Self Defence in Canada?

[Ron in Regina]

This one’s gonna become political, so I might as well start a thread for it right here.

There is outrage in parts of Ontario, after police in Lindsay laid charges against a homeowner after a break and enter on Monday morning. As Megan King reports, the incident is renewing conversations around self-defence laws in Canada.

Lindsay, Ont., man faces assault charges against home intruder — Global News

There is outrage in parts of Ontario, after police in Lindsay laid charges against a homeowner after a break and enter on Monday morning. As Megan King reports, the incident is renewing conversations around self-defence laws in Canada.

apple.news

There’s a mish-mash of information surrounding this in Canada, much of it conflicting, not just my opinion, but how the law is applied regarding this topic.

A case in Lindsay, Ontario is raising questions about the limits of self-defense. A man is facing charges after allegedly assaulting an intruder in his apartment with a knife, leaving the intruder in life-threatening condition. Legal analyst Lorne Honickman joins Candace Daniel to break down the case.

Legal analyst weighs in on self-defense vs. assault — Global News

A case in Lindsay, Ontario is raising questions about the limits of self-defense. A man is facing charges after allegedly assaulting an intruder in his apartment with a knife, leaving the intruder in life-threatening condition. Legal analyst Lorne Honickman joins Candace Daniel to break down the...

apple.news

A court document shows a Lindsay, Ont., man facing charges for allegedly breaking into an apartment was carrying a crossbow when he was confronted by a tenant.

(YouTube & Alleged intruder at centre of Ont. self-defence case was armed with a crossbow, court documents show)

The resident, Jeremy David McDonald, is also facing assault charges in the incident on Aug. 18 — a fact that has generated widespread interest in the case.

Police information filed in court alleges that Michael Kyle Breen damaged a window and screen at McDonald’s home and carried a crossbow.

The court document states that the 41-year-old Breen is charged with break and enter, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, mischief under $5,000, and failing to comply with a probation order.

Police have said that Breen, who is scheduled to appear in court for a bail hearing next week, was already wanted for unrelated offences.

McDonald, the 44-year-old resident, was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon after he allegedly “did endanger the life” of Breen.

Ontario home invasion case: Intruder in Lindsay carried crossbow, court docs say — CityNews Toronto

A court document shows a Lindsay, Ont., man facing charges for allegedly breaking into an apartment was carrying a crossbow when he was confronted by a tenant.

apple.news

(YouTube & Lindsay, Ont., home intruder had crossbow, was on probation: court docs | Hanomansing Tonight)

So, what now?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

The B&E was light. Classically, that's burglary, which is "breaking and entering a building with the intent of committing a felony therein." It's a felony, where B&E is usually a misdemeanor.

 

[Ron in Regina]

The B&E was light. Classically, that's burglary, which is "breaking and entering a building with the intent of committing a felony therein." It's a felony, where B&E is usually a misdemeanor.

I don’t have little kids anymore, but I do have grandkids. Apparently the dude who was the tenant has an apartment that’s on top of other businesses the way that that building is set up.

From what I heard a couple days ago, the guy who broke in, climbed up a fire escape, then broken into the suite through a window window, which turns out to be the window into this guy’s daughter’s room. The daughter wasn’t home, but the guy who came in was carrying a crossbow.

Some kind of confrontation occurred. The tenant had a knife vs the guy breaking in with his crossbow. Both ended up charged.

Admittedly, I know very little beyond this at this point, but if you’re (someone is) breaking into somebody’s home with a weapon in the middle of the night (it was 2 or 3 am, or something like that), chances are you’re not up to any good.

There’s so much conflicting information with respect to self-defence up here, where you’re only supposed to use the force of a reasonable man, and only matching force (you’re not supposed to bring a gun to a knife fight sort of thing), and so on and so forth….

Then the way the law is applied is done with huge variances, & much discretion by law enforcement most of the time with most of the firsthand stories that I’m told.

My neighbour took a knife away from some guy in a Tim Hortons a couple of weeks ago (the guy was threatening staff and customers), then fired him through the front doors out into the parking lot. He (my neighbour) didn’t get a legal spanking, & police told the guy that he was lucky that that’s all that happened to him. Different application of the law in different places.

(Our neighbour only damaged this guy’s arm, and it wasn’t life-threatening, and he didn’t use a weapon himself, and this all took place a block or two from the police station, for some background there)

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

The B&E was light. Classically, that's burglary, which is "breaking and entering a building with the intent of committing a felony therein." It's a felony, where B&E is usually a misdemeanor.

When you enter with a crossbow does that change it to a felony? It's now armed robbery.

 

[Hoof Hearted]

Had a Cop buddy growing up.

