UPDATE: In a statement provided to CBC News, Kawartha Lakes Police Chief Kirk Robertson "touches on the assault charge" handed out to the home owner, after he was the victim of a home invasion.
-
just you’d need a license to have that gun
There is no legal way to have a gun and ammunition that accessible in Canada. In the time it would take you to retrieve both and then load a legally stored gun your home invader could have had a coffee.
Also keeping some other weapon nearby, like a bat by the door, constitutes some kind of premeditation to using it as a weapon.
Self defence laws in Canada are extremely restrictive given the increase in car jacking and home invasions to steal cars.
There is no legal way to have a gun and ammunition that accessible in Canada.
Have you met an RPAL carrier? “Better tried by 12 than carried by 6” is kind of their mantra. I can think of 3 off the top of my head that I know 100% have loaded guns stashed in their residence (no kids).
Also keeping some other weapon nearby, like a bat by the door, constitutes some kind of premeditation to using it as a weapon.
My baseball bat is always in the hallway with my baseball and glove. How you articulate your actions matters. If you incriminate yourself by saying you carry a tool for self defense that’s on you. That’s why lawyers constantly tell you to never talk to the police. What you say can and will be used against you. They are not your friend just because you perceive yourself to be the victim.
Self defence laws in Canada are extremely restrictive given the increase in car jacking and home invasions to steal cars.
Self =! cars and property. Your right to defend yourself or others doesn’t give you the right to assault someone taking your ps5. Can you see how extending self defense rights to property would be a very slippery slope?
-
Ok, gotta answer this…
No, I am the kind of asshole that gives kids the good candies and chocolates on Halloween and asks them whats up the rest of the year, cause you know, ringing my door bell or knocking is not a threat ffs
until you “lose” it and then tragedy ensues
-
There is no legal way to have a gun and ammunition that accessible in Canada.
Have you met an RPAL carrier? “Better tried by 12 than carried by 6” is kind of their mantra. I can think of 3 off the top of my head that I know 100% have loaded guns stashed in their residence (no kids).
Also keeping some other weapon nearby, like a bat by the door, constitutes some kind of premeditation to using it as a weapon.
My baseball bat is always in the hallway with my baseball and glove. How you articulate your actions matters. If you incriminate yourself by saying you carry a tool for self defense that’s on you. That’s why lawyers constantly tell you to never talk to the police. What you say can and will be used against you. They are not your friend just because you perceive yourself to be the victim.
Self defence laws in Canada are extremely restrictive given the increase in car jacking and home invasions to steal cars.
Self =! cars and property. Your right to defend yourself or others doesn’t give you the right to assault someone taking your ps5. Can you see how extending self defense rights to property would be a very slippery slope?
Have you met an RPAL carrier? “Better tried by 12 than carried by 6” is kind of their mantra. I can think of 3 off the top of my head that I know 100% have loaded guns stashed in their residence (no kids).
I have, they keep their firearm and ammo locked up, they never transport their firearm anywhere but to and from the range and they never load or discharge it anywhere but at the range.
Having to make the decision between jail time or death is a failure on the part of Canada. The police can kill you because they felt “their life or the lives of other officers were in danger,” a person in their home should be held to the same standard.
Can you see how extending self defense rights to property would be a very slippery slope?
For sure but I was talking about the increase in criminals attacking people directly, in their vehicle or home, in order to get that vehicle. You have no option to backoff when you are part one of their two part plan.
If someone breaks into your house and starts cramming your home theater into a sack then no, you should not be free to kill them but you should be able to threaten or use violence to remove them from your home. The police will not come in time, if at all. Telling people that they have to just sit there and watch the thousands of hours they burn at work get taken from them without recourse is insane.
-
Exactly. Canadian laws are design to incentivize de-escalating the level of violence. Unlike American laws which incentivize jumping straight to lethal force.
“I feared for my life and the lives of my fellow officers.”
Why are individuals held to stricter rules? It should not be legal to shoot someone who is stealing your lawn gnomes but an armed thief inside your house is a thread of unknown magnitude.
-
Reasonable force means you can hurt them (pretty badly) but once they stop being a threat you have stop hurting them.
So, dead?
It’s almost unreasonable for the courts to believe that someone experiencing a home invasion would be in anything but survival mode, and would have the capacity to simply “calm down” once the threat has been stopped. Because to them, they don’t know if the threat is over, or if someone else is going to bust in to kill them, or if the original attacker will fight back, or if they have a weapon, etc.
Courts should be very lenient towards homeowners deafening their life, family, and property. And if the jackass who decided to commit this crime is still alive, they should have severe consequences laid on them, with additional compensation to the homeowner for the trauma they caused.
