Could these same laws also condemn lesser criminals to death?
I know, many will consider that a criminal is a criminal, but think for a moment.
If a group of misguided, but otherwise normal teenagers were to break into a home, believing it to be empty, for the sole purpose of a quick score and thrill be deserving of being shot on site by the owner who had simply turned out all the lights and gone to bed?

So a group of people are breaking into my house in the middle of the night while my wife and kids are sleeping, but its only for a quick score and a thrill. They want to steal my property that i have worked for to feel like they are badasses. Its not a big deal right?

Maybe its pussified people like you that give these "normal teenagers" the impression that its just not that bad if they only want to steal things...this time, not rape, hurt or murder....this time. What about the next time?

To me, its a big deal. You enter my house without permission in the middle of the night, if i catch you, you're gonna be in trouble.

"Make your home less inviting"? Really? Thats your answer? Or run away?

Why not just put all your money and valuables out in the front yard so that the "Normal Teenagers", dont have to risk breaking your window and cutting themselves to get your stuff or having to hurt you because you "the owner who had simply turned out all the lights and gone to bed?".

I guess to each his own, you can hide under your bed and and call 911, or run out your back door into the dark in yor pj's....sure hope for your sake this time its only "Normal teenagers".

Personally I could not live with myself if anyone in my family was hurt, raped, killed because I failed to act.

I have to say I agree with Spinkx79. If you are outside my home... do as you like. Steal my car... tear up my lawn.. whatever..... I will call 911. At that point my life or the lives of my family are NOT threatened. BUT... the instant you attempt to breach the integrity of my dwelling.... your intent and my perception is that you are entering my home and by doing so placing my life and the lives of my loved ones in danger. At that point you are MINE. There will be ABSOLUTELY NO CONSIDERATION as to whether or not you are "misguided". People who break into private property are NOT misguided youth... nor are they " deserving" of consideration and deliberation so they will not be shot or otherwise harmed for their transgression. It is time that the EXPECTATION of thieves, burglars and anyone else who enters private property without permission and in such a way that it can be construed that the intent is illegal... you WILL suffer immediate and catastrophic consequences with EXTREME prejudice. No excuses, no consideration and no bull crap. You do the act and get caught in it.. you risk and ACCEPT the consequences. PERIOD.

JAB

Could these same laws also condemn lesser criminals to death?
I know, many will consider that a criminal is a criminal, but think for a moment.
If a group of misguided, but otherwise normal teenagers were to break into a home, believing it to be empty, for the sole purpose of a quick score and thrill be deserving of being shot on site by the owner who had simply turned out all the lights and gone to bed?

So a group of people are breaking into my house in the middle of the night while my wife and kids are sleeping, but its only for a quick score and a thrill. They want to steal my property that i have worked for to feel like they are badasses. Its not a big deal right?

Maybe its pussified people like you that give these "normal teenagers" the impression that its just not that bad if they only want to steal things...this time, not rape, hurt or murder....this time. What about the next time?

To me, its a big deal. You enter my house without permission in the middle of the night, if i catch you, you're gonna be in trouble.

"Make your home less inviting"? Really? Thats your answer? Or run away?

Why not just put all your money and valuables out in the front yard so that the "Normal Teenagers", dont have to risk breaking your window and cutting themselves to get your stuff or having to hurt you because you "the owner who had simply turned out all the lights and gone to bed?".

I guess to each his own, you can hide under your bed and and call 911, or run out your back door into the dark in yor pj's....sure hope for your sake this time its only "Normal teenagers".

Personally I could not live with myself if anyone in my family was hurt, raped, killed because I failed to act.

I understand your point of view, I was simply pointing out that I don't believe that a B&E should be punished with automatic and on the spot execution.
Perhaps this is your opinion of justice, but not mine.
Is shoot first and forget the questions really the way to handle every situation?
This was the danger that I was trying to point out in my first post.
I also mentioned that implementing castle laws would deter a big part of criminals that would really mean no physical harm and simply run away at the first sign of being caught.
I guess a bullet or three in the back would really teach them a lesson eh!
Why kill someone when turning on the lights or hitting an alarm panic button would do the trick?
Take a look at the case of Ian Thomson...death threats and fire bombs be darned...he still didn't try to kill anyone. A few warning shots in their general direction did the trick.

The test of necessity in self defence is basically this. If the antagonist has wounds in the part of the body that would be facing you in an aggressive situation.. IE going in the front... you have a defence. If the wounds are in the part of the body that would be presented to you in a non aggressive situation... IE in the back while running away... you have NO DEFENCE. The premice that one should in some way give the transgressor a "chance" is wrong to me. They had the chance when they made the choice to illegally enter your dwelling. If you choose to give them a chance what you are doing is giving them the benefit of the doubt... a... 'lets see what you will do sir' ..since you now know that I know you are here. You are placing yourself into the position of reacting to their "choice" and in doing so giving them the initiative. No one said anything about "shooting". You can react with a bat, pepper spray or whatever you have at hand. Your response need not be lethal... but it should be immediate, swift, overwhelming and decisive.

