Home Defense in Canada... How Far Can You Go (Legally)?

"Can't even defend yourself in Canada"... that's what some 'Muricans think, apparently (and some Canadians too). What does the law say? What has happened in actual cases of home invasion, when a defender stabbed or shot an invader? Let's talk about it!

You'll also hear my opinion on what I consider "reasonable" force, and what may be taking it a little too far, beyond mere self-defense. Might be worth considering before you rush to decapitate someone with a sword for trying to steal your microwave. :)

*** Sources ***

*** Music credits ***

Outro:
"Highland Storm" by The Slanted Room Records
Used with artist's permission

*** Merch ***

*** Support the channel ***

Help fund future videos, get bonus content and access to an exclusive Discord server:

Other ways to support the channel by shopping through affiliate links:

Kult of Athena, my favorite online store for reproductions of historical arms and armor, fantasy swords, etc:

Where to get HEMA gear and practice swords:

Want to treat your face fluff? I highly recommend the balms and oils from Beard Sorcery:

Books about history, martial arts, swords, knives, video/audio equipment, and other stuff I recommend:

*** Social media ***

[Hathur]

Not a lawyer, but I was a court reporter for 5 years in the Greater Toronto area. My experience as a court reporter, anytime I saw self-defense cases go to court, was that judges more often than not ruled somewhat harshly against the individual who opted to defend themselves with a weapon (improvised or otherwise) - even when the victim was attacked by an armed assailant. The most egregious case I personally recall that I covered was of a 52 year old man who was getting into his car (on his driveway at home) when a car thief rushed him, struck him repeatedly with a sap-like weapon and threw him to the driveway and then got into the car to steal it. The victim, wounded at this point with blunt force trauma to the face and head, got up, opened the rear passenger door and pulled out a plastic ice scraper that was on the rear seat. He then proceeded to bludgeon and slash the thief with the plastic ice scraper as he was trying to start the car. The victim delivered significant blows to the thief's head and knocked him unconscious.

Unfortunately, the insane judge ruled that bludgeoning the thief unconscious was excessive force and he himself was charged with assault on the damn thief. It took all my willpower not to scream in outrage while I was sitting at the back of the court at this. Sadly over the years I watched instances of this (though not as severe) happen several more times where victims where told "you used too much force" when defending themselves against assault etc.

[KenseiSwords]

As a Canadian, if somebody enters my house against my wishes and with ill-intent, I'll decide what is an appropriate response.

[youremakingprogress]

Thanks for including the important element of state of mind. If someone tried to stab me with a knife, I would be much nearer panic than if they tried to punch me, and you're only focused on doing whatever it takes to survive when you're panicking.

[canadianeh]

The actual letter of the law is pretty lenient on self defense. It is vague though, and how it is interpreted by the courts can be absolutely ridiculous.

[jarongreen]

Crook: breaks into house and threatens home owner.

Home owner :In this split second of full awareness I've had since being disturbed I have analyzed the threat and calculated and deduced the exact amount of appropriate force to be used that will not only resolves the situation but will also be legally sound and comply with the laws in my state or

Crook :wtf?

[ViridianCrisis]

Yeah, with the stabbing as an example, my mindset is always that you aren’t responsible for the force you use until you’re no longer in immediate danger. If the first stab or two didn’t make the attacker disengage you keep going.

[STM]

Society is slowly privileging the safety of the armed robber or burglar over that of the home owner or law abiding citizen. In my country of Ireland, a man was recently sentenced for killing a violent burglar in self defense whilst he was a minor. People should not be under any obligations to “retreat” or any other nonsense when someone has broken into your home or attacked you

[gregcampwriter]

One key flaw in legal systems like this is that most people are barred by law from carrying weapons for self-defense--or from having a weapon at the ready in your home. Sure, you're allowed to defend yourself. But you're not supposed to be prepared to do so.

[midnightanimal]

I hate when a law has the word "reasonable" in it. It's entirely subjective and results in you being at the mercy of some prosecutor's interpretation, rather than a clear cut definition.