The term ‘home invasion’ was never mentioned in any article. Stop making up your own ‘facts; and then treating them as truth, making up your facts’ to suit the position you want to proselytize.
-
Thankfully, this is Canada and we have a history of not taking the law into our own hands. It is, in our country, still up to the court and a judge to determine guilt and administer judgement and punishment.
-
So let’s review the difference between:
“You broke into my house and I am going to teach you a lesson you will never forget” which is against Canadian law (it is the Courts that met out justice),
and
“You broke into my house and I am going to stop you from doing further damage or injury” which Canadian law allows, and is the meaning of 'Self Defense" in Canada.
If Ford disagrees with this, he should run for governor of an American state, not the premiere of a Canadian province.
-
The term ‘home invasion’ was never mentioned in any article. Stop making up your own ‘facts; and then treating them as truth, making up your facts’ to suit the position you want to proselytize.
The term ‘home invasion’ was never mentioned in any article.
By definition, the unlawful entry of a residence while the residence is still inside is a “home invasion”.
But it’s also in the title of this post, and the homeowner’s lawyer rightfully also refers to it as a home invasion.
Various news outlets use the term “home invasion”, too, including CTV: “Premier speaks out after Ontario resident charged with assault following home invasion” , the Toronto Star:“How much force is reasonable? Lindsay home invasion sparks debate over self-defence laws”, CBC: “Alleged home invasion leaves intruder injured, homeowner facing charges”, and others.
So, yeah.
-
So let’s review the difference between:
“You broke into my house and I am going to teach you a lesson you will never forget” which is against Canadian law (it is the Courts that met out justice),
and
“You broke into my house and I am going to stop you from doing further damage or injury” which Canadian law allows, and is the meaning of 'Self Defense" in Canada.
If Ford disagrees with this, he should run for governor of an American state, not the premiere of a Canadian province.
Let’s review the difference between charged and found guilty of.
Charged means we’re going to see if he acted legally or not.
Found guilty of means he acted illegally.
-
I hear my back door kicked in at 3 in the morning, I put on my glasses and load my pistol. My bedroom door opens, there’s a man with a knife. I fire one round. That round pierces his heart and he dies on the spot. Justifiable force.
Instead, I fired two or three rounds in quick succession, because one round might miss or fail to stop him. Very likely justifiable force. Like any person wouldn’t pull the trigger a couple times in that scenario, right?
Instead, I fire one round. It hits him in the chest and does serious damage to one lung. He drops the knife, staggers into my living room and collapses. If I shoot him again to finish him in that state, that’s murder.
I recommend against breaking into houses on this continent.
We actually had an octogenarian here in the States just get charged for doing something almost exactly like this. Two people, guy and woman, and the woman was pregnant. He waited in the garage, where they broke in last time, waited in the dark, shot them while they were running away and the pregnant woman was so alive pleading for her and her unborn’s life when he shot her again. He freely admitted this and was not arrested at first until public outcry, which should have been completely unnecessary given the confession. Cops in America are a special breed of stupid.
Edit: we are so fucked. This actually happened in LA California, and he was never arrested. Happened in 2015
-
The term ‘home invasion’ was never mentioned in any article.
By definition, the unlawful entry of a residence while the residence is still inside is a “home invasion”.
But it’s also in the title of this post, and the homeowner’s lawyer rightfully also refers to it as a home invasion.
Various news outlets use the term “home invasion”, too, including CTV: “Premier speaks out after Ontario resident charged with assault following home invasion” , the Toronto Star:“How much force is reasonable? Lindsay home invasion sparks debate over self-defence laws”, CBC: “Alleged home invasion leaves intruder injured, homeowner facing charges”, and others.
So, yeah.
The comment released by the police does not refer to it as a home invasion. That is my point. I should have clarified my comment “was never mentioned in any article by the police”
The media is the main culprit in pushing the ‘descent into lawlessness’ proselytizing. Despite what is in the media, I have not seen any evidence that this was anywhere near a ‘home invasion’. Even the body of the articles describes the person as an ‘intruder’. which is the most accurate description that fits the available facts. But you also over-reach. CTV’s headline has been corrected to “Ont. man charged with assaulting home intruder used knife, court docs say”. A home intruder does not constitute a ‘home invasion’.
An alleged fact not mentioned in many other articles is
Kalabic says he recently spoke to McDonald, who is “pretty upset about the whole thing,” adding the two men, while not friends, knew one another. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/ont-man-charged-with-assaulting-home-intruder-used-knife-court-docs-say/
-
The comment released by the police does not refer to it as a home invasion. That is my point. I should have clarified my comment “was never mentioned in any article by the police”
The media is the main culprit in pushing the ‘descent into lawlessness’ proselytizing. Despite what is in the media, I have not seen any evidence that this was anywhere near a ‘home invasion’. Even the body of the articles describes the person as an ‘intruder’. which is the most accurate description that fits the available facts. But you also over-reach. CTV’s headline has been corrected to “Ont. man charged with assaulting home intruder used knife, court docs say”. A home intruder does not constitute a ‘home invasion’.