JAB

The test of necessity in self defence is basically this. If the antagonist has wounds in the part of the body that would be facing you in an aggressive situation.. IE going in the front... you have a defence. If the wounds are in the part of the body that would be presented to you in a non aggressive situation... IE in the back while running away... you have NO DEFENCE. The premice that one should in some way give the transgressor a "chance" is wrong to me. They had the chance when they made the choice to illegally enter your dwelling. If you choose to give them a chance what you are doing is giving them the benefit of the doubt... a... 'lets see what you will do sir' ..since you now know that I know you are here. You are placing yourself into the position of reacting to their "choice" and in doing so giving them the initiative. No one said anything about "shooting". You can react with a bat, pepper spray or whatever you have at hand. Your response need not be lethal... but it should be immediate, swift, overwhelming and decisive.

JAB

ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED!
My point is that these laws need to be carefully considered.
Two summers ago, a drunken visitor of a party next door to me went for a walk down the road.
On his way back he must have gotten "confused" as to where the party was as he came up my walkway.
When the security light came on, I had a look to see what was going on...sometimes wildlife wandering around sets off the light.
By the time I looked out the window, saw him, and got to the front door, he was already trying the knob.
If the door had been unlocked and he opened it, would he have deserved a baseball bat, which I have handy, to the head?

Just wondering here...
does anyone have a copy of bill c-26 that was given royal ascent?
This is the newest law regarding citizen's arrest and self defence.
From what I am able to see, use of force is justified in defence of property, just not deadly force.
This to me seems reasonable.
Of course, If someone is inside your home brandishing a deadly weapon (open to interpretation I guess), then in my opinion, all bets should be off.

Ok here are excerpts of the Criminal Code of Canada current to 2013-02-06 and last amended on 2013-01-13

DEFENCE OF PERSON
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
o (a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
o (b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if
(a) he uses the force
o (i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
o (ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.
36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.
37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.
DEFENCE OF PROPERTY
38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified
o (a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or
o (b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,
if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.
(2) Where a person who is in peaceable possession of personal property lays hands on it, a trespasser who persists in attempting to keep it or take it from him or from any one lawfully assisting him shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.
39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as of right or does not act under the authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justified or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.
Defence of dwelling
.S., c. C-34, s. 39. 40. Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority.
41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.
42. (1) Every one is justified in peaceably entering a dwelling-house or real property by day to take possession of it if he, or a person under whose authority he acts, is lawfully entitled to possession of it.
(2) Where a person
o (a) not having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or
o (b) not acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,
assaults a person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be without justification or provocation.
(3) Where a person
o (a) having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or
o (b) acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, assaults any person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be provoked by the person who is entering.

Thank you ICRCC, just what I was looking for.
This seems to be much clearer at least than they used to be.
So force is justified to prevent entry or remove an intruder.
But no more force than is necessary....
If you lay the guy out on the floor with a baseball bat...don't keep beating him till his brains spill.
Do you think this goes far enough?
Do you think it goes too far?
Do you think it's just right?

Follow this link:
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/search.do?language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&sortOrder=relevance&searchPage=eliisa%2FmainPageSearch.vm&text=home+invasion&id=&startDate=&endDate=&legislation=legislation&caselaw=courts&boardTribunal=tribunals

It is a search of litigation in Canada in regards to home invasions..This should open your eyes to how often, and how violent, this actually is, and what the actual repercussions are in regards to self defense.
I will always take the route that will allow me to defend myself in court....three levels of appeal over dead any day......

This all seems vaguely familiar to the home defense thread in Security/Defense sub forum. Think we covered the new laws there about 6 weeks ago. Anyone read the posted links?

Could these same laws also condemn lesser criminals to death?
I know, many will consider that a criminal is a criminal, but think for a moment.
If a group of misguided, but otherwise normal teenagers were to break into a home, believing it to be empty, for the sole purpose of a quick score and thrill be deserving of being shot on site by the owner who had simply turned out all the lights and gone to bed?

So a group of people are breaking into my house in the middle of the night while my wife and kids are sleeping, but its only for a quick score and a thrill. They want to steal my property that i have worked for to feel like they are badasses. Its not a big deal right?

Maybe its pussified people like you that give these "normal teenagers" the impression that its just not that bad if they only want to steal things...this time, not rape, hurt or murder....this time. What about the next time?

To me, its a big deal. You enter my house without permission in the middle of the night, if i catch you, you're gonna be in trouble.

"Make your home less inviting"? Really? Thats your answer? Or run away?

Why not just put all your money and valuables out in the front yard so that the "Normal Teenagers", dont have to risk breaking your window and cutting themselves to get your stuff or having to hurt you because you "the owner who had simply turned out all the lights and gone to bed?".

