to defend your dwelling house and the family within it will be looked on more favourably than using force to stop someone from stealing your tractor. I'm not diminishing the impact of rural crime, but it is probably apples to a home invasion oranges.
*****
To clarify my earlier comments, when I mentioned 'MAG', I meant the Ministry, not the Minister. There are a number of layers between a local Crown Attorney and the Minister, and it would be inappropriate under our system for the political minister, who may or may not be a lawyer, to interfere with prosecutorial discretion.
******
An article from a former boss:
Self defense in your own home: It’s bigger than fight or comply
www.lighthouseleadershipservices.com
- Reaction score
- 15,475
- Points
- 1,160
From the CSSA PR team. I agree that tracking this trend is important.
On September 1, 2025, in the quiet suburbs of Vaughan, Ontario, Abdul Aleem Farooqi, a 46-year-old father of four, gave his life to protect his children.https://4atxtpxab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp...Hejp00nurq8MJF2lzSSJi4NMnega_mkstqgzzpqiUKg==
When Farooqi dared stand between his children and the men who came to terrorize them, the intruders murdered him.
Farooqi’s brother called him a "hero," but to the rest of Canada, he's a stark reminder of how the rash of home invasions shatter our illusion of safety inside our own homes.
Just days earlier, in Markham, a woman was kidnapped while driving, and her residence was invaded, leaving a 54-year-old man shot in the chaos.[ii]
These aren't isolated horrors; they're part of a wave sweeping across Canada.
In the last six months, headlines have screamed about the escalating violence.
Families are installing fortified window films and debating self-defence laws, and federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre demands Criminal Code reforms to protect homeowners who fight back.[ix]
York Police Chief Jim MacSween's advice to "hide and comply" has ignited a furious backlash from citizens who fear for their safety and know police cannot arrive in time to save them.[x]
Yet, for all the media frenzy, one glaring truth emerges.
We have no idea how bad the Home Invasion Crisis really is.
Why not?
Because home invasions aren’t tracked by police or Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada only tracks crimes explicitly listed in the Criminal Code.
Home invasions don’t exist as a distinct category in our national Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system.
Since “home invasion” appears only as an aggravating factor under section 348.1 (a subset of breaking and entering), police shuffle these crimes into vague buckets—assaults, thefts, break and enters.
The result? A national blindness to one of the most terrifying crimes a family can endure.[xi]
Without accurate data, we’re left to guess.
Is the crisis spreading across Canada, or is it confined to the GTA?
Are fatalities climbing?
Is this now random violence or only “targeted” attacks as police often insist?
We can’t answer those questions, not because the answers don’t exist, but because the data doesn’t exist.
Auto thefts—now a standalone Criminal Code offence since 2010—were curbed through targeted policing and tech like GPS trackers, so criminals are adapting.
Organized networks, once focused on joyrides and stealing cars, appear to be shifting to "easier" targets, like invading homes, beating occupants, and stealing whatever they can: car keys, money, bank account PINs, and anything else of value.
Recent home invasions left victims with severed tendons from machetes, hammer assaults, and, in Farooqi's case, the death of a loving husband and father.[xii]
Police often downplay incidents as "targeted" to soothe the public’s fears, but what if they're not targeted?
What if those home invasions are actually random, as the Farooqi case suggests?
Without accurate statistical reporting, it’s impossible to know the answer.
Trend data would reveal if the severity of home invasions is escalating.
Local police forces aren't coding "home invasion" distinctly, so only the most horrific examples are reported in the media.
Imagine the policy goldmine that real data on "home invasions" could deliver.
The answers to these questions would help policymakers tackle the problem effectively.
Armed with facts, we could allocate police resources to high-risk areas, bolster bail reforms (as York Police urges after the Farooqi murder), or amend the Code to make home invasion a standalone offence, mirroring auto theft's evolution.
What’s clear is that the Justice Department and federal government must act.
They must instruct Statistics Canada to issue UCR codes for home invasions or introduce legislation elevating it to a reportable crime.