An alleged fact not mentioned in many other articles is
Kalabic says he recently spoke to McDonald, who is “pretty upset about the whole thing,” adding the two men, while not friends, knew one another. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/ont-man-charged-with-assaulting-home-intruder-used-knife-court-docs-say/
The comment released by the police does not refer to it as a home invasion. That is my point. I should have clarified my comment “was never mentioned in any article by the police”
Fair point. I’m not sure police would use that language, as it’s not a legal term as far as I know.
Despite what is in the media, I have not seen any evidence that this was anywhere near a ‘home invasion’.
To add to the above point, the guy was charged with break-and-enter, possession of a weapon with intent, and a few others. He was also already wanted by police. But the fact that the homeowner was in the residence, makes it a “home invasion”.
The fact that those two also knew each other adds complexity of the story, for sure. It may even help the defence.
-
Why do I get this strange feeling that the last laugh could easily be from this ‘intruder’, when he wins a multi-million-dollar defamation suit against all the media, and Ford, for portraying him as a ‘guilty home invader’ instead of the victim, because we really do not know all of the facts - what happens if it turns out the facts establish that he was actually invited in, and the home-owner attacked him first, then tried to invoke his innocence by declaring ‘self defense’? Perhaps a drug deal gone bad?
The police refer to an ‘intruder’, and ‘break-and-enter’, but these claims are ‘alleged’ and have not been established in a court of law. Apparently, according to one article I read, the two knew each other.
‘It’s not over until it’s over’, and even then, it is not always over.
-
Damn as an American whose frame of reference is, “if someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night and I shoot them dead it’s likely going to be called justifiable - period” it’s wild to see this.
Like, I’m not saying it’s good that we basically have a mentality of “yo if someone comes into your house you can blast em” as a people … But it’s interesting how divergent the views are.
Yeah that’s how American children get killed “breaking” back into their homes after sneaking out.
-
Hypothetical of the day, if you’re forced into sudden fight or flight situation and you decide to fight can you determine reasonable use of force on the fly without hesitation?
What would you do?
Whatever it takes for me to be able to get away and nothing beyond that. That could be a single punch, it could be a gun shot. All depends on the circumstances at the time. The point is “only what is necessary for me to escape”.
-
So, dead?
In some contexts, yes. However you’ll still likely have to defend charges of manslaughter. You’d have to demonstrate that the actions you took could reasonable be expected to not result in the death of the subject; and that those actions were necessary to prevent receiving grievous bodily injury or death.
and would have the capacity to simply “calm down” once the threat has been stopped.
Lots of people defend themselves without turning their unconscious assailants into pin cushions. You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding how reasonable force is determined. I suggest you read my other comments.
they don’t know if the threat is over,
If you can remove yourself from the situation the threat is over. It’s factually wrong to suggest that people can’t tell when they’ve won a fight.
or if someone else is going to bust in to kill them,
Continuing to inflict damage on an incapacitated assailant logically does nothing to prevent another potential unknown assailant from attacking you.
or if the original attacker will fight back, or if they have a weapon, etc.
Those factors will determine what level of force is reasonable. Unreasonable force generally comes into play after the assailant has been incapacitated.
Courts should be very lenient
You should be thankful you have right to defend yourself at all. Not all countries grant that to their citizens. The logical limitation of that right is that defending yourself does not permit you to “counter-assault” others.
Assault in Canada doesn’t require them to hit you first. It includes threats with the ability to follow through. So you may preemptively strike to end an altercation without being charged for assault. HOWEVER, the average male is 28,000% less effective in combat than they think they are. So it’s generally a poor option for untrained individuals… as shit gets out of hand. Pre-emptively striking to end the fight early only works if you can actully do that.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate in my response. I will acknowledge that every case should be evaluated on their own merits, including this one.
In some contexts, yes. However you’ll still likely have to defend charges of manslaughter. You’d have to demonstrate that the actions you took could reasonable be expected to not result in the death of the subject; and that those actions were necessary to prevent receiving grievous bodily injury or death.
To a trained person, this may be possible if they are entering a situation where they have an overview of the situation and know what they are getting into. For example, armed police stopping an unarmed thug.
However, a regular civilian, who has been woken in the middle of the night to an armed invader has no clue what to expect. And then their fight-or-flight response kicks in and they no longer have rational thought.
