Good. Self defense is not a crime nor should it be. And yes I am aware that many people don't understand what self defense means on a legal level, they can fuck off.
this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
55 points (96.6% liked)
Canada
11641 readers
653 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
- Anmore (BC)
- Burnaby (BC)
- Calgary (AB)
- Comox Valley (BC)
- Edmonton (AB)
- East Gwillimbury (ON)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kingston (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Niagara Falls (ON)
- Niagara-on-the-Lake (ON)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Sarnia (ON)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Squamish (BC)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Whistler (BC)
- Windsor (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- Buy Canadian
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Canadian Skincare
- Churning Canada
- Quebec Finance
- Canada Grown Business
🗣️ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
🍁 Social / Culture
- Ask a Canadian
- Bières Québec
- Canada Francais
- Canadian Gaming
- EhVideos (Canadian video media)
- First Nations
- First Nations Languages
- Indigenous
- Inuit
- Logiciels libres au Québec
- Maple Music (music)
Rules
- Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Oh no they understand, people were just getting wro fully charged for doing so before.
Canada is mostly good at sorting out the facts. After an initial arrest the gears of justice grind away and the facts lead to dismissals. Every time this happens though, people get all heated up about the initial arrest.
Doug Ford was one of those people.
There is a very big difference between 'defending yourself' and 'deciding to take the law into your own hand and dishing out your own brand of justice and punishment'.
Doing the first is your right, doing the second is vigilante justice and almost always turns the country into 'rule by organized crime'. Mexico is a good example of what happens when the 'right to defend' leads to 'the right to impose your will regardless of the law'.
Can you elaborate on how that is the case in Mexico?
The Mexican cartel that thought they had a right to defend themselves by using a rocket against a police helicopter.
Unhinged to compare self-defence causing bodily harm to a literal terrorist organization.
My point was to demonstrate the end result of the unrestricted right to defend by any means possible. What exactly does 'intruder' mean? It goes both ways. If it applies to a law-abiding citizen, it applies to everyone, criminals included.
Ugh! No if that's your basis then no!
Are you saying that if someone breaks into your home with apparent intent to cause harm that you can't defend your person with whatever means necessary? I think that if someone breaks in brandishing a weapon that it should be open season.
This isn't a case of a homeowner beating up a drunk that accidentally broke into a house thinking it was their own and fell asleep on the couch.
"Open season' has a tendency to develop into open warfare against anyone you do not like. Unrestricted 'self defense' is wide open to abuse, like it is in America.
The United States has a lot of fucking awful laws and rules, but one of the few I actually agree with is castle doctrine, or at least a reasonable interpretation of it. Anyone entering the interior of my home with intention to do harm while breaking things without significant advance warning and just cause and/or my explicit permission should have no legal expectation of safety and no legal protection, and there should be no consequences whatsoever if I decide to unleash my inner Kevin McCallister on their soon-to-be-very-sorry ass. FAFO.
To paraphrase a line, fans of castle doctrine seem to see home invasions as a kind of cosmic lottery where every now and then one among them will be annointed with the opportunity to legally commit murder.
You told on yourself hard with that Kevin McCallister bit. This isn't about safety. It's not about justice. It's about you foaming at the mouth at the idea that one day you might be granted the chance to unleash all the resentment and anger festering inside you.
Meanwhile the reality of castle doctrine is stuff like this; https://apnews.com/article/indiana-house-cleaner-shot-wrong-address-2068589a1c3de79c36d88430674fae78
I wasn't going to bother replying to this dumpster fire of people taking my comment way too seriously and assuming I meant things I didn't say, but your comment seemed reasonable enough in tone but so over the top in conclusion that it feels like maybe an opportunity to try to clear up a bit of misunderstanding.