Told me he got a call of a guy breaking through a ground-level window. He arrived on the scene to find an old man had clocked the perp with a baseball bat...the guy lying knocked out in the window well.

My buddy told the old man, "You can't do that!" Then he dragged the perp through the old man's front door and said..."Now you're fine."

 

[spaminator]

according to the news: porcupine is campaigning on blaming the liberals for this but in actuality it was the conservatives that created and supported the punish the victim laws.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

When you enter with a crossbow does that change it to a felony? It's now armed robbery.

Depends on what happened inside, if anything. Robbery is "theft by force or threat of force." We don't know from what's presented above whether the burglar managed to get a threat or demand out before the owner clocked him. But I'd say his intent to commit a felony was pretty clear.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

By the way, down hereabouts at least the "breaking" in B&E is "any unauthorized action needed to gain access." People have been convicted of "breaking" that consisted of nothing but pushing open a door that was ajar.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Also, generally, self-defence is a common-law concept that has been codified or not in various jurisdictions. Blackstone wrote "self-defence is a right that predates all positive law." The standard is that the accused must have reasonably believed that he was under a threat of imminent bodily harm. If the accused reasonably believed she was under threat of "grievous bodily harm or death," deadly force in self-defence is authorized.

The "castle doctrine" states that if someone is in your home, that person can be presumed to be threatening grievous bodily harm or death. It's more for authorizing deadly force than for simply authorizing self-defence.

Be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Aaaand a caveat. . . I'm going with the English common law on this. Various jurisdictions with English common law-derived legal systems have, by legislation or precedents in their own courts, modified the doctrines in various ways.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Well, Lord only knows how long this will take to play out, and there’s gonna be politicians jumping on the bandwagon and media attention so if this goes to a jury situation, finding an unbiassed selection might be difficult with today’s 24 hour new cycle.

Be interesting to see how this plays out.

We might have to circle back to this thread in about a year or so. The key names for a Google search at that point so far would probably be:
1) Jeremy David McDonald
2) Michael Kyle Breen
3) the term, “Lindsay Ontario Self Defence”

Apparently, these guys lived in the same neighbourhood, & maybe even on the same street, and that may or may not be relevant. The coming through a window in a child’s bedroom at 3am with a crossbow seems somewhat problematic to explain rationally at this point but who knows? Was a knife a reasonable defence against a crossbow? It’ll be interesting.

Why would the police release the information that Mr. McDonald attacked Mr. Breen with a knife to the media, but only after the first court appearance, would it be made known that Mr. Breen had a crossbow? That seemed kind of odd unto itself, but maybe there’s a justifiable reason for that also?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Well, Lord only knows how long this will take to play out, and there’s gonna be politicians jumping on the bandwagon and media attention so if this goes to a jury situation, finding an unbiassed selection might be difficult with today’s 24 hour new cycle.

We might have to circle back to this thread in about a year or so. The key names for a Google search at that point so far would probably be:
1) Jeremy David McDonald
2) Michael Kyle Breen
3) the term, “Lindsay Ontario Self Defence”

Apparently, these guys lived in the same neighbourhood, & maybe even on the same street, and that may or may not be relevant. The coming through a window in a child’s bedroom at 3am with a crossbow seems somewhat problematic to explain rationally at this point but who knows? Was a knife a reasonable defence against a crossbow? It’ll be interesting.

Why would the police release the information that Mr. McDonald attacked Mr. Breen with a knife to the media, but only after the first court appearance, would it be made known that Mr. Breen had a crossbow? That seemed kind of odd unto itself, but maybe there’s a justifiable reason for that also?

All comes down to facts. Was the crossbow loaded? If not, is a crossbow by itself a deadly weapon (as a bludgeon)?

For me, the "child's bedroom at 3 am" is enough. Dust him.

You should also consider that cops tend to over-charge, for various reasons. They can always reduce or drop the charges later.

 

[Nick Danger]

All comes down to facts.

Exactly. This issue is being tried extensively in the court of public opinion, and that is being done with insufficient evidence. The big question going unanswered so far is just what prompted the police to charge the tenant in the first place ? They know as well as anyone that in Canada we are allowed to protect ourselves and our property with "reasonable force", so just what, in the eyes of the attending police, did the tenant do that went beyond "reasonable"?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Exactly. This issue is being tried extensively in the court of public opinion, and that is being done with insufficient evidence. The big question going unanswered so far is just what prompted the police to charge the tenant in the first place ? They know as well as anyone that in Canada we are allowed to protect ourselves and our property with "reasonable force", so just what, in the eyes of the attending police, did the tenant do that went beyond "reasonable"?

That's political too.

