Your home is your castle. Violent force is morally and legally allowed to defend your home, even if the home invader dies. But if you do defend yourself, expect Canadian police and courts to give you a rough ride. That’s why Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre proposes that the Criminal Code be changed to introduce the “castle doctrine.”
The case of Jeremy McDonald has seized public attention. McDonald faces aggravated assault charges after successfully defending himself against a home invader armed with a crossbow. Our government appears to prioritize thugs over peaceable citizens.
According to his lawyer, McDonald acted within his rights, when he used a knife to defend himself from Breen’s crossbow attack. Nevertheless, McDonald has been charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon for “endangering” Michael Kyle’s life.
McDonald confronted Michael Breen after he entered McDonald’s apartment late at night by breaking a window. From what we know from police reports, the home invader, Michael Breen, had a criminal record and had been wanted by the police for possession of stolen goods, illegal use of a credit card, and probation violations.
Police have charged Breen with possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, break and enter, theft and mischief under $5,000, as well as failing to comply with probation. But apparently not with assault with a weapon.
We’re on our own. Canadian authorities seem to prefer candlelight memorials to actually protecting citizens. Criminal violence keeps increasing, despite what StatsCan claims. Violent criminals are quickly released only to murder helpless victims.
Back to basics
Defending oneself, or one’s family, from a violent attack is a natural right that does not depend upon the government. Every human being has this right. Even deadly force can morally be used if necessary to stop an attacker who is believed likely to kill or “cause grievous harm.”
“If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;” Exodus 22:2 NIV
On the other hand, there is no right to vengeance. We have the right to stop an attack, even if the attacker dies, but we have no right to do any further injury. We have no right to do more than is strictly necessary to halt an attacker; anger is no justification for retaliation.
Governments jealously guard their power to punish. The details of the McDonald case have not yet been revealed by police.
To defend yourself, you must know the law
In most countries, self-defence is a legal excuse for using violence to stop or even kill an attacker. Even in Canada.
If an intruder breaks into a home in the middle of the night, and refuses to leave, Canadians are legally allowed to use violent force to get the intruder to leave. If the resident believes the intruder would harm her or her family, she may even legally shoot him. But in Canada she will be arrested for doing so and could face life-altering criminal charges.
As a lawyer once explained to me, the model for the law of self-defence is a bar brawl between two adult males. It such a case, it is best to avoid a fight, but, if necessary, only reasonable force is allowed to stop an attack. The defender could lose any right to claim self-defence if it can be shown that he had initially provoked the attacker. And the court will have months to analyze the situation to determine what’s “reasonable,” while the defender may have had only seconds to make his or her decisions.
After any incident, even if you did not physically defended yourself, be sure to call 9-1-1 to document your non-aggression. Then contact a lawyer immediately. When questioned by the police, it is advisable to say you need to speak to your lawyer.
Deadly force is a desperate right
Realistically, it may not be wise to exercise your right to defend yourself. Even if you are eventually exonerated, it is almost certain you will be charged. Charges may result in crippling legal fees and restrictive bail conditions, like weapon bans. You may even lose your job.
The process is the punishment
The Canadian government discourages self-defence. Anyone in Canada who uses armed force defensively can be subjected to expensive and protracted legal proceedings. Anyone defending himself, although convinced he is exercising his basic rights, could up in a prison cell.
The “progressive” culture in Canada will most likely impose an expensive and painful legal battle upon anyone brave (or foolish) enough to use violent force to defend themselves or their family. Defenders, no matter how righteous, will be subject to arrest and may be immediately jailed, after which defenders will face years of court battles which could exhaust their life savings, and may even end up in prison. A judge will have hours to analyze the decisions you made in a split second.
Your home is your castle
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre wants to introduce the “castle doctrine” into Canadian law. “Our amendment, instead, will change Section 34.2 of the Criminal Code to say that the use of force, including lethal force, is presumed reasonable against an individual who unlawfully enters a house and poses a threat to the safety of anyone inside,” Poilievre clarified.
