Came across this this morning, and my instant reaction is WTF:

https://globalnews.ca/news/9500284/m...n-lawyer-says/

TL;DR
A resident in Milton, ON is a registered firearm owner, and he shot and killed an armed intruder when a bunch of robbers (at least 6?) broken into their house. And now the resident is charged with 2nd degree murder.

I am just mindblown by the fact that the guy is still getting charged by the police. Even if the charge is just procedural, it seems like a waste of resources.

Bro.. this is Canada, of course he’s charged with murder.

It’s fucking gold that the guy who shoots in self-defence is instantly arrested and held but the career criminal with dozens of firearm offences is released pending trial.

The Liberals don’t want to end gun violence period.

It's the defenses claim that they are intruders and their client defended his dwelling and mother

That's simply their claim

Due process has to take place, if its found that that's true, and that his actions were reasonable, then he'll be acquitted

You can't just expect to take people at their word especially when a death is involved

It looks like Global News has updated the news report with quite a bit more info than the time when I posted.

Hopefully, due process will take its course, and there will be a clearer picture of what happened. At this point, a lot of stuff surrounding the case seem very questionable.

It's only media sensationalism if I don't like it.

Should a scenario where the home invaders saw homeowner wielding a gun and upon hearing his "warning gunshot" turned around and started running away, only to get shot in the back as they were doing so be considered self defense?
(This could plausibly be what happened here, don't know but we'll find out)


If you think the answer is No then you're in line with our current laws regarding self defense. Duty to flee, otherwise only allowed to use force necessary to neutralize immediate threat to personal safety. Protection of personal property is NOT valid use of force.

If you think answer is Yes (IE: fuck anyone who comes in my house, just the fact that you're in here is a threat and I should be able to do anything I want to you while you're here) then what you want is Castle Doctrine.

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to Castle Doctrine myself.

Great68, based on the scenario that you've described, I'd probably lean closer to the castle doctrine too. But for me, the caveat rests on whether the intruders are wielding weapons -- if they are, then obviously they had the intend to harm, or are at least capable of and prepared to do so. In that sense, I think neutralizing the threat, even if they are running away, is not unreasonable.

If there were no weapons, then I'd say you have to let them go.

But obviously, in a fight or flight situation, it wouldn't be so easy to make these well-defined logical decisions.

There always has to be due process to some degree.

We've seen the "castle" doctrine used in the States MANY times where it was abused by the person simply to murder someone in cold blood, often for racial or personal reasons.

Hopefully they will investigate this and if deemed a legitimate defense act, the man should be acquitted. Although reading the article and seeing the guy was 22, and with "6" organized guys putting on a home invasion like that, I'd think he's probably moving weight.

You're thinking of cases like Trayvon Martin, and you're you're confusing Castle doctrine with Stand-Your-Ground law.

Castle doctrine only refers to defense of yourself and property within your home.

Stand-Your-Ground applies anywhere. It's the ability to defend yourself in any situation (where you feel threat your safety) with deadly force without having the duty to retreat. This is the law that was applied to the Trayvon Martin case.

I support the former and not the latter. You shouldn't have a duty to retreat out of your own fucking home.

If someone kicks in my door while I’m sleeping, whether they know I’m home or not, that should he more than enough grounds to shoot someone, period.

Whether they have a weapon or not is irrelevant. You’re breaking into my home for ill intent, it doesn’t matter if it’s over a laptop or you’re trying to cause me physical harm.

I have a bat beside my bed and I have firearms, if someone kicks my door in to try to hurt me or my family I will consider our life in jeopardy and I will do anything to make sure my family and myself are safe.

The idea that they have to be armed, or have to want to physically harm you in order to use deadly force is absurd.

Everyone is different. I don't think I'd have a hard time putting someone down if I felt my safety was in jeopardy but I also don't think I would shoot someone in the back if I caught them stealing my wheels out of my garage and they started running away.

The law only states that you can use an amount of force that is r"easonable in the circumstances". You should under the law be able to use whatever force is necessary to prevent someone from entering your home or harming you or others. There is no requirement to use only an equal amount of force or only using weapons if they have a weapon.

That being said using force to defend property or using force to harm someone who is longer a threat or is running away is generally what I've seen people be charged for. I can think of multiple cases where people were outside their homes and defending property and in many cases even they are acquitted

You'd have some serious explaining to do if you killed an unarmed thief that has broken into your house. And if in your explanation, you indicate that you know the thief is unarmed, and you killed him anyway, I don't think that's gonna fly with the judge.

Let's hope it wouldn't ever come to that, but if it does, I bet my a$$ that you're not going to admit you know the thief is unarmed.

Some of you guys have wild imaginations.
If I shot someone every time I felt threatened or had had some one try to steal from me at work I would have killed over a dozen people.

I keep seeing ads for this on facebook. It's a gun that shoots rubber balls. Legal in Canada but i think it's a stupid idea.

https://byrna.ca/

Yea cause at 2am waking me up by kicking my door in, I’m really gonna take the time to ask the person if they are armed or not. It shouldn’t matter when they are trying to break down my bedroom door.

Lotta keyboard warriors here...RS never changes :lol Most likely you'll shit your pants if someone breaks into your bedroom at 2am or end up shooting your wife or kid by accident.

I’ll post the vid when it happens. You mean my COD training isn’t applicable?

But 100% that top loader SKS with rounds at the ready, I’ve killed enough big game with calm nerves to put a round or two through my door into a crackhead. Although I always seem to have dreams with me in prison and they are always pretty scary… hmm.. lol

I don't own guns, quite the opposite. I simply support the ideology that someone should be able to protect their home and property without threat of penalty over actions that are made in the heat of the moment and under extraordinary circumstances. If that makes me a "keyboard warrior" so be it.

If unarmed intruders didn't want the possibility of getting shot when they entered a home, they could simply.... not...intrude..... in the first place? Pretty simple really.

I can just imagine honda shooting someone who was banging on his door then finding out his house is on fire.

You're actually wrong on that.

Castle doctrine has been used in cases where folks have been shot simply for knocking on someone's door, that is what I was referring to:

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/defa...violence_1.pdf

"People have also attempted to invoke the Castle Doctrine as a defense for racist murders of people who didn’t unlawfully enter their homes. Recent tragic examples include incidents where young Black people were shot after knocking on a stranger’s door to ask for directions, seeking help after a car accident, and walking across a front yard after leaving a neighbor’s party"

Hence why due process is always necessary when someone invokes that doctrine.

Of course I agree with you if someone tried to perform a kick-door on my home, they're getting a warning, then a shotgun round right in their face, I could care less what they're armed with.

You just need to keep in mind that laws are a slippery slope and one glove can't fit all, due process should still occur nonetheless.

You shouldn't get your info from biased sources that paint half the picture. The case you're citing is this one:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-found-...0794#:~:text=1

And no, I'm not wrong since he wasn't actively breaking into the house Castle Doctrine did not apply and hence the homeowner was appropriately convicted. If he actually breached the house, it would probably have been a different story.

After all this, gonna watch the "Home Alone." movies, just for shits and giggles.

Why do so many people think someone is gonna bust into their home?