The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[suffolkowner]

self defence is an affirmative defence that you pretty much have to claim on your own behalf. If we show up and we’re looking at some dude laying on the floor whose innards are now his outtards, and we don’t have someone telling us what happened so we can form a reasonable belief that it was self defence, well, in that absence of a story we’re investigating discharge firearm with intent, and some version of a homicide offence. Someone who defends themselves will have to tell police or the courts that they were defending themselves. Probably the first source for that info will be from 911 dispatch audio, but more info that that will be needed.

Good chance that in such a hypothetical the resident will be getting arrested at least initially. An arrest doesn’t mean they must be charged.

All that said I’ve never had that call for real. That’s just my take from having thought about it over the years, either as a responding officer (which given what I do now I likely won’t be), or as someone who finds themselves in that position.

the above is a bit of a problem for me. Shouldnt the default position be that a homeowner was exercising self defence when faced with an intruder?

 

[brihard]

the above is a bit of a problem for me. Shouldnt the default position be that a homeowner was exercising self defence when faced with an intruder?

No. Lots of reasons that wouldn’t be a valid assumption. Someone catches an intruder in their home, chases them as they try to escape and shoots them. That’s not a valid self defense claim. You’re opening the door for all kinds of other stupidity with a presumption like that.

The law as it exists allows for quite a bit. If you’re going to badly hurt someone, it can be completely reasonable to do so, but it’s also completely reasonable to bear the onus of explaining why.

I’ve attended enough calls of “drunk guy accidentally makes it ‘home’ to the wrong house”. I prefer not dealing with those as homicides because it’s weapons free.

 

[suffolkowner]

No. Lots of reasons that wouldn’t be a valid assumption. Someone catches an intruder in their home, chases them as they try to escape and shoots them. That’s not a valid self defense claim. You’re opening the door for all kinds of other stupidity with a presumption like that.

The law as it exists allows for quite a bit. If you’re going to badly hurt someone, it can be completely reasonable to do so, but it’s also completely reasonable to bear the onus of explaining why.

I’ve attended enough calls of “drunk guy accidentally makes it ‘home’ to the wrong house”. I prefer not dealing with those as homicides because it’s weapons free.

Well I was crossing out shooting them in the back, tying them up and beating them for a couple days scenarios there.
In this particular case the internet rumours are saying the intruder had a crossbow and even that there might have been more than one.???

 

[Dana381]

Let's not forget the thousands of dollars, restrictions and time that the homeowner is going to incur trying to defend himself from the Crown.

Aggravated assault Not many civies or even soldiers, will be thinking clearly. Adrenaline, fear, flight or fight, unknown assailant, what is their purpose there, what are they armed with, how far are they prepared to go with their attack. All questions you must answer to yourself, in seconds, before acting to ensure you neutralize the threat without opening yourself up to a Crown with skewed priorities.

Although not the case here, if you use a firearm to protect yourself and family, it'll be seized along with any other firearms you own and will stay that way until you have a favourable decision. Probably a couple of years +/- after the incident. If they determine you used excessive force, you'll likely loose everything. Of course once they charge you, you can also likely expect more firearms charges under firearm and ammo storage laws, dangerous usage, etc. They might let you plead it down by surrendering all your guns, PAL and accepting a lifetime firearms ban.


Best advice. Identify yourself, show ID, then clam up until your lawyer is sitting next to you.

Probably a good time to mention, for a $25 yearly fee, the CCFR provides lawyer services with firearms educated lawyers, for firearms related incidents.

Legal Services Bundle - Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights

firearmrights.ca

We need some form of Castle Law here.

Just for clarity the legal services bundle requires you be a member for $40/year + $25/year for the legal bundle.

The legal services you get for your $25/month is a phone call with a lawyer to answer a question. It is not Legal defense insurance.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Just for clarity the legal services bundle requires you be a member for $40/year + $25/year for the legal bundle.

The legal services you get for your $25/month is a phone call with a lawyer to answer a question. It is not Legal defense insurance.

They set you up with a local lawyer, versed in gun law. There are also discounts in lawyer fees to be had. That’s why I provided the link. So people could go directly to the site, read and understand what is and isn't involved, themselves. Rather than speculate on posters interpretations.

Given the costs of the sport, $65/ year is chump change. And everyone with a gun should belong to the CCFR or another national firearms rights group already.

 

[Dana381]

They set you up with a local lawyer, versed in gun law. There are also discounts in lawyer fees to be had. That’s why I provided the link. So people could go directly to the site, read and understand what is and isn't involved, themselves. Rather than speculate on posters interpretations.

Given the costs of the sport, $65/ year is chump change. And everyone with a gun should belong to the CCFR or another national firearms rights group already.

Thank you for making me/us aware of their services. I agree with the membership and I bought it.

When i read your post and went to the site i was confused at first thinking I was getting a legal defense insurance. After reading more clearly I realized what the legal services bundle is and I decided not to get that until I have a question or need to hire a lawyer as I don't see anything requiring a minimum membership time in order to qualify for the discount.

As I was confused I mentioned it so others wouldn't be.

 

[Halifax Tar]

No. Lots of reasons that wouldn’t be a valid assumption. Someone catches an intruder in their home, chases them as they try to escape and shoots them. That’s not a valid self defense claim. You’re opening the door for all kinds of other stupidity with a presumption like that.

The law as it exists allows for quite a bit. If you’re going to badly hurt someone, it can be completely reasonable to do so, but it’s also completely reasonable to bear the onus of explaining why.

I’ve attended enough calls of “drunk guy accidentally makes it ‘home’ to the wrong house”. I prefer not dealing with those as homicides because it’s weapons free.

Someone in the throws of committing a home invasion is not the same as drunk knocking on the wrong door. No one is arguing that.

I googled the definition of Home Invasion in Canada is this what the G machine gave me:

Google Search

I admire you're interest in the fate of the criminal, we need compassionate people. I simply don't share those character traits. Certain things deserve swift and violent ends for the criminal. This would be one for me.