I guess to each his own, you can hide under your bed and and call 911, or run out your back door into the dark in yor pj's....sure hope for your sake this time its only "Normal teenagers".

Personally I could not live with myself if anyone in my family was hurt, raped, killed because I failed to act.

Why on earth would you not want to prevent a break-in/home invasion? Unless of course you are looking for a confrontation? A 'violence geek'? I'm sure you are not.
YES, preparing for a danger is better because completely avoiding a dangerous situation for my two girls is better than betting I am going to win a shoot out at 3am. If you do have a breach of your castle, more times than not, they do NOT want conflict of any kind. That's why quite a few give up when the motion lights come on, or your dog starts to go off...it's all mental. If the intent is to cause harm, and the chances of that are so, so small...it is a good chance they are very prepared.

Most criminals are looking for someone that is unprepared for them. Situational awareness, Training/role playing will give you the edge to make the decisions under stress, to 'read' the person within the situation.

Failing to act can be remedied by training. Any decent training you take will teach you avoidance and de escalation, understanding adrenal stress response, the five stages of a violent attack, etc.

Failing to shoot, failing to kill is not necessarily failing to act. Failing to prepare or prevent....could be a big fail.

Please follow the link I posted above and do a little case law searching.. violent assaults, and home invasion are a lot more prevalent than most believe..

This from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics based on data from 1995 to 2000. I find it hard to get recent Canadian data.

"Half (55%) of ‘home invasion’ incidents involved a weapon being present in the incident
compared with 60% of all other robberies. The most common weapons present in both
‘home invasion’ incidents and other robberies were knives/other cutting instruments
(21% versus 23%) and firearms (18% each). In 47% of ‘home invasion’ incidents the
victim reported physical injuries: 38% reported minor physical injuries and 8% reported
major injuries that required professional medical attention at the scene of the incident."

They put the rate of home invasions at around 23 per 100,000 population. The Calgary Sun on September 11th 2010 stated that police were concerned about the spike in home invasions noting that here had been 50 in 8 months compared to 60 for the whole year of 2009.

As Chimo said "home invasion are a lot more prevalent than most believe".

This from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics based on data from 1995 to 2000. I find it hard to get recent Canadian data.

"Half (55%) of ‘home invasion’ incidents involved a weapon being present in the incident
compared with 60% of all other robberies. The most common weapons present in both
‘home invasion’ incidents and other robberies were knives/other cutting instruments
(21% versus 23%) and firearms (18% each). In 47% of ‘home invasion’ incidents the
victim reported physical injuries: 38% reported minor physical injuries and 8% reported
major injuries that required professional medical attention at the scene of the incident."

They put the rate of home invasions at around 23 per 100,000 population. The Calgary Sun on September 11th 2010 stated that police were concerned about the spike in home invasions noting that here had been 50 in 8 months compared to 60 for the whole year of 2009.

As Chimo said "home invasion are a lot more prevalent than most believe".

They are, and being prepared for one is important. There was a home invasion here around Christmas and one person died, an elderly man coming to a friends rescue. My point is, your house will be 'interviewed' for the best chance of success, and least chance of harm. This is an interview you want to fail.

With self defense and fortification laws in Canada, it would be easier on the courts, the police and yourself if they were investigating a missing person instead of a self defense, IMHO 😈

Castle Laws can get blurred with various degrees of trespass. Persons foraging for valuables are the most likely trespassers, and deadly escalations can happen in the heat of the moment.

A growing trend these days is metal thieves. Due to a growing world-wide demand for scrap metal, bold thieves are already looting churches, farms, utility infrastructure and rural properties, occupied or not. In a widespread disaster situation, incidences of aggressive 'foraging' would become an epidemic. Food, fuel, generators, tools, vehicles, firearms, raw materials - anything not nailed down and under observation will be taken.

The scavenger is not out to threaten life. He can usually be deterred by a passive presence, or, even better, a show of resolve backed up by the means to enforce it.

Preppers, living by survival doctrine, will probably be far from law enforcement agencies, who will have their hands full shepherding the unprepared. The self-reliant should be ready to form their own local 24 hr protection, and deal with trespassers in a restrained manner which achieves the objective of property security. A manned road block or check point can prevent a lot of 'misunderstandings'.

Castle doctrine which involves home invasion and threats to life are a separate matter which is governed by self-defence law. If you're prepared to defend yourself forcefully, govern yourself as if you were going to defend your actions later in court.

In my opinion at no time ever should someone have to try to disengage themselves from their own house to avoid a confrontation .... IN THEIR OWN HOME! If you tell someone coming in ur house that you are prepared to use deadly force if necassary and they still come in ... they are not some innocent teenager. No matter what their background is or how innocent they may be...they are the ones who entered onto property that wasn't theirs to commit an indictable offence violent or not... so IMO the responsibility of what is the outcome is completely up to them. Homeowners/law abiding ppl should not be held responsible for someone elses poor lifestyle choice