I'm perfectly willing to debate what "reasonable interpretation of it" means, including how that explicitly excludes the extremely robust and often fatal American interpretation of it, if people want to do that, but the article you linked suggests you're not looking for reasonable interpretations of it, you're looking to cherry pick the worst to imply that's what I'm recommending, which I'm not. Neither standing at someone's door nor trying to open it are crimes, nor should they be. Are there gray areas? Sure, we can certainly discuss what's reasonable within those gray areas and edge cases. What you linked is not a gray area, it is absolutely wrong. I acknowledge that.
Kevin McCallister was supposed to be a mild joke, lighten the tone a bit. I didn't think anyone would be able to take seriously the idea of having enough advance warning of a burglary for creating elaborate rube-goldberg booby traps for home invaders. Clearly I was wrong about that. My hope was that it would trigger a little bit of a thought process in readers that would prevent people from being so kneejerk angry about this topic, not make people angrier.
Furthermore, it is not in fact about me at all, not that I expect you to ever believe that since you can clearly peer directly into my mind by using my words that I choose to post on the internet. Whether you believe it or not, I am in fact a big teddy bear, and I have no illusions that I would personally hurt anyone in this way or ever have any personal need for this. I know myself, and I know exactly how I would react to a violent home invasion, and I can assure you, it would be utterly stupid and naive in the exact opposite way of violence.
However I do have a strong sense of justice and empathy for people who, through past trauma or mental state, have a violently strong aversion to people entering their very clear and extremely well-defined personal spaces where they have what I feel is a very reasonable expectation of safety and comfort, and when the facts are as clear as they are in this case, I don't think those people who do react violently to a very clear invasion deserve to be further threatened or victimized by the legal system that presumes they don't have any legal right to do that. My point of view may be tinted by the fact that in my hometown several children ranging from age 3 to age 12 were recently brutally raped and some left with permanent life altering injuries by a well-known and previously convicted sex offender. I would really strongly appreciate it if people did not break the windows and doors of other people's houses while there are people inside and attempt to enter them, and I really do not have much sympathy for those who do think there are any valid reasons for that.
My point of view may be tinted by the fact that in my hometown several children ranging from age 3 to age 12 were recently brutally raped and some left with permanent life altering injuries by a well-known and previously convicted sex offender.
First off, that's horrific, and I wouldn't wish that experience on anyone. I'm sorry that those people went through that, and I'm sorry that you had to experience being a part of a community that went through that.
But if I'm understanding you correctly - and please correct me if I'm not - it very much sounds like you feel that the police used too light a hand in that case. There was a person with a known history of the same exact crime, and that person was left to continue their actions without any intervention. You would, I assume, concur with the idea that the accused's past should have played a much stronger role in the investigation and that the police should have been quicker to pursue a charge, yes?
So let's take a closer look at this self-defence case.
Historical court records reviewed by CBC News show he [McDonald, the man who defended himself] has a violent past. McDonald pleaded guilty to three charges, including assault, following a 2001 incident involving a baseball bat. The more serious charge of assault with a weapon was withdrawn. Seven years later, McDonald again pleaded guilty — this time to assault causing bodily harm — in connection with an attack on another man. He was sentenced to a three-month jail term and 18 months' probation. McDonald also admitted to breaching probation and, separately, failing to comply with a release order.
So, the cops arrive at the home of a man with a well known and extensive history of violent assaults, and find in his home a violently assaulted person in critical condition. This well known violent criminal with a history of doing stuff exactly like this says "Oh no officers, he attacked me, I was just defending myself." And the cops look at the person bleeding to death, in critical condition, covered in lacerations (this is established elsewhere in the article, feel free to check), being rushed to hospital, and they look at the known violent criminal with exactly credibility, and they call bullshit.
Just like they should have called bullshit when that sex offender said something to the effect of "Oh no, it wasn't me, it must be some other serial rapist."
You can't have it both ways, can you? You can't have a world where the cops call bullshit on the rapist, while also having a world where the cops immediately suss out that the man with a history of violent assaults did not in fact commit a violent assault in this situation where it really, really looks like he committed a violent assault. They did their jobs; they arrested him, they pressed charges, and then when all of the evidence was in view the Crown determined that the defendant's story actually did line up well enough that they're pretty sure he's not lying. This time.
