A 26-year-old victim of a home invasion is now facing the prospect of an assault charge after he successfully defended his home against two burglars who had broken in.

After arresting the two robbers, police then set their sights on the home owner because he hit one of them in the head with a shovel.

According to the police, they were called by the home owner around 5:20 am Sunday morning when he heard a noise in his garage and went to check it out. After hanging up with 9-1-1, the man picked up a shovel to defend himself against the home invaders.

When he confronted the burglars, he hit one of them in the head with the shovel and they both ran off.

Both of the suspected 19-year-old burglars were later arrested. According to police, after they received the 9-1-1 call for the home invasion and were interviewing the burglary victim, the suspected burglar then called to report his injury.

As Global News reports, upon arrival they found two men, both 19 years old, who fit the description of the suspects wanted in connection with the home invasion.

The teen with head injuries was rushed in serious condition to hospital, where he was placed under arrest.

The other teen was arrested on site.

After arresting both of the teens, police launched a second investigation into the home owner. For fending off the two burglars, the 26-year-old could be charged with assault with a weapon.

Police spokesperson Caroline Chevrefils told CJAD News that "You cannot assault somebody if they are not hitting you."

The very idea of charging someone for defending himself against two people who broke into his home is utterly asinine. According to the police logic, this man would've had to allow the burglars to attack him first, before defending himself. Ominously enough, that is the law in Canada.

While it is certainly not okay to initiate force against others who are not threatening you, the very act of entering a home without the permission of the owner is a de facto threat and appropriate force is justified.

The man didn't kill the teens, he merely swung a shovel at them to get them out of his home. Under Canadian law, the government grants property owners, what they refer to as "reasonable" right to self-defense.

While this incident takes place in Canada, the idea of police going after the victim of a burglary for fending off criminals is chilling.

In Canada, using deadly force to defend yourself can and does often result in the person being arrested and charged with a crime.

Just last month, a man in Halifax, Nova Scotia, was issued numerous charges-including attempted murder-after wrestling a gun away from a home invasion suspect and shooting him with it.

As is the case most of the time, Crown prosecutors don't like Canadians doing what is required to stay alive, so victims who successfully fend off their attackers all too often find themselves on trial facing serious charges.

Is it not reasonable to assume two men who broke into your garage are a threat, and therefore resort to force?

In Canada, however, the government wants to be the only ones who can use force. As TFTP has previously reported, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) killed a man outside of a restaurant in 2015 who was wearing a Guy Fawkes mask.

Why weren't these officers charged?

not everyplace has a 'stand your ground' loophole


some places still expect 'reasonable' attempts to avoid danger or flee a threat

well, i agree with that, but this is just to anti homeowership here, imo... ownership means nothing if you cannot defend it...

OK, the way to undo all of this legal system crap is to expose the fraud of the legal system itself!
For those of you who are unable to think in a straight line longer than to just the end of your own nose, and can't figure this out on your own, let me explain it a bit now.
The basic premise that the legal system supposedly operates off of, is that it is there to right wrongs and punish law breakers, right? But the legal system does just the OPPOSITE of that! The cases where victims of a crime are prosecuted as well as the criminals proves this out beyond even a shadow of a doubt!
Once any kind of a fraud is exposed, it loses ALL force, power, morality and obligations owed to it. Once a card shark is exposed as a cheater, no debts to him or her are owed any longer!
No casino anywhere in the world forces people in off the streets to play its rigged up games and lose their money, right? So how can the legal system force people into playing its rigged up and deadly games? Expose the fraud of the legal system, and then it must cease right there because its cheating has been exposed!! ALL bets are off the table at that point.
Is there some law anywhere that says we must allow ourselves to be made the victim of anyone else, be they judges, LIEyers, politicians, etc??

Randy

so,the Right to Selfdefense has now become a "Loophole"?

Although I am well aware that police do sometimes investigate and charge people with crimes in circumstances like this, I have learned to be cautious about each report.

This one appears to be from only one one place I can find right now, and that is a site called "The Free Thought Project." This site is so prone to posting FAKE stories, that many people think it is a satirical joke site.

So on this particular claim, I'm going to wait for further word from more reputable sources before taking a side.

Here Igor

http://globalnews.ca/news/3669629/dorval-man-who-beat-up-home-invaders-may-face-assault-charges/?utm_source=GlobalMontreal&utm_medium=Facebook

in my opinion,

yes,

when used when one is not actually being physically threatened, because the threat is elsewhere, and is only protecting 'stuff' from theft,,, it is a loophole

self defense is what happens DURING an attack

not what happens when one goes LOOKING for the attacker,,,or when one is not around an attacker but seeks them out for confrontation,,

A Dorval man who gave thieves trying to rob his house a severe beating may face assault charges.

