Can you legally shoot intruders in Canada?

[burn_baby_burn]

This morning I was telling my brother, who lives in Montana, about thief's trying to steal my F-350 recently. They punched in the door lock, and tried to jam something into the ignition to get it started. For some reason or another they gave up.

My brother told me I needed to get a 9mm. Put it in a locked box in my closet. If I hear somebody trying to break into my house I'll have the firearm for protection. I told him that I would go to jail in Canada if I shot a firearm at an intruder.

I know there are lawyers and police officers that post on this site. Can you shoot an intruder in Canada? What if you legally own a firearm and you shoot somebody in your own home in self defense?

[Jayems]

you can only use as much force to quell the attack or repel the crime.

if there is no threat to your life, then you can't go killing people.

the case in Langdon will be a real test of this defense.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Jayems

you can only use as much force to quell the attack or repel the crime.

if there is no threat to your life, then you can't go killing people.

the case in Langdon will be a real test of this defense.

So basically if an intruder has a bat. I can fight him off with a bat. If he has a knife. I can use a knife as well. If he has a gun. I can shoot him?

[Russic]

If I recall the thread from a few months ago, the rule states that the returned force must be equal to the threat you are faced with. Basically to me that means you can only shoot me dead if you feel that I'm going to shoot you dead. You cannot shoot me however if I come at you with a sock full of quarters.

I really know nothing of the rule, just trying to remember what the old thread said.

edit: what he said ^^

[Bobblehead]

Here is the recent thread where this was discussed.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=52403

[Incinerator]

yup, only minimum force sufficient to defend yourself and/or to halt the act of criminal offence, anything over and above that would be excessive force. Shooting is of course a no-no.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Here is the recent thread where this was discussed.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=52403

Thanks Bobblehead. Didn't realize there was a thread about this already.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

So basically if an intruder has a bat. I can fight him off with a bat. If he has a knife. I can use a knife as well. If he has a gun. I can shoot him?

So basically, keep a nice little arsenal beside your bed. Identify what weapon he has, then choose accordingly.

Canada's self defense laws are crap. Seriously these sound like dueling rules, not practical rules for self defense.

[TheDragon]

As the Police will tell you:

"No property is worth killing somebody over."

I believe that the rules have even changed in the US regarding excessive force.

[Rathji]

I have no law background and am only giving my view of how the law works.


If someone has a weapon that can kill you and is attempting to kill you, you can kill them in self defense, regardless of the type of weapon. If they have a spoon and are using it as a weapon in a way that you could convince a jury that you felt your life was threatened then you could kill him.

I know this is an over simplification, but the basic concept is there.

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Canada's self defense laws are crap. Seriously these sound like dueling rules, not practical rules for self defense.

That about sums it up lol

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

So basically if an intruder has a bat. I can fight him off with a bat. If he has a knife. I can use a knife as well. If he has a gun. I can shoot him?

Pretty much, with a couple exceptions.

It would be near impossible for a petite woman to fight off a full sized man with a bat with another bat unless she was proficient in some sort of defense class and he was just a dufus. In other words, situations come into play. Logic says in most cases, she would need something stronger to match force. In that case, she could likely shoot to disable.

Motives come into play as well. If someone is coming at you with a knife... realistically, you can't be expected to drop your 9mm, run into the kitchen, and engage in some knifeplay with your would-be killer. However, if you put one in between his eyes, you used "excessive force." If you shot him in the arm or leg with clear intent to disable, you clearly used just enough force to defend yourself.

I don't completely agree with this, but that appears to be the law as it is.

As mentioned, there was a thread on this too.

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I have no law background and am only giving my view of how the law works.


If someone has a weapon that can kill you and is attempting to kill you, you can kill them in self defense, regardless of the type of weapon. If they have a spoon and are using it as a weapon in a way that you could convince a jury that you felt your life was threatened then you could kill him.

I know this is an over simplification, but the basic concept is there.

therein lies your problem, our justice system protects the criminal first and foremost, not the victim.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Canada's self defense laws are crap. Seriously these sound like dueling rules, not practical rules for self defense.