[vladimirdragonov]

Meanwhile my state recently passed a law that says its ok to use lethal force against a public servant if they illegally enter your home or vehicle.

[kdoubleg]

The situation were the shotgun was fired above the thieves head was actually considered guilty partly on the fact that wildly firing into the air is very very illegal here in canada.

[grandmajosephine]

Recently a British man was convicted of a weapons charge for holding a couple of home invaders at bay with his child's toy gun.

[Jonahchv]

When suddenly attacked, you are to stop defending the moment it is no longer necessary. Something that even trained professionals often have a hard time determining and emotionally responding to.
And sadly, there are many cases where someone did stop and then the attack was renewed.

[deriums]

I'm in the camp that if anyone breaks into your home, they forfeit any protections, period.
Anyone willing to break into a home knows homeowners have the right to defend themselves, basically the intruder signed a contract saying they understand this and accept any and all possible outcomes.

[Mtonazzi]

One thing that pisses me off for sure: when journalists and the like cry when a victim of society gets maimed of killed by someone defending himself at their house and say stuff like "the home owner valued regarded his belongings to be worth more than the robber's life", when it's actually the other way around and the robber considered that the potential loot was more valuable than his own life.

[jarvy]

Having worked in an armed profession, it's broken down to three aspects: Weapon, intent and delivery. You need all three to be justified in using lethal force.
Someone with a knife threatening to kill you from the other side of a window only has 2/3 for example. There is Weapon and intent, but he can't actually deliver on the threat while he is still outside. But if he has a gun, then he CAN deliver on that threat and you have all 3.
A weapon can be anything, from steel toed boots to fists.
As noted, warning shots or "shooting to wound" are never appropriate. You would be employing a lethal weapon at a time when you do not actually feel your life is threatened enough to try to effectively stop the threat. What you perhaps think is a humane act will be (justifiably imo) used as evidence you were not in fear of immediate harm, and were therefore recklessly discharging a firearm.
You have a duty to use the minimum amount of force to stop the threat, even if that amount of force is lethal. If they run, give up, or are incapacitated, the threat is stopped.

[halajko]

U.S. 1st year law student here! (and disclaimer that this isn't legal advice) When I was studying for crim a good rule of thumb (which of course has exceptions) that I had was the discrepancy between non-lethal (technically just less-lethal) force and deadly force. In a lot of cases if self defense is justified, non-lethal force wasn't a problem. But in some cases if a defender answered an attacker who was only using non-lethal force with deadly force of their own, they actually took the role of aggressor. Basically I found that the attacker sets the bar for how much force is being used, and if you raise it to deadly force as the defender there could be trouble.

To your point of people running away, many jurisdictions in the US allow attackers to back off from an attack, and continuing to fight them after someone has clearly surrendered may strip you of your claim to SD. This doesn't mean the initial aggressor won't get in trouble, it just means you won't be able to claim SD for anything past that. These rules change slightly based on jurisdiction, but I find it helpful in getting a basic foundational idea of how things work. Hope this helps people who are frustrated by the legal system's logic!

Also, I really like you're approach to researching this from a citizen's perspective. Reading the statute and looking at recent cases is the foundation for how we study criminal law in the states, and to my knowledge Canada is a common law country and follows similar principles.

[Colonel_dinggus]

I’ve heard horror stories of ridiculous court cases being held in Canada regarding home defense. One family tried to sue a homeowner because their son accidentally fell into and drowned in the homeowners backyard pool while he was trying to break into their house

[JETWTF]

9:15 13 times is not excessive. Killing blow may have been stab #1 but adrenaline fueled fight or flight behavior changes ones perception, danger could have been abated but it could take a minute or even more before the person realizes it. Panic is a powerful emotion and always overrides everything. Someone could be panicked and stab 100 times before they realize the threat is gone.

[ethannorman]

I'm glad your talking about this. Most people are clueless when it comes to self defense. it's nice to know that you have a reasonable and informed opinion. If you want to see more cases of real world self defense I suggest watching the active self protection channel on YouTube