I agree with all those things and I think they're very reasonable. Without getting too much into the weeds about the local case I mentioned, I don't have any problem with the actions of police in that case, but I do have some serious problems with the laws that are in place.
Maybe I am giving the accused in this case too much credit, it's something I do often. And maybe I'm mistaken, but I believe the reason this guy is not being punished for what he did is not because what he did is not an actual crime (as far as I know, it still is) but because police are simply declining to prosecute it in this particular case. The outcome may be the same, but I think those are very different situations. That is the part I am not so comfortable with, I think those are fundamentally different things and I don't think the police should be ones left with the responsibility for making that decision. It's the difference between being owed $200 for passing go, and being gifted $200 for passing go. You've got $200 either way, but gifts aren't required by the rule book.
All I'm saying is that I think the law should be much clearer about this kind of situation to avoid the police having to make those judgement calls, because they can feel very arbitrary in that case, and in my experience that often leads to having those judgement calls applied in very inconsistent and unequal ways, especially if the person accused could be vulnerable to certain prejudices that do seem to exist in our world, and sometimes in our police forces and justice system too. I understand it's not going to solve that particular problem on its own, but if the laws or legal precedent were more explicit and specific to define when exactly we might consider something to be reasonable use of force in defense of one's home, I think we could avoid a lot of the questions and uncertainty that we see in this case.
maybe I’m mistaken, but I believe the reason this guy is not being punished for what he did is not because what he did is not an actual crime (as far as I know, it still is) but because police are simply declining to prosecute it in this particular case.
You are, indeed, mistaken.
Self-defence is not a crime in Canada. If you're starting from the position that it is, you're wrong, and you need to educate yourself more on how Canadian law works.
Section 34, Canadian Criminal Code:
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.
What the police did in this situation is they looked at the evidence, said "This isn't clear cut enough for us to make a judgement call, so we'll leave that to the courts." And the Crown looked at all of the evidence, and made the judgement call that he was innocent. That's how law works. Sooner or later someone has to make a call. Whether that's the cops, or the prosecutors, or the jury, you cannot ever have a legal code that is so thorough in its detail that no judgement calls are ever required. That's why courts and the adversarial justice system exist.
And this particularly case was not even remotely a clear cut one. No amount of detail in the law would have prevented this from being messy and complicated. But when you refuse to look at the details, and just consume only the briefest headline version - "man charged for defending himself from attacker with crossbow" - it's always going to sound easy, because you're not looking at the reality, just an oversimplified caricature of it.
Mere self-defense is not what I'm talking about though. This says the man confronted him. According to my understanding of the way courts interpret self-defense, that is, therefore, not self-defense. If you go after a guy who's broken into your house and you're wielding a baseball bat, that is, at least as far as I understand it, assault with a weapon. It doesn't matter that he was in your home, and it's not self-defense because you were the aggressor, and entering someone's house is not an "assault".
I'm not an expert and I'm not pretending I am, but this is my understanding. Maybe my understanding is indeed incorrect. Maybe you have a better understanding. Either way I hope to never be in a position where I would have to test it.
This says the man confronted him.
I've not seen any reporting to that effect. You're welcome to provide a source.
If you go after a guy who's broken into your house and you're wielding a baseball bat, that is, at least as far as I understand it, assault with a weapon. It doesn't matter that he was in your home, and it's not self-defense because you were the aggressor, and entering someone's house is not an "assault".
Correct. If an altercation is not necessary, and you chose to make one happen anyway, you are the aggressor.
