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.

 

[brihard]

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:

View attachment 95314

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.

Look at the very specific question I was answering- it was whether self defence should be a legal presumption in the case of, simply, an intruder. I simply said no and gave one single example of why it being presumptive is probably a bad idea. I could come up with lots more. The only point Inwas making was that such a presumption would be overbroad. Absolutely an armed home invader is different from a confused drunk, and that’s the point I was making. The question posed to me wouldn’t have differentiated them.

I strongly believe in the right to self defence and the right to defend one’s one home and family from intruders. I would like to see the pendulum swing a fair bit from where it is now, in favour of the resident of the home. There are legal ways to do that. Mostly though the useful contribution (if any) that I can make here is speaking about the law as it is, and some considerations police would have. I’m being super carefully in any hypotheticals I give, and I’m not going to go to the point of giving specific hypothetical ways the law could be worded.

In general I would like to see more deference given to the resident. I would like to see being in one’s own residence confronted by someone who doesn’t live there as a statutorily listed factor to consider in self defence. I’d like to see the benefit of the doubt (which, at trial, will resolve in favour of the lawful resident) applied earlier in the process when charges are considered… BUT, for very practical reasons, I think anyone seriously hurting someone else in self defense still needs to bear the onus to say at least a bit of ‘why?’ specifically so that we can more easily feel comfortable about a self defence theory much earlier on. The right to silence is right and proper and I 100% support that. But it means we don’t have that knowledge to work with at that early stage.

No matter how something unfolds, police arriving to find someone seriously hurt or dead still have a duty to investigate. We’ve gotta figure out our 5Ws to the best of our ability. We’ve gotta secure physical evidence- weapons, gunshot residue, ballistics, blood spatter, video/audio if any, statements if possible, all that jazz.

Above I have a hypothetical example of where I comfortably wouldn’t at a charge. I could have lots more examples where I would be less comfortable and wouldn’t charge, just so that’s clear, but I was basically asked for a ‘perfect’ situation and gave one. If someone defends themselves in their home and is reasonable given the fullness of the circumstances, I want them to come out of the situation OK. I think someone waking up to find someone in their home can do a LOT of reasonable things to protect themselves. I just also realize and accept that even in those instances there are still lots of ways someone could cross the line.

I definitely have no sympathy for those who violently enter others’ homes. My own personal sentiment and the law aren’t totally aligned on that… But none of us are here because of any great interest in my personal opinion.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Look at the very specific question I was answering- it was whether self defence should be a legal presumption in the case of, simply, an intruder. I simply said no and gave one single example of why it being presumptive is probably a bad idea. I could come up with lots more. The only point Inwas making was that such a presumption would be overbroad. Absolutely an armed home invader is different from a confused drunk, and that’s the point I was making. The question posed to me wouldn’t have differentiated them.

I strongly believe in the right to self defence and the right to defend one’s one home and family from intruders. I would like to see the pendulum swing a fair bit from where it is now, in favour of the resident of the home. There are legal ways to do that. Mostly though the useful contribution (if any) that I can make here is speaking about the law as it is, and some considerations police would have. I’m being super carefully in any hypotheticals I give, and I’m not going to go to the point of giving specific hypothetical ways the law could be worded.

In general I would like to see more deference given to the resident. I would like to see being in one’s own residence confronted by someone who doesn’t live there as a statutorily listed factor to consider in self defence. I’d like to see the benefit of the doubt (which, at trial, will resolve in favour of the lawful resident) applied earlier in the process when charges are considered… BUT, for very practical reasons, I think anyone seriously hurting someone else in self defense still needs to bear the onus to say at least a bit of ‘why?’ specifically so that we can more easily feel comfortable about a self defence theory much earlier on. The right to silence is right and proper and I 100% support that. But it means we don’t have that knowledge to work with at that early stage.

No matter how something unfolds, police arriving to find someone seriously hurt or dead still have a duty to investigate. We’ve gotta figure out our 5Ws to the best of our ability. We’ve gotta secure physical evidence- weapons, gunshot residue, ballistics, blood spatter, video/audio if any, statements if possible, all that jazz.

Above I have a hypothetical example of where I comfortably wouldn’t at a charge. I could have lots more examples where I would be less comfortable and wouldn’t charge, just so that’s clear, but I was basically asked for a ‘perfect’ situation and gave one. If someone defends themselves in their home and is reasonable given the fullness of the circumstances, I want them to come out of the situation OK. I think someone waking up to find someone in their home can do a LOT of reasonable things to protect themselves. I just also realize and accept that even in those instances there are still lots of ways someone could cross the line.

I definitely have no sympathy for those who violently enter others’ homes. My own personal sentiment and the law aren’t totally aligned on that… But none of us are here because of any great interest in my personal opinion.

I am fully cognizant that the law is not on my side. I'm not even sure the Law or LEOs are there protect me and my family any more, but that's a whole other topic. And I will admit my bias against police, which I think is well established on these means.

Happy to hear you say "I would like to see the pendulum swing a fair bit from where it is now" and "I definitely have no sympathy for those who violently enter others’ homes" I will be honest I didn't expect that from you. I expected us to be much more at odds on this topic.

There no issue with police investigation, and I agree it needs to be done. I want law and order, but I want it working on behalf of the innocent victim. What I don't like is the victim is having to go to court and defend themselves for defending themselves, and probably facing financial ruin.

Let me be clear, I am not advocating for bands of vigilantes roaming the streets handing out instant justice. But I also don't want good people scared to fight back and defend themselves, or face retribution from the courts when police cant be there.

 

[brihard]

I am fully cognizant that the law is not on my side. I'm not even sure the Law or LEOs are there protect me and my family any more, but that's a whole other topic. And I will admit my bias against police, which I think is well established on these means.

Happy to hear you say "I would like to see the pendulum swing a fair bit from where it is now" and "I definitely have no sympathy for those who violently enter others’ homes" I will be honest I didn't expect that from you. I expected us to be much more at odds on this topic.

There no issue with police investigation, and I agree it needs to be done. I want law and order, but I want it working on behalf of the innocent victim. What I don't like is the victim is having to go to court and defend themselves for defending themselves, and probably facing financial ruin.

Let me be clear, I am not advocating for bands of vigilantes roaming the streets handing our instant justice. But I also don't want good people scared to fight back and defend themselves, or face retribution from the courts when police cant be there.

We’re a lot more agreed than you think, and you’ve been misreading me for a while. That said you’ve only got what I’ve given you to work with, and I tend not to shoot from the hip but rather to show up a bit later in discussions here and offer my take from a more legalistic standpoint. Doesn’t mean I’m always talking about my own personal opinion, but that’s not usually useful, whereas ‘what I know’ might be a little bit.

In my line of work (and outside of it) I’ve seen a lot of human awfulness. So I’m very well aware that there are predators and monsters out there, and I want to see people safe from them, and feeling able to protect themselves from them, whether at home or out and about their day. I also want people to feel they can lawfully intervene to protect others from violent crime as it happens, and I don’t expect anything remotely close to perfection in how they do so. I hope that clears up my own personal feelings a bit more for you. And I know you’re not calling for torch-and/pitchfork vigilantism either.

I look forward to learning more about this case and what if anything it can teach us. We needs laws that protect people like Ian Thompson without enabling bad choices like those made by Peter Khill. And then somewhere in the middle of all that we get much more challenging cases like Gerald Stanley. I have no idea where on that spectrum this case falls.