Can you legally shoot intruders in Canada?

[worth]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

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.

That is why a shotgun with buckshot is the best option for self defense. Bullets will go through drywall and on for miles. Shot has much less velocity, and stopping power only at close range. Much safer for your neighbours.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by blankall

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.

Yes, but a knife wielder is pretty harmless until they get into arm's length, especially to a man with a gun. The law could easily say that because I own a firearm, I should know how to use it. Because I know how to use it, I should be able to shoot to maim within 5-15ft. If I shot him in the head on my first shot, they could say that I failed to, or ought to have shot to disable, and because I didn't, I'm criminally liable. Not for murder one, but for something.

As for your last paragraph, I agree. Thats why I said, no one would rationally expect a person being attacked to switch to an equal weapon and engage in an, as you said, a "Star Trek" style duel.

[CaramonLS]

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.

Well, I'm mostly referring to crimes committed in the home - nothing good can ever come from a home invasion, and if someone turns out to be in my house in the middle of the night, they're going to get what is coming to them.

Here is an example - someone is in your home during the night, you hear noise downstairs, you grab your gun, go check it out. You see someone in your house, it is kind of dark, you ask them to freeze, or you'll shoot them. They ignore you and instead start moving towards you. You take aim, you're not sure if they have a weapon or not, but you decide not to take any chances, because you're the last line of defense between you and your family. You aim for the center mass, they end up dieing and it turns out they were unarmed (you weren't sure because it was dark).

Now, tell me, do you think I should be charged in that instance? Because under Canadian law I can be.

[CaptainCrunch]

I was afraid for my life when I shot him 37 times your honor.

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Well, I'm mostly referring to crimes committed in the home - nothing good can ever come from a home invasion, and if someone turns out to be in my house in the middle of the night, they're going to get what is coming to them.

Here is an example - someone is in your home during the night, you hear noise downstairs, you grab your gun, go check it out. You see someone in your house, it is kind of dark, you ask them to freeze, or you'll shoot them. They ignore you and instead start moving towards you. You take aim, you're not sure if they have a weapon or not, but you decide not to take any chances, because you're the last line of defense between you and your family. You aim for the center mass, they end up dieing and it turns out they were unarmed (you weren't sure because it was dark).

Now, tell me, do you think I should be charged in that instance? Because under Canadian law I can be.

You CAN be charged with ANYTHING at ANYTIME - but you wouldn't be convicted (which is key really) if they even bothered charging you.



Claeren.

[SarichFan]

I've said it before and i'll say it again... If it's dark and somebody breaks into my house. I'll take my chances with a jury...

A few years in prison is better than being a corpse.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I was afraid for my life when I shot him 37 times your honor.

Were you in a robotic trance as well?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Well, I'm mostly referring to crimes committed in the home - nothing good can ever come from a home invasion, and if someone turns out to be in my house in the middle of the night, they're going to get what is coming to them.

Here is an example - someone is in your home during the night, you hear noise downstairs, you grab your gun, go check it out. You see someone in your house, it is kind of dark, you ask them to freeze, or you'll shoot them. They ignore you and instead start moving towards you. You take aim, you're not sure if they have a weapon or not, but you decide not to take any chances, because you're the last line of defense between you and your family. You aim for the center mass, they end up dieing and it turns out they were unarmed (you weren't sure because it was dark).

Now, tell me, do you think I should be charged in that instance? Because under Canadian law I can be.

And here is the problem...

Let's say you have a serious hate-on for someone, so you invite them over to your house late, break a window, and then kill them. If you had the right to use whatever force you wanted to with a self-defense excuse, then all you would have to do is tell the jury that you were afraid for your life.

The laws are not set up to protect the criminal as some people say. They are the way they are to protect potential murder victims. As someone else stated, if there was real proof that you were in danger, you likely wouldn't get convicted. There was a case like that in Winnipeg a while ago.

[browna]

Depending on such a situation, but firing that gun in the air, or the drywall 5 ft away from the guy, when catching a petty thief doing a B&E to your house or car should theoreticlly do the trick. I guess you could be charged with unsafe discharge of a firearm, but in such a situation that would be likely the lowest degree of that offense.

If the guy is coming at you after the firing of a gun at him, you would think the rules to defend yourself just became a lot less stringent....even then a well placed shot to the leg/knee should also do the trick for neutralization. At least hold them long enough for the authorities to be called and for you to get away from the situation long enough to be no longer in danger.

If that doesn't work, clearly your fighting a bear or Robocop, so say a couple prayers and hope for the best.

[Clever_Iggy]

From what I remember in law school, in the US using a gun to defend your property is not justifiable. So if your brother in Montana saw someone trying to steal his truck and shot him, your brother is in big trouble.

Without looking it up, I remember the phrase "castle defense" or something, but that only applies to personal safety not property. The obvious loophole is that if someone is in your house, you can argue that you honestly did fear for your personal safety even if the robber was only there for your plasma.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by worth

That is why a shotgun with buckshot is the best option for self defense. Bullets will go through drywall and on for miles. Shot has much less velocity, and stopping power only at close range. Much safer for your neighbours.

I was talking with some Americans about this a few years ago. Their logic was that if you have the shot gun leaning against the wall by the bed. The intruder might see it, pick it up and use it against you before you even know he is in the house. Their argument was that you could hide a hand gun anywhere.

[Crispy's Critter]

just shoot the guy in the wang. It's below the waist, so not attempted murder, but it will effectively end his life

[worth]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

I was talking with some Americans about this a few years ago. Their logic was that if you have the shot gun leaning against the wall by the bed. The intruder might see it, pick it up and use it against you before you even know he is in the house. Their argument was that you could hide a hand gun anywhere.

Well, we don't have that problem here. Shotgun would need at minimum a trigger lock and unloaded while a pistol would have to be in a locked case to be legal.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Get a big, loud dog.

[CaptainCrunch]

Wonder how the law would feel about the Claymore mines embeded in my front and back door, and the M-60 bunker situatated between the kitchen and living room.

My next renovation is a bear pit with pugi sticks smeared in human excrement.

That'll teach them teenagers to break into my house

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

Get a big, loud dog.

Or a big loud wife

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wonder how the law would feel about the Claymore mines embeded in my front and back door, and the M-60 bunker situatated between the kitchen and living room.

My next renovation is a bear pit with pugi sticks smeared in human excrement.

That'll teach them teenagers to break into my house

You'll have to warn your guests sufficiently of any and all dangers you know about on your property.

On an unrelated note, let's all agree not to go to Captain's house for the next networking meeting.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by fredr123

On an unrelated note, let's all agree not to go to Captain's house for the next networking meeting.

Ten men enter, one man leaves.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by worth

Well, we don't have that problem here. Shotgun would need at minimum a trigger lock and unloaded while a pistol would have to be in a locked case to be legal.

Could that be hard to prove in court? If you have a trigger lock and there is evidence that a trigger lock was on the shot gun at one time. How could you prove other wise? I guess the court would need to determine the time frame from when the burglar or intruder got into your residence to the time he got the barrel of the 12 gage shoved up his nose. If you blew his head off it would be really tough to prove if the shotgun was sitting without a trigger lock and loaded vs with a trigger lock and unloaded?

[Ford Prefect]

I'm a farm boy ... shoot, shovel and shut up I say.

Seriously though, how does a person know what the intentions of an invader are and what the level of threat is. Should a person ask them, "Excuse me Mr. Crack Addict, are you just here to steal a few valuables, but now that I've interrupted you will you politely leave, or are you going to have to kill me?" Screw that, I'm going to fire away and try to defend myself in court later. At least I know I'll still be alive. The assurances the other way don't seem too great.