I must note, however, that the cops "call 'em like I see 'em." There are legitimate reasons for self-defense to be a crime, most notably continuing the "defense" after the threat has been neutralized. It's not very realistic, but when you're whaling on somebody with your hockey stick cuz he broke into your place with a gun, you MUST STOP the second he is no longer a threat. Unrealistic? You bet. But the law takes little to no account of fear, adrenaline rush, or the "one for the road" strike. It has converted many a solid self-defense claim into a "mutual antagonist" situation.

Cops are political, which is why they don't get to try the cases. That will be done in a court, where 12 safe, comfortable people will decide the fate of somebody who struck in fear, adrenaline rush, fight-or-flight response, and the insanity attendant thereto. I hope his defense counsel is good at drawing word pictures for the jury.

Actually, I hope the judge or the prosecutor kicks the case before it gets to that point. But I hold out little hope for a sudden outbreak of sanity.

 

[55Mercury]

Yes we all have the right to defend ourselves regardless of what the law says. So what it basically boils down to is, there are things Worth Fighting For, there are things worth dying for, there are things worth killing for, and there are things worth doing time for. So if someone goes ahead and kills somebody and I have the opportunity to take them out, I will exercise that opportunity and do their time for them because I know the system will just catch and release them and with any luck they'll do that with me too.
lol

Having said that there are also times to let cooler heads prevail, as I've shared here before:
Post in thread 'One More Notch' https://forums.canadiancontent.net/threads/one-more-notch.114713/post-1725052

 

[Nick Danger]

I'd like to think that police are able to be level-headed enough to consider all these things before coming to a decision, but I admit that may be wishful thinking. Still, the big question remains, why charge Mr. McDonald ? Obviously in their minds, he crossed a line somewhere. What is concerning me is that this whole issue is being tried in the public "court" without the benefit of complete background information.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Yes we all have the right to defend ourselves regardless of what the law says.

A "right" the law doesn't recognize is a political talking point or a reason for revolution. If you're not willing to grab a flag and a rifle, best keep it to talking points.

So what it basically boils down to is, there are things Worth Fighting For, there are things worth dying for, there are things worth killing for, and there are things worth doing time for. So if someone goes ahead and kills somebody and I have the opportunity to take them out, I will exercise that opportunity and do their time for them because I know the system will just catch and release them and with any luck they'll do that with me too.
lol

Having said that there are also times to let cooler heads prevail, as I've shared here before:
Post in thread 'One More Notch' https://forums.canadiancontent.net/threads/one-more-notch.114713/post-1725052

A brief primer on the common law of self defence. . .

1. You must have a "reasonable fear" of harm. Which means 12 people in a warm, comfortable jury box have to agree that you, when approached by sketchy characters on a dark street (or in your house) not only feared, but that the fear was resonable.

2. You may only use reasonable force in self defence. Which generally means you can't shoot your assailant unless you had a "reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm." Again, you must convince 12 people (or one judge) who are safe and comfy that your fear was reasonable.

3. You MUST STOP the instant the threat no longer exists. No "parting shots" allowed.

4. Whether to report or not is a judgment call. Given the circumstances, what are the odds the cops will be able to track you down? The self defence excuse remains available if you didn't report, but practically it gets a lot harder to make.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I'd like to think that police are able to be level-headed enough to consider all these things before coming to a decision, but I admit that may be wishful thinking. Still, the big question remains, why charge Mr. McDonald ? Obviously in their minds, he crossed a line somewhere. What is concerning me is that this whole issue is being tried in the public "court" without the benefit of complete background information.

Yeah, you keep thinking that if it helps you sleep well. And many cops are that level-headed. But most of them aren't going to go against whatever the official or unofficial department's (or sergeant's) policy is this week. Cops tend to see charging a person, then later dropping the charges, as "no harm, no foul." They also tend to see it as "not my business. That's up to the DA (prosecutor)." Cops have an obligation to maintien le droit, but also to keep the peace. If hauling you into the station calms you down, they can release you without charges.

They also ain't super-bright. In the U.S., the average cop Wonderlic score is 22 (roughly equivalent to an IQ of 104). That's firmly in the "average" category. Many jurisdictions refuse to employ people with Wonderlics over 27 as cops. They don't like cops who think too much.

 

[55Mercury]

Well I guess what I was getting at was that the law really can't stop us from acting or keep us in line, however the chance you're dealing with an insane person can be a greater influence on keeping us in line. And most of the time we don't know who the fuck we're dealing with!
lol
Ever notice how polite people are though where everyone can carry a gun?

 

[Nick Danger]

In this day of high administrative costs and the pressure to keep those down, police are urged not to lay charges of a decent chance o conviction is absent. So back to my original question, what motivated the police to lay charges against Mr. McDonald ?