It's literally in the title: "Assault charges dropped against Ontario man who confronted [emphasis mine] home intruder"
My point of view is that the altercation became necessary the moment someone smashed windows and used the smashed window to gain entry into the house. You're forcing someone into making a split second decision at that point, and you can't expect those decisions to always be the correct one, and I don't think it is criminal to make what might be the wrong decision (or might be exactly the right decision) in such an extreme situation. In the even more extremely unlikely event that the intruder actually had a legitimate reason to be breaking windows and entering the house that way I would call it a very regrettable and unfortunate accident, and it is a very difficult stretch to imagine that actually happening in the real world. But accidents do happen, and they are unfortunate. I don't think that kind of accident would happen very often.
Otherwise I have to assume they are probably either going to try to get the fuck out as promptly as possible which I would strongly encourage them to do, or they are armed and are going to be starting an altercation themselves with me in the very immediate future which will likely result in my demise. And it's definitely self-defense at that point. I don't think it is reasonable to be waiting for proof of the need for self-defense to actually start, because by that point it's probably too late.
It’s literally in the title: “Assault charges dropped against Ontario man who confronted [emphasis mine] home intruder”
You're reading a LOT into a choice of wording in a headline there. We do not know anything about the circumstances of the "confrontation" in question. Nothing there indicates that he, for example, went out of his way to get into a fight when he didn't have to.
You’re forcing someone into making a split second decision at that point, and you can’t expect those decisions to always be the correct one, and I don’t think it is criminal to make what might be the wrong decision (or might be exactly the right decision) in such an extreme situation.
Correct. It is not, in fact, criminal to do that. Defendants are given significant leeway in self-defence claims precisely because the law does not expect people to make the right judgement call in a split second. If you responded to a seemingly legitimate threat in a moment of panic, that's still covered by self-defence. What's not covered is a) going out of your way to get into a fight, and b) using force that is clearly unnecessary or disproportional to the threat against you. Everything else is fair game.
Remember, the charges against this guy were dropped. Even though his assailant ended up on death's door, in an emergency room, covered in lacerations and bleeding to death, that was still considered fair and reasonable self-defence. You're panicking over nothing.
Where did I sound like I was panicking? All I've been trying to do is have an opinion, share that opinion, discuss that opinion, and defend that position when it is attacked by people turning the things I'm saying into catastrophic strawmen.
It's not even that strong of an opinion, if I'm being honest, but I do believe in the principle that these are discussions worth having and if that means I have to be devil's advocate then so be it, but it doesn't mean I have to be treated like the literal devil.
Read the room, champ.
I am SO glad you do not rule our country.
It is only a very small step from what you said to the male head of the household having the right of life or death over the wife or female children. The right to do whatever he pleases with the wife and children. The right to be as racially prejudiced and the right to do whatever he pleases to any non-white male, because of course all he has to say is 'they were an intruder'.
Yup, I'm with you on this one
I can't imagine living in a place where defending yourself in your own home from an intruder with a crossbow is up for debate.
Read the article bud.
Crown attorney Sarah Repka told the court on Thursday that prosecutors have since been able to review further evidence, including medical records and the results of forensic testing, that were not available to police when they first laid charges.
At the time that the charges were brought, the evidence suggested he may have broken the law. New evidence made it sufficiently clear that he hadn't. That's a really big part of how prosecutions work.
We have a very simple principle here; proportionate response. Someone tries to beat the crap out of you, you got every right to beat the crap out of him. Someone pulls a knife on you, you can pull a knife on him. Someone attacks you with enough physical force and threat that you're in fear of your life, you can do what it takes to protect yourself. Depending on the circumstances, that can even result in your attacker's death, as long as you weren't going out of your way to seek that outcome when there were very clearly other options available. And it's very, very rare that cases like this even get prosecuted, because the law and the courts are very generous to the defendant.
You can absolutely defend yourself in Canada. We just don't think it's reasonable to gun down a teenager for the crime of ringing your doorbell. And for some reason Americans always seem to take issue with that.
But this defense costs money. Likely thousands. That shouldn't be the case
The Crown dropped the case of their own accord after reviewing the additional evidence. He didn't have to defend himself in court.