Suggested categories—entry with intent, weapon use, occupant harm, and targeting—would provide nuance without overhauling the system.
Canadians once believed their homes were castles, safe from violation. That illusion is being burned to the ground.
Families like Farooqi’s deserve more than vigils and hashtags. They deserve prevention options grounded in reality, not guesswork.
Until we demand the truth, we are groping in the dark while criminals kick in the door.[xiii]
Without it, we're just guessing in the dark while criminals kick in the door.
On September 1, 2025, in the quiet suburbs of Vaughan, Ontario, Abdul Aleem Farooqi, a 46-year-old father of four, gave his life to protect his children.https://4atxtpxab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp...Hejp00nurq8MJF2lzSSJi4NMnega_mkstqgzzpqiUKg==
When Farooqi dared stand between his children and the men who came to terrorize them, the intruders murdered him.
Farooqi’s brother called him a "hero," but to the rest of Canada, he's a stark reminder of how the rash of home invasions shatter our illusion of safety inside our own homes.
Just days earlier, in Markham, a woman was kidnapped while driving, and her residence was invaded, leaving a 54-year-old man shot in the chaos.[ii]
These aren't isolated horrors; they're part of a wave sweeping across Canada.
In the last six months, headlines have screamed about the escalating violence.
- Peel Police arrested an organized crime ring behind 17 brutal invasions affecting over 60 victims including nine children.[iii]
- Toronto Police Service data shows 131 home-invasion robberies were reported by August 2025, already surpassing pre-2024 annual totals.[iv]
- A Brampton man was shot in his bed. His wife vows her family "can't stay here anymore."[v]
- Arrests of 12 suspects in a spree netting $1.8 million in stolen luxury goods.[vi]
- York Regional Police noted an alarming 11-home-invasion cluster in early 2025 alone.[vii]
- Toronto police report a 105% year-over-year surge in total invasions, even as car-theft-linked home invasions dip slightly, signalling a terrifying pivot to direct, personal terror.[viii]
Families are installing fortified window films and debating self-defence laws, and federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre demands Criminal Code reforms to protect homeowners who fight back.[ix]
York Police Chief Jim MacSween's advice to "hide and comply" has ignited a furious backlash from citizens who fear for their safety and know police cannot arrive in time to save them.[x]
Yet, for all the media frenzy, one glaring truth emerges.
We have no idea how bad the Home Invasion Crisis really is.
Why not?
Because home invasions aren’t tracked by police or Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada only tracks crimes explicitly listed in the Criminal Code.
Home invasions don’t exist as a distinct category in our national Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system.
Since “home invasion” appears only as an aggravating factor under section 348.1 (a subset of breaking and entering), police shuffle these crimes into vague buckets—assaults, thefts, break and enters.
The result? A national blindness to one of the most terrifying crimes a family can endure.[xi]
Without accurate data, we’re left to guess.
Is the crisis spreading across Canada, or is it confined to the GTA?
Are fatalities climbing?
Is this now random violence or only “targeted” attacks as police often insist?
We can’t answer those questions, not because the answers don’t exist, but because the data doesn’t exist.
Auto thefts—now a standalone Criminal Code offence since 2010—were curbed through targeted policing and tech like GPS trackers, so criminals are adapting.
Organized networks, once focused on joyrides and stealing cars, appear to be shifting to "easier" targets, like invading homes, beating occupants, and stealing whatever they can: car keys, money, bank account PINs, and anything else of value.
Recent home invasions left victims with severed tendons from machetes, hammer assaults, and, in Farooqi's case, the death of a loving husband and father.[xii]
Police often downplay incidents as "targeted" to soothe the public’s fears, but what if they're not targeted?
What if those home invasions are actually random, as the Farooqi case suggests?
Without accurate statistical reporting, it’s impossible to know the answer.
Trend data would reveal if the severity of home invasions is escalating.
