Castle This

Once again the front page of one of our country’s large newspapers is carrying a story about another home invasion. This time a father was attempting to protect his daughter and the result was gunshots proving deadly. There is also a story describing the initial response from the premier of Ontario, Doug Ford. He called this transgression devastating. No doubt it is for the family invaded.

There have been several other stories recently about home invasions gone wrong. These others received broader coverage as the homeowner defended themselves injuring the intruder. The stories were published, it seems, as comment on the homeowner. Although there were several stories regarding responses from the Conservative side of the isle decrying the acts of violence from the criminals and supporting the homeowner’s. response.

Sadly the justice system does not have the same sensibilities as these politicians. While certainly in Canada we are allowed to protect our selves in our homes, there are a long list of conditions that must be met before the action will be considered not a crime itself. The law in Canada regulating self defence says the following;

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

• (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
• (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
• (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances

Therefore the big question is what is reasonable force? Well the next section helps us out here.

34 (2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors: 

• (a) the nature of the force or threat;
• (b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
• (c) the person’s role in the incident;
• (d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
• (e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
• (f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
• (f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
• (g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and
• (h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

Let us scenario this out. One or more thugs break into my house at night while myself and family are sleeping. My dog starts going bonkers with these intruders waking us all up and I reach to my bedside for a weapon of some description. I throw on my house coat and move down the hall to see exactly what we have going on and I see one or more unknown people. Maybe they have masks, maybe they smack my dog, or worse. Very clearly a threat. I in no way shape or form have invited these people into my home.

In my world I would now avail myself of the weapon in my hand and begin to defend my home. But here is where it gets complex. The law above says I have nine considerations before I can legally defend myself in this situation. So if I understand correctly, before I defend my home and lives of my family I must consider the nature of the force or treat. Now it’s dark and I have no idea who these thugs are. Was force imminent? They just broke into my home. What is my role, sleeping. Have the used a weapon, I was sleeping when they broke in. The size age and gender, so a tiny gal with a big gun may not count?

The rest of the considerations are just as absurd. No person in a threat situation against themselves will consider any of this. Even our Prime Minister Jean Chretien takes on threats with vigour as he choked out a would be assassin at an event. Worry about the intruder? Not on my life. Or that of my family. The necessary steps to me are whatever it takes to eliminate the threat.

This brings me to the Castle Doctrine or Castle Laws. Age old common law principles from England where by you could defend yourself in the home and even attempt to catch the perpetrator who is running away. There is no definition of the term reasonable but if the danger is gone you must stop and you can not pre plan the defence as in a trap.

In the United States many of the states have implemented similar laws. In Florida for example, the Governor warns looters that when breaking in to someone’s home they are most likely to get killed. Which is good s there will be one less person in the jails.

So many laws have to change in Canada before this could possibly be considered. Gun laws for one do not allow for use of weapons in self defence for the most part. And most guns that would serve this purpose are banned anyway. And to have a gun in the home legally you must be licensed. Are any of these likely to change with our current government, not a chance.

And vote for change. It is our only hope.