Early Sunday morning, the 26-year-old man says he was smoking a cigarette by the side of his house, when he noticed someone dressed in black with their face covered by a bandana trying to break into a car across the street.

Then the man, who didn’t want to be identified, says he saw a second thief dressed the same way walk out of his own house. The thief’s hands were full of the man’s belongings.

At that point, he lost his temper.


He told Global News he punched the thief in the face multiple times. He said he also kicked and kneed the 19-year-old suspect.

He says as he watched the thief stumble away from his home, he noticed his wallet and cell phone were in the thief’s back pocket.

That’s when he gave chase.

He says the other thief appeared with a hammer and threatened him. He later found out the suspect in his house had been armed with a knife.

He says he swung a shovel and connected with the injured thief’s shoulder.

There was still blood on the street around the corner on Monday.

The two thieves were arrested, but assault charges are now being considered against the homeowner.

He has the support of his neighbours.

“It’s ridiculous that assault charges are even being considered,” said neighbour Rachel Amsden. “We have the right to defend ourselves.”

“If someone came onto my property, I would be chasing them off with whatever I can get into my hand,” said neighbour Lee Heffernan.

Attorney Philip Schneider says homeowners do have the right to defend their home against invaders.

“There’s a basic principle. A man’s home is his castle, and he has the right to protect his castle. People who invade the castle ought to have to face the consequences,” Schneider said.

Crown prosecutors will have to decide whether the homeowner in this crossed the line.

“The fundamental rule is you can defend yourself, but don’t inflict punishment on those who are breaking into your home. Protect yourself, protect your property, but if you find yourself inflicting punishment, you might be charged,” Schneider said.

The investigator in the case will determine later this week whether or not to recommend charges be laid.
Report an error


And this is where he 'crossed the line. The suspect was no longer in the home, was not a direct threat to life and property but fleeing scene.




Dorval man who beat up home invaders may face assault charges

Defence of Property
Marginal note:Defence — property

35 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they either believe on reasonable grounds that they are in peaceable possession of property or are acting under the authority of, or lawfully assisting, a person whom they believe on reasonable grounds is in peaceable possession of property;

(b) they believe on reasonable grounds that another person

(i) is about to enter, is entering or has entered the property without being entitled by law to do so,

(ii) is about to take the property, is doing so or has just done so, or

(iii) is about to damage or destroy the property, or make it inoperative, or is doing so;

(c) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of

(i) preventing the other person from entering the property, or removing that person from the property, or

(ii) preventing the other person from taking, damaging or destroying the property or from making it inoperative, or retaking the property from that person; and

(d) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-6.html#h-9


And this is why he a: will not be charged or b: will not be convicted if charged.

slight difference between the stories... this sounds better, we can't chase people down either here as well.. but we can shoot them..

yeah, again

a 'threat' is rarely something someone chases

a 'threat' is something people try to avoid or GET AWAY from,,,

thats true, and i agree... but in Texas, if someone is in home from a break in, it's a threat... but we can't chase people down with intent to hurt them, but for a citizens arrest purpose we can... just nothing excessive...

The thing to realize about such laws, is that they did not originate from anyone's desire to protect thieves and robbers from injury. They were written and passed to stop people from taking the law into their own hands, and making big mistakes as a result.

Every now and then we ALSO read stories where an entirely INNOCENT person chanced to appear to a homeowner to be a robber or thief; and because the home owner got mad and assaulted them, the innocent person died, or was severely injured. Just a year or so ago, a young girl was shot to death as she was trying to get help from a resident near where she was stranded, because the owner of the house she knocked at assumed she was trying to rob him.

In the event of an actual robbery, once such a law is in place, as enforcers thereof, they are REQUIRED to initiate proceedings, and let the courts decide. So don't blame the police.

And again, as I suspected, the initial story was misleading as presented. Typical of the more biased "news" sites.

canada politics are weak.......they've pay for a crimson 300million dollar for his rights was suffering threat but ignore his guity of about 6 US troopers were kill by him......still remember that little border town suffers? they are mindless idiots......before~ I can sing that don't want to be America idiot with the totaly 110% Ambition.....for now~~~~it is the canada turn!..........Wraggggg~~~~~~Godamn~~~~~~I'm still young but my godamn blood pressure is hight like taking some drug again......Damn~~~~~~~~

you know what? this man have the rights to do so.....after the warning was useless......