Local police forces aren't coding "home invasion" distinctly, so only the most horrific examples are reported in the media.
Imagine the policy goldmine that real data on "home invasions" could deliver.
- Since invasions have spiked 105% in Toronto, what happened in other major cities?
- Are home invasions primarily an urban issue?
- Or do they happen in rural areas too?
- Is there a common denominator to motives?
The answers to these questions would help policymakers tackle the problem effectively.
Armed with facts, we could allocate police resources to high-risk areas, bolster bail reforms (as York Police urges after the Farooqi murder), or amend the Code to make home invasion a standalone offence, mirroring auto theft's evolution.
What’s clear is that the Justice Department and federal government must act.
They must instruct Statistics Canada to issue UCR codes for home invasions or introduce legislation elevating it to a reportable crime.
Suggested categories—entry with intent, weapon use, occupant harm, and targeting—would provide nuance without overhauling the system.
This isn't about fearmongering. It's about basing policy on facts, not fear.
Canadians once believed their homes were castles, safe from violation. That illusion is being burned to the ground.
Families like Farooqi’s deserve more than vigils and hashtags. They deserve prevention options grounded in reality, not guesswork.
Until we demand the truth, we are groping in the dark while criminals kick in the door.[xiii]
Without it, we're just guessing in the dark while criminals kick in the door.
- Reaction score
- 7,014
- Points
- 1,360
Latest on Lindsay case ...
www.thecanadianpressnews.ca
Case of Lindsay, Ont., man charged with assaulting home intruder put over to December
The lawyer for a Lindsay, Ont., man who is charged with assaulting an alleged home intruder says "all options" will be discussed with Crown attorneys as they review the evidence
CountDC
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 666
- Points
- 1,090
sooooo - if someone breaks into my house and falls onto my sledgehammer can I be charged?
I have never ever supported the vagueness of the term "reasonable" as what I would consider reasonable may not be the same as someone else. With a family of 6 including handicapped children I think it is reasonable to incapacitate an invader before they can attack and possibly cause harm to any of them. Running away is not an option unless I want to sacrifice my family nor is it reasonable to wait as the fact they have invaded our house is in itself a threat to my family. Are they armed? No idea what is up their sleeve, in their pocket, tucked in their belt, etc and prefer not to find out the hard way by injury to a family member.
I debated the issue of "it could just be a drunk in the wrong house" alibi/defence. Problem with that is when do we accept being drunk as a valid excuse and defence? Do we accept that when it is a driver or someone accused of sexual assault? I prefer to err in the family defence rather than the home invader. I have known a number of drunks and consider them being more a physical threat than the sober invader. That drunk thinks he is home and liable to be more aggressive in defending his house than the invader hoping for a quick jewelry score.
Basically I think it is ridiculous to expect a person in their own home to wait to be attacked and then only use the vague reasonable and proportional defence. Incapacitate, secure and hand over to the police when they eventually arrive should be the rule. If they brandish a knife and you have a gun then too bad for them. If it takes killing them to incapacitate and secure then so be it, I for one am willing to leave it to the defender to determine what level is needed for their family to feel safe from an intruder.
I have never ever supported the vagueness of the term "reasonable" as what I would consider reasonable may not be the same as someone else. With a family of 6 including handicapped children I think it is reasonable to incapacitate an invader before they can attack and possibly cause harm to any of them. Running away is not an option unless I want to sacrifice my family nor is it reasonable to wait as the fact they have invaded our house is in itself a threat to my family. Are they armed? No idea what is up their sleeve, in their pocket, tucked in their belt, etc and prefer not to find out the hard way by injury to a family member.
I debated the issue of "it could just be a drunk in the wrong house" alibi/defence. Problem with that is when do we accept being drunk as a valid excuse and defence? Do we accept that when it is a driver or someone accused of sexual assault? I prefer to err in the family defence rather than the home invader. I have known a number of drunks and consider them being more a physical threat than the sober invader. That drunk thinks he is home and liable to be more aggressive in defending his house than the invader hoping for a quick jewelry score.
