入室搶劫自衛卻被控襲擊罪，國家確實出了問題

一名男子在入室搶劫中自衛卻被控襲擊罪，這說明國家確實出了問題。

國家郵報 2025年8月23日：
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/listen-to-doug-ford-you-should-have-right-to-defend-yourself

我們不斷聽到暴力罪犯在假釋期間犯下滔天罪行的故事，街頭到處都是公開吸毒的現象，被禁恐怖組織的頭目卻被允許繼續煽動暴力，而一名男子在入室搶劫中自衛卻被控嚴重襲擊罪和持械襲擊罪，這說明這個國家確實出了問題。

這種場景我們肯定在電影裏見過，也曾想過自己會如何應對。半夜，你聽到屋內有動靜，驚醒過來。你起床查看，在穿過廚房的路上抓起一把刀。突然，你看到一個人影潛伏在陰影中。入侵者似乎持有武器，所以你倉促采取行動，拚命試圖保護自己和家人免受傷害。

雖然我們尚不清楚周一發生在安大略省林賽市的事件的全部細節，但據稱傑裏米·戴維·麥克唐納（Jeremy David McDonald）淩晨3:30左右醒來，發現邁克爾·凱爾·布林（Michael Kyle Breen）在他的公寓裏，後者後來被控持有武器。隨後發生了爭吵，布林最終遭受警方所說的“嚴重危及生命的傷害”，導致麥克唐納因襲擊罪被捕。

正如卡沃薩湖區警察局長柯克·羅伯遜（Kirk Robertson）提醒我們的那樣，重要的是要記住：“指控並非定罪；它們是司法程序的一部分，旨在確保所有事實在法庭上得到公正的審議。” 事實上，加拿大法律確實允許個人使用武力，有時甚至是致命武力來保護自己的生命和財產，隻要這種武力“在當時情況下是合理的”。

當然，問題在於，所謂的“合理”多少帶有主觀性。正如哈珀政府時期《刑法》修訂的政府背景資料所解釋的那樣：“住宅是一種特殊的財產——與住宅相關的威脅通常也會造成人身危險，這很可能足以引發自衛，從而允許使用致命武力。”

但法律迫使法官考慮一係列因素，包括“是否有其他手段可以應對潛在的武力使用”，攻擊者的體型和性別，以及“該人反應的性質和比例”——這些因素很可能不是人們在從睡夢中醒來，麵臨可能危及生命的境地後會想到的。

這就是為什麽許多人對涉案警員當初選擇逮捕麥克唐納感到憤怒。雖然將責任推卸給法院以查明究竟發生了什麽以及其是否“合理”有一定的邏輯，但風險在於，一個人可能僅僅因為在家中自衛而最終鋃鐺入獄。在美國，確實存在一些房主沒有受到指控的事件，即使是因為使用致命武力阻止入室搶劫。

美國大多數州也不會提起刑事指控，因為絕大多數州都遵循“城堡原則”。正如康奈爾大學法律信息研究所所解釋的那樣，“如果一方在自己家中，則在采取致命自衛行動前，可以免除撤退義務。根據自衛原則，如果一方合理地認為自己受到立即使用致命武力的威脅，可以合法地以相應的武力進行反擊，以阻止該威脅。”

其核心思想是，正如俗話所說，“家就是城堡”，他應該有權采取任何必要手段來保衛自己的家。一些省長也持有這種觀點。

“當有人闖入你的家，傷害你的家人和孩子時，你應該能夠保護你的家人，”安大略省省長道格·福特周三表示。“這個人打了他，這個人被指控……肯定出了問題。” 阿爾伯塔省省長丹妮爾·史密斯周四也表達了同樣的觀點，她一針見血地指出：“如果你不想被槍擊或毆打，就不要闖入別人的家。這很簡單。”

他們指出了我們刑事司法係統的根本問題：為了遏製犯罪，必須對犯罪行為追究責任；但在這個國家，罪犯往往隻是輕微的懲罰就被釋放了。正如史密斯所說：“我們都遇到過這樣的情況，有人被保釋後又成為慣犯……所以我們知道，這個問題需要通過（聯邦）立法來解決。”