Obviously that doesn't mean that no legal costs were incurred. We do have public defenders in Canada, so it's likely those costs were born by the state. If he did incur any out of pocket expenses I would certainly like to see him compensated for those. Unfortunately I'm not aware of what the specific law is on that matter.
But again, as I pointed out elsewhere, this is a very, very rare case. Normally cases for self-defence are never even brought to begin with. The Crown either fucked up very badly here, or they sincerely believed that they had a very strong case that this was not legitimate.
That can happen in any justice system. Unless you simply declare that all murder is legal, there is absolutely no version of a self-defence exemption that will not sometimes be wrongly prosecuted. The question here is not whether or not the prosecuters were right to bring the case, it's whether or not Canada's legal self-defence standard makes sense. And given a choice between what we have, which works extremely well, and very rarely produces outlier results like this (remember, you never hear about the self-defence incidents that don't get prosecuted) and a system where cleaners get shot for knocking at the wrong house, I think the choice is clear.
There's a few ways I would like to take this but also I think overall I agree with you.
I don't go into it to much but where I'm slowly adapting my views are on a few issues.
One is that I think one is that no cost should be incurred by anyone who defended themselves. I do totally get the argument that everybody deserves justice including criminals. But the stories I've come across tend to highlight how self defense laws are lacking in Canada and there is a lot of room between allowing all killings and some kind of castle doctrine.
The second issue for me is as I've aged, I can't tell you what the hell police do. The amount of times myself or someone i know has called them, only for them to say "not much we can do, just file a report online" is too many. Yet majority of my municipal taxes go to them. So for me I am coming around to the idea that we need to pull back some of the responsibility society has given to police and reclaim it ourselves. They're not keeping us safe. They are now refusing to act when the government tells them to. Because of this I think society does need to go back to the idea that we can't rely on the justice system.
The amount of times myself or someone i know has called them, only for them to say “not much we can do, just file a report online”
Exactly how high do you want your taxes to go? Complete coverage for all o the calls would be prohibitively expensive, and I suspect you would be one of the first people to protest your high taxes.
If they cannot provide this basic service then we as the public need to the law in our own hands. The entier reason we do not is we entrust that to police. But they no longer serve. They are there to increase their budget and militarize themselves to protect only certain people.
But the stories I’ve come across tend to highlight how self defense laws are lacking in Canada
Here's the thing. I hear this a lot. And every single time that I've ever been presented with an example, and looked into it deep enough, or enough time has passed that more information came to light, every obvious case of Canada's self-defence laws "failing" has always turned out to be "No, actually, in this case there really was a line crossed."
That's not to say that no law can ever fail. Laws do get misapplied, and no law is perfect. There are edge cases where people will simply disagree; that happens a lot with the law. There are entire fields of academia basically devoted to disagreeing about laws. But it is remarkable that I have never yet seen even one clear cut case of "Wow, that guy totally did not deserve to get charged with anything, he was clearly just defending himself," that didn't turn out to be something far more ambiguous, if not outright damning to the defendant when the details are known.
"Defending yourself against someone with a crossbow is the same as gunning down an unarmed teenager"
In that both of those things are apparently legal in the respective countries? Yes.
Ever wonder why in USA there's tons of case where people shot their own family because they think they're intruder? Most of the world function like what you can't imagine, yet we exists and thriving.
The mandela catalogue is not a documentary
Not even sure what is that supposed to mean but ok.
It typically is in Canada because until the stories are proven you don't know what went down.
Because you have to see if they really did that.
Then I wonder, can you imagine living in Canada? You know, that land where the Rule of Law is still important. That land that defines when 'self-defense' turns into 'assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill'. No matter what Ford says, he is provincial and has no authority nor say over the Criminal Code, which is prosecuted by Federal, not Provincial, prosecutors. Ford would get charged if he crosses that line, just like any other person in Canada. And he could go to jail if convicted, just like any other person in Canada.