Basically I think it is ridiculous to expect a person in their own home to wait to be attacked and then only use the vague reasonable and proportional defence. Incapacitate, secure and hand over to the police when they eventually arrive should be the rule. If they brandish a knife and you have a gun then too bad for them. If it takes killing them to incapacitate and secure then so be it, I for one am willing to leave it to the defender to determine what level is needed for their family to feel safe from an intruder.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 28,464
- Points
- 1,260
Reasonable Person criteria is designed to take the average view of the population of the region and put them in the shoes of the individual.
Yes the circumstances are taken into account, so the expectation is that someone with family that was mobility limited would not have the ability to retreat. But it also isn’t reasonable to blast unknown people without warning (at least in most places).
You need to be able to articulate your actions and why you used the force you did.
I wouldn’t get to wrapped around the drunk intruder side bar.
- Reaction score
- 2,883
- Points
- 1,040
I am at the point where the legalities matter less to me than the safety of my family. I now carry a knife on me everywhere because it is a useful tool. Has absolutely nothing to do with the random stabbings by mentally deranged and drug addicted individuals in my community killing random people in public.
Just look at Halifax, a 21 year old is dead because a asshole was driving 120km/h in a 50km/h zone and hit her. He didn’t even stop to try and help, instead kept driving until he hit another vehicle. Only got 4 years for this crime.
The criminals receive next to no punishment in this country yet those who simply want their families and neighbours safe become the scapegoat for government punishment. None of it makes sense, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
- Reaction score
- 2,679
- Points
- 1,090
if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear does it still make a sound?
- Reaction score
- 2,883
- Points
- 1,040
Sorry missed one other key detail. He hit this poor girl after he was fleeing another accident he caused. 4 years in jail. Then he gets to go scot free. Absolutely disgusted with this country.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 15,924
- Points
- 1,260
Swing, shovel, shut up.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 28,464
- Points
- 1,260
Or to quote the immortal Ralph Klein:
Shoot, Shovel, Shut-Up…
*to be clear I am not endorsing that activity.
A chipper/shredder and lye is a much better option
A data-founded approach is absolutely merited and wouldn’t be a huge lift. The article incorrectly states that Uniform Crime Reporting statistical collection only reports individual specific crimes. That’s not so. While there is a UCR scoring line for most individual criminal offences, there’s all kinds of other qualitative or quantitative data presently collected.
One approach - legislative - could be to add a subsection of B&E to residence ‘where presently occupied’ or B&E residence ‘with assault to occupants’ or something like that. That could allow for charges to capture a nuance of someone being home, or of additional persons offences being caused in the course of the same event. An option like that would become a separate UCR option. Creating a distinct offence for what could be loosely categorized as ‘home invasions’ would also be a bit of an easy button for distinction treatment in sentencing or bail.
Alternatively, a statistical line could be added to present UCR options to capture the presence of lawful occupants during a B&E- though they would probably fail to distinguish cases where an intruder discovers occupants and flees, versus goes in knowing there’s people there.
So yeah, stats would be good, and wouldn’t be too difficult to built on to the existing reporting system.
- Reaction score
- 35,694
- Points
- 1,090
#TeamFargoOr to quote the immortal Ralph Klein:
Shoot, Shovel, Shut-Up…
*to be clear I am not endorsing that activity.
A chipper/shredder and lye is a much better option
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 15,924
- Points
- 1,260
Or to quote the immortal Ralph Klein:
Shoot, Shovel, Shut-Up…
*to be clear I am not endorsing that activity.
A chipper/shredder and lye is a much better option
I was incorporating his sledge hammer.
Also the Atlantic is big deep place.
- Reaction score
- 5,423
- Points
- 1,160
I'm not a huge fan of adding criminal offences where current ones are adequate. Governments like to do this. I would rather see differentiations in sentencing provisions to sanction certain circumstances.
Similar threads
