# How far can you go to defend your castle?



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

*Valerie Fortney, Calgary Herald*

Published: Saturday, January 05, 2008
Your home is your castle. You would do whatever it takes to protect yourself, and your loved ones, from an intruder.
But in so doing, could you actually find yourself on the wrong side of the law?
It's a question many Calgarians have been asking themselves after two men broke into a Langdon-area home in the middle of the night Thursday.
According to the RCMP, a man and woman were sleeping in bed when the intruders entered the home.
A fight ensued; when it was all over, one assailant was seriously injured, the other dead.
By Friday, RCMP still wouldn't rule out a murder charge against the man who fought off his attackers -- two men he apparently knew -- nor would they reveal the cause of death.
"The Criminal Code authorizes people to use as much force as necessary to protect themselves and their property," said RCMP Cpl. Patty Neely.
"However, that force must be the minimum amount necessary," said Neely.
Although the particular circumstances of this case are still unfolding, it's a tragedy that shines a discomfiting light on an often misunderstood and highly emotional area of criminal law: the concept of self-defence.
"For hundreds of years, the law said that your home was your castle," says Chris Levy, associate dean of law at the University of Calgary.
"The courts gradually moved away from that . . . but people still have a very emotional attachment to what was essentially a medieval law."
Current Criminal Code provisions covering self-defence, says Levy, exist to ensure that reasonable force in protecting oneself is adhered to.
"To put it bluntly, you're not entitled to go ape if someone breaks into your home."
Yet the combination of the self-defence argument -- a position that engenders a "could have been me" reaction among many -- with the terrifying spectre of a home invasion makes for one potent cocktail.
As a result, says Levy, police and prosecutors are often loath to pursue such charges.
"It's a very tough one to prosecute," says Levy.
"Most people live in a home. Jurors can know what the law is, but they can decide at the end of the day that, 'Damn it, it's my right to kill someone who breaks into my home.' "
Even judges have been known to reveal such a heartfelt attachment to the sanctity of one's home.
In 1997, a judge who acquitted an Ottawa man of murder after he shot an intruder several times invoked the old "home is your castle" common law, saying the accused "acted reasonably in these circumstances."
One doesn't need to face off intruders in his own home to invoke similar empathy when pleading self-defence.
Twenty years ago, Calgary drug store owner Steven Kesler shot a robber as he was fleeing the scene; a jury later acquitted him of murder.
Kesler became something of a folk hero -- the story made worldwide headlines and a TV movie was made about the famous case.
Like Levy, Sanjeev Anand defends the restrictions put on self-defence in Canadian law.
"I'm not sure people would approve of a black-and-white law that if someone breaks into your home, you can have cart blanche to kill them," says Anand, a University of Alberta law professor and co-author of the book Principles of Criminal Law.
But he also agrees that the combination of emotionality and the greyness of what constitutes reasonableness often make for one hard-to-stick charge.
"Self-defence is incredibly confusing in criminal law," says Anand.
"The use of excessive force has to be pretty blatant."
Although he avoids addressing the recent incident in Langdon specifically, Anand does acknowledge that such elements as time of day and location -- "when someone shows up in your bedroom in the middle of the night, it's reasonable to think you might be in great danger" -- have a bearing on such cases.
"I can kill someone if I believe that person is going to kill me," he says, referring to the "reasonable apprehension" clause of self-defence when the victim causes the death of their attacker.
"I could be mistaken, but as long as my mistake is reasonable, I can use self-defence."
"The laws of self-defence in our country are unduly technical and unduly complex," adds Levy.
"I guess the best way to put it is that, in Canada, your home is your castle -- but it's a qualified castle."

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/city/story.html?id=f045b583-2373-4893-bec3-a0ab6f7d076c


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

> Current Criminal Code provisions covering self-defence, says Levy, exist to ensure that reasonable force in protecting oneself is adhered to.
> "To put it bluntly, you're not entitled to go ape if someone breaks into your home."


No wonder why Canadians are losers.... As far as I'm concerned, if a criminal takes the risk of breaking into someone's home...they've essentially sacrificed any protection under the law.


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2008)

I agree KJ !!!!!


----------



## justanotherparatrooper (Aug 27, 2006)

+ 1000000 Kj!


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2008)

An intruder should have the expectation of deadly force being inflicted upon them. That is their right when B & Eing anothers home.


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2008)

I agree and I wouldn't hesitate to kill anyone who's stupid enough to break into my house when I'm home. If the security system and the huge dogs don't scare them away, then we will surely take care of them when they start walking through the house.

Canadians are wimps to not allow people to protect themselves in their own homes. Out in Colorado that right is protected under the "MAKE MY DAY" law. 

Everyone should be allowed to protect themselves in their own home.


----------



## sherifflittle (Apr 19, 2005)

I agree 1000%


----------



## SPINMASS (Jan 30, 2004)

Criminal's tend to have more rights than homeowners. When you shoot them, you better kill em.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2008)

Just remember, there is probably no such thing as an unarmed burglar. There are lots of knives readily available in every kitchen I've ever seen.


----------



## KozmoKramer (Apr 25, 2004)

That would not be a problem in my castle Spin...
Break into my home? Where my wife and kids sleep? I have no intention of shooting to wound.
And the dirtbag would leave in a sleeping bag marked "County Coroner".

Dito to all the above comments, sans the empty-headed, emasculated Canucks in paragraph 1.


----------



## Mozzarella (Apr 8, 2006)

Touch family or castle, I will be the only one on trial.


----------



## screamineagle (Jul 11, 2005)

if you attempt to hurt my family, I have multiple rounds of 40 caliber goodness to meet you.


----------



## kttref (Oct 5, 2004)

The only problem, in CT....technically if someone is breaking into your home, you can only shoot them when they are crossing the threshold of the door. Technically, otherwise you can be charged with murder/manslaughter...but screw the law, you wanna be an ass and come into my home uninvited, you will not leave without a lot of pain.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2008)

The criminal will have time to break the threshold as a good sight picture is acquired.


----------