The thing about "self-defense", is that many people have been killed "accidentally-on-purpose" and tried to use self-defense as a way to get off. If you pretty much give someone the right to use whatever force they want while not actually being physically hurt or in imminent danger for one's life, then you make it real easy for someone to commit murder and use a self-defense excuse... your word against their's in that case.

[worth]

Excessive force is determined by the State in the US, as well as firearm laws. Canadian laws are national.

Florida recently passed a law whereby if someone comes onto your property, and you feel they are a threat, you can shoot them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us/07shoot.html

There is an extensive discussion about the legality of using a gun for self defense in Canada (You may have to sign up):

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum...ight=house+gun

It can be done legally. Not as easily as in the US, but it can be done. But you need to familiarize yourself with the laws about keeping a legal firearm, and when you can use that firearm for self defense.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Pretty much, with a couple exceptions.

It would be near impossible for a petite woman to fight off a full sized man with a bat with another bat unless she was proficient in some sort of defense class and he was just a dufus. In other words, situations come into play. Logic says in most cases, she would need something stronger to match force. In that case, she could likely shoot to disable.

Motives come into play as well. If someone is coming at you with a knife... realistically, you can't be expected to drop your 9mm, run into the kitchen, and engage in some knifeplay with your would-be killer. However, if you put one in between his eyes, you used "excessive force." If you shot him in the arm or leg with clear intent to disable, you clearly used just enough force to defend yourself.

I don't completely agree with this, but that appears to be the law as it is.

As mentioned, there was a thread on this too.

I think the law is actually a lot closer to what Rathji said. If someone is threatening you with a knife and showing clear intention to kill you shooting them would not be out of the question, even if it kills them.

Not only is there the right to self-defence, the court will also take into account the heat of the moment.

Basically, what I am saying is that if someone tries to kill you, you don't have to get into some kind of star trek style duel w/ them using their weapon of choice. What is considered proportional is relative to the entirety of the circumstances. A knife is a lethal weapon and if the situation is extremely threatening you have the right to shoot them however you like.

[Claeren]

I have heard that many in the legal world feel that under a true test the self defence/excessive force law for home invasion would fall.

There have been too many horror stories and the level of total violence one could expect by someone inside your home is far greater then it was in like 1950. So the community standard in what would be accepted to protect your family is basically unlimited force until you have established what the invader intends and what weapons they have.

So if you didn't know what he had or what his intent was but you felt it was generally 'bad intent' you could kill him. If you KNEW he was merely lost(?) and had no weapon and STILL killed him then you have crossed the line.

Now if you walked out and shot someone in the back of their head who was robbing your truck you would (rightfully) go to jail.


I think the courts are a lot more reasonable then some are giving them credit for.



Claeren.

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

So basically if an intruder has a bat. I can fight him off with a bat. If he has a knife. I can use a knife as well. If he has a gun. I can shoot him?

No, what I mean is that if you think he's going to kill you with the bat, and have a reasonable belief that you will die, then you can shoot him.


There was a COPS episode once somewhere down in the south states where three guys tried to break into this guys house. When the cops showed up, one intruder was dead on the front lawn, one was dead climbing into the window (halfway in) and the other was dead inside the house.

Guy cleaned house, so to speak.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The thing about "self-defense", is that many people have been killed "accidentally-on-purpose" and tried to use self-defense as a way to get off. If you pretty much give someone the right to use whatever force they want while not actually being physically hurt or in imminent danger for one's life, then you make it real easy for someone to commit murder and use a self-defense excuse... your word against their's in that case.

While I do feel I should have the right to defend myself and more importantly, my wife and kids. I also shudder at the thought of drugstore hero's blasting away at an intruder sending stray bullets flying off in ever direction.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by blankall

Basically, what I am saying is that if someone tries to kill you, you don't have to get into some kind of star trek style duel w/ them using their weapon of choice. What is considered proportional is relative to the entirety of the circumstances. A knife is a lethal weapon and if the situation is extremely threatening you have the right to shoot them however you like.

Hilarious. I am trying my hardest not to laugh out loud at work.