I think it’s completely reasonable to assume that the homeowner in this case felt that his life was in immediate danger, as the attacker did enter the home with a weapon.
Lots of people defend themselves without turning their unconscious assailants into pin cushions. You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding how reasonable force is determined. I suggest you read my other comments.
And lots more kill them. Like this guy from Milton, who was found to be not guilty after shooting a home invader to death.
If you can remove yourself from the situation the threat is over. It’s factually wrong to suggest that people can’t tell when they’ve won a fight.
It’s a mistake to think that people don’t misjudge the use of excessive or lethal force. Hell, even trained officers are more likely to use lethal force just for having a high heart-rate. And it takes biofeedback training in order for them to reduce (not eliminate) these errors in judgment. (link to study)
Someone broke into someone else’s house in the middle of the night with a weapon (intention to hurt or kill the occupant and/or their family). As quite a few home invasions involve more than one person, how would the homeowner know that someone else isn’t waiting outside, making it a 2 vs 1?
In hindsight, it’s easy to say “the threat was over”, but not so much when you’re in that situation.
Continuing to inflict damage on an incapacitated assailant logically does nothing to prevent another potential unknown assailant from attacking you.
I totally agree, like if someone is running away from you and you shoot them in the back. I’m not aware that this is what happened in this situation.
However… you have to consider the human element: someone was attacked by someone else who intended to cause them harm. Adrenalin, and very likely “sleep inertia” could have also played a role in impairing judgment, making it difficult or even impossible to think logically in a life-or-death situation.
And the reality is, we have trained, armed officers who find it difficult to know when enough force has been applied to an unpredictable situation. I think the courts may be asking too much to think that regular citizens being put in these situations would all of a sudden think and act perfectly.
-
“I feared for my life and the lives of my fellow officers.”
Why are individuals held to stricter rules? It should not be legal to shoot someone who is stealing your lawn gnomes but an armed thief inside your house is a thread of unknown magnitude.
I agree that’s BS but that’s also more in the USA where everyone has guns. In Canada cops can’t pull that as easily because statistically people aren’t carrying guns here.
-
Have you met an RPAL carrier? “Better tried by 12 than carried by 6” is kind of their mantra. I can think of 3 off the top of my head that I know 100% have loaded guns stashed in their residence (no kids).
I have, they keep their firearm and ammo locked up, they never transport their firearm anywhere but to and from the range and they never load or discharge it anywhere but at the range.
Having to make the decision between jail time or death is a failure on the part of Canada. The police can kill you because they felt “their life or the lives of other officers were in danger,” a person in their home should be held to the same standard.
Can you see how extending self defense rights to property would be a very slippery slope?
For sure but I was talking about the increase in criminals attacking people directly, in their vehicle or home, in order to get that vehicle. You have no option to backoff when you are part one of their two part plan.
If someone breaks into your house and starts cramming your home theater into a sack then no, you should not be free to kill them but you should be able to threaten or use violence to remove them from your home. The police will not come in time, if at all. Telling people that they have to just sit there and watch the thousands of hours they burn at work get taken from them without recourse is insane.
have, they keep their firearm and ammo locked up, they never transport their firearm anywhere but to and from the range and they never load or discharge it anywhere but at the range.
They don’t trust you.
-
Why do I get this strange feeling that the last laugh could easily be from this ‘intruder’, when he wins a multi-million-dollar defamation suit against all the media, and Ford, for portraying him as a ‘guilty home invader’ instead of the victim, because we really do not know all of the facts - what happens if it turns out the facts establish that he was actually invited in, and the home-owner attacked him first, then tried to invoke his innocence by declaring ‘self defense’? Perhaps a drug deal gone bad?
The police refer to an ‘intruder’, and ‘break-and-enter’, but these claims are ‘alleged’ and have not been established in a court of law. Apparently, according to one article I read, the two knew each other.
‘It’s not over until it’s over’, and even then, it is not always over.
The police also indicated that the non-resident individual was charged with offences related to home invasion, is known to police, and had an active arrest warrant out.
Considering that farmer guy got away with shooting the native kid in the face a few years ago, I don’t think these charges will stick if it’s just “stabbing is fine, but he stabbed too much.”
-
The police also indicated that the non-resident individual was charged with offences related to home invasion, is known to police, and had an active arrest warrant out.
Considering that farmer guy got away with shooting the native kid in the face a few years ago, I don’t think these charges will stick if it’s just “stabbing is fine, but he stabbed too much.”
A good defense attorney will turn everything you just said against the prosecution. Everything you said was conjuncture, not supported by facts. That the police charged both men means the facts are undetermined, and they are leaving it up to a court of law to sort through. Break-and-enter is not home invasion. It is a broad catch-all.
