Posted on Aug 22, 2025
Canadian cops charge homeowner with assault for attacking burglar
1.85K
46
13
11
11
0
Oh Canada!!! ... He must of beat him "extra"
Canadian cops charge homeowner with assault for attacking burglar
Posted from dailymail.co.uk
Canada
Crime
Justice
Home Defense
Posted 4 mo ago
Responses: 5
4
4
0
This is what I do not agree with (wording-wise): "However, it is important to understand that these rights are not unlimited in Canada. The law requires that any defensive action be PROPORTIONATE to the threat faced. This means that while homeowners do have the right to protect themselves and their property, the use of force must be reasonable given the circumstances."
So if I use a gun, which subjectively to some would be considered NOT "proportionate" (which is the point), it sounds like Canada would prosecute, and this is concerning and it's BS. There isn't any reporting that I see that the defendant dragged him back into the house, or kept pummeling him, or tortured him after it was clear he was subdued (and how can you be sure by the way?). Even without a gun, if someone breaks into my home, I will not use "proportional force"... I will be using as much overwhelming force as I am able to make sure me and my family are safe. But the likeliest scenario, will be me shooting an armed individual breaking into my home. I'm not going to try to assess the situation further and measure myself up to the individual, what kind of weapon they have, calculate his ability to use it before I shoot him (or take defensive actions in general). All I need to know is, intruder, in my home uninvited, threat... Take him down hard. And yes, I have faced a similar situation. The intruder had the good sense to run when he saw me go for my gun.
Something is obviously missing in this report and I don't understand why the Police couldn't provide some measure of clarifying details.
So if I use a gun, which subjectively to some would be considered NOT "proportionate" (which is the point), it sounds like Canada would prosecute, and this is concerning and it's BS. There isn't any reporting that I see that the defendant dragged him back into the house, or kept pummeling him, or tortured him after it was clear he was subdued (and how can you be sure by the way?). Even without a gun, if someone breaks into my home, I will not use "proportional force"... I will be using as much overwhelming force as I am able to make sure me and my family are safe. But the likeliest scenario, will be me shooting an armed individual breaking into my home. I'm not going to try to assess the situation further and measure myself up to the individual, what kind of weapon they have, calculate his ability to use it before I shoot him (or take defensive actions in general). All I need to know is, intruder, in my home uninvited, threat... Take him down hard. And yes, I have faced a similar situation. The intruder had the good sense to run when he saw me go for my gun.
Something is obviously missing in this report and I don't understand why the Police couldn't provide some measure of clarifying details.
(4)
(0)
COL Randall C.
I think a reasonable evaluation would be if the intruder is displaying a deadly threat than you are justified in using deadly action to mitigate that threat. You threaten me with a knife, bang.
Hypothetically (as I have no clue as to why they are charging the homeowner), let say the homeowner struck the intruder with a club (baseball bat, etc.) and 'subdued' him. He then continued to beat the intruder with said club. That would be an instance where Canadian law would say the homeowner has moved from self-defense to assault.
Otherwise, I go back to my statement below SGT McCloud's response ... I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 and second-guessing your reaction in that situation is how you get carried.
Hypothetically (as I have no clue as to why they are charging the homeowner), let say the homeowner struck the intruder with a club (baseball bat, etc.) and 'subdued' him. He then continued to beat the intruder with said club. That would be an instance where Canadian law would say the homeowner has moved from self-defense to assault.
Otherwise, I go back to my statement below SGT McCloud's response ... I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 and second-guessing your reaction in that situation is how you get carried.
(4)
(0)
SGM Jeff Mccloud
COL Randall C. - There is definitely too much missing from the reporting so far, like an unreasonable amount of information.
(2)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
COL Randall C. - I get that the Homeowner may have already subdued him with a single swing, but I still find this subjective. I would imagine there would have to be a lot of evidence he kept swinging after it was apparent he's not getting up. But a so many hypotheticals can even come up from there too. And like we've all said, the report leaves far too much unanswered, and I am a little concerned the Police couldn't at least say something make it clearer.
(3)
(0)
SGM Jeff Mccloud
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin - Here are some benefits of the doubt I came up with for the police.
-the less they release to the news, the more likely this homeowner will at least get a fair trial on the charge, or possibly have the charges considered and dropped.
-and this one is more of a stretch, there may have been some kind of connection or relationship between the homeowner and the perp, and the break in was not as simple as just a burglary.
A stretch, I know, but in the Canadian news outlets on this story, the cops go out of their way to state that there is no on-going public threat based this case.
-the less they release to the news, the more likely this homeowner will at least get a fair trial on the charge, or possibly have the charges considered and dropped.
-and this one is more of a stretch, there may have been some kind of connection or relationship between the homeowner and the perp, and the break in was not as simple as just a burglary.
A stretch, I know, but in the Canadian news outlets on this story, the cops go out of their way to state that there is no on-going public threat based this case.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
If the intruder resisted, a rising level of violence seems justified to me. The Crown Prosecutor doesn't have to follow up on the charges. If I were in that position, I wouldn't take it to court
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
That's my guess.
"'However, it is important to understand that these rights are not unlimited in Canada. The law requires that any defensive action be proportionate to the threat faced"
The only thing I can imagine that would warrant charges is that the guy kept swinging, with a weapon, after the intruder was unconscious, and/or left a blood trail by dragging the unconscious intruder back into his home.
"'However, it is important to understand that these rights are not unlimited in Canada. The law requires that any defensive action be proportionate to the threat faced"
The only thing I can imagine that would warrant charges is that the guy kept swinging, with a weapon, after the intruder was unconscious, and/or left a blood trail by dragging the unconscious intruder back into his home.
(4)
(0)
COL Randall C.
Agree. IF this is the situation, then the charges against the homeowner would appear to be justified under Canadian law*.
However, IF not, than it does sound like more of an overreach.
Canada doesn't have a Castle Doctrine in self-defense and you are only allowed to use a reasonable amount of force based on the threat you face. As the intruder was charged with "possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose" it does sound like there are other factors involved that would lead to charges against the homeowner.
It is pretty bizarre though.
I'm not a violent individual, but if you break into my home and you display a threat to myself or family, then your life is in grave danger. I subscribe to the notion that I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
------------------------------
* Canadian law regarding self-defense - https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-34.html
However, IF not, than it does sound like more of an overreach.
Canada doesn't have a Castle Doctrine in self-defense and you are only allowed to use a reasonable amount of force based on the threat you face. As the intruder was charged with "possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose" it does sound like there are other factors involved that would lead to charges against the homeowner.
It is pretty bizarre though.
I'm not a violent individual, but if you break into my home and you display a threat to myself or family, then your life is in grave danger. I subscribe to the notion that I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
------------------------------
* Canadian law regarding self-defense - https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-34.html
Federal laws of Canada
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google