保守黨領袖皮埃爾·波利耶夫雷 (Pierre Poilievre) 對此問題發表了看法，他在推特上寫道：“如果有人闖入，你應該有權保護你的親人和你的財產rty——句號”——到目前為止，聯邦政府對此一直保持沉默。渥太華應該認真考慮對那些對社會構成威脅的人實施嚴厲製裁，不要再浪費時間和金錢去起訴那些隻是想保護自己和親人免受嚴重傷害的人。

NP View: Listen to Doug Ford — you should have right to defend yourself

Something is 'broken' when a man who defended himself during a home invasion is charged with assault

By National Post View   Aug 23, 2025

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/listen-to-doug-ford-you-should-have-right-to-defend-yourself

 

Something is indeed “broken” in this country when we constantly hear stories about violent offenders who commit the most heinous of crimes while out on parole, when our streets are filled with open drug use and when the leaders of proscribed terrorist organizations are allowed to continue to incite violence, yet a man who defended himself during a home invasion is charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

It’s a scenario we’ve all surely seen in the movies and wondered how we’d handle ourselves. You wake up in the middle of the night after hearing a noise from inside your home. You get out of bed to investigate and grab a knife on your way through the kitchen. Suddenly, you see a figure lurking in the shadows. It looks like the intruder is armed so you lurch into action in a desperate attempt to save yourself and your family from harm.

While we don’t know all the details of what took place in Lindsay, Ont., on Monday, it’s alleged that Jeremy David McDonald woke up around 3:30 a.m. and found Michael Kyle Breen, who was later charged with possessing a weapon, inside his apartment. An altercation ensued and Breen ended up with what police described as “serious life-threatening injuries,” leading to MacDonald’s arrest on assault charges.

Article content

It’s important to remember, as Kawartha Lakes Police Chief Kirk Robertson reminded us, that “charges are not convictions; they are part of the judicial process, which ensures that all facts are considered fairly in court.” Indeed, Canadian law does allow individuals to use force, sometimes even deadly force to protect their lives and property, so long as it’s “reasonable in the circumstances.”

The catch, of course, is that what’s considered “reasonable” is somewhat subjective. As a government backgrounder on changes to the Criminal Code made under the Harper government explains, “A dwelling-house is a special kind of property — threats in relation to a dwelling house typically also create an element of personal danger which likely is enough to trigger defence of the person, which does allow for deadly force to be used.”

But the law forces judges to consider a long list of factors, including “whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force,” the size and gender of the attacker, and the “nature and proportionality of the person’s response” — not exactly the types of things likely going through one’s mind after being awoken from slumber and facing a potentially life-threatening situation.

This is why many are outraged that the officers involved chose to arrest McDonald in the first place. While there’s some logic in passing the buck to the courts to figure out exactly what transpired and whether it was “reasonable,” the risk is that a man could end up behind bars simply for defending himself inside his own home. There certainly have been incidents in this country in which homeowners weren’t charged, even for using deadly force to deter a home invasion.

Nor would criminal charges be laid in most U.S. states, as the vast majority of them adhere to the castle doctrine, which, as Cornell’s Legal Information Institute explains, “refers to an exception to the duty to retreat before using deadly self-defence if a party is in their own home. Under the doctrine of self-defence, a party who reasonably believes they are threatened with the immediate use of deadly force can legally respond with a proportional amount of force to deter that threat.”

The idea is essentially that, as the saying goes, “a man’s home is his castle,” and he should have the right to defend it by any means necessary. This is a position that’s being taken by some provincial premiers.

“You should be able to protect your family when someone’s going in there to harm your family and your kids,” Ontario Premier Doug Ford said on Wednesday. “This guy gives him a beating, and this guy gets charged … something is broken.” His remarks were echoed by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith on Thursday, who rightly said: “If you don’t want to get shot or beaten up, don’t break into people’s houses. It’s pretty straightforward.”

They identified the fundamental problem with our criminal justice system: in order to deter crime, there needs to be consequences for it; but too often in this country, criminals are released with little more than a slap on the wrist. As Smith said, “We all have had instances where somebody has been released on their own recognizance and then been repeat offenders … so we know that this is a problem that needs to be solved through (federal) legislation.”

While Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre weighed in on the issue — tweeting, “If someone breaks in, you deserve the right to defend your loved ones and your property – full stop” — there has so far been crickets from the federal government. It’s high time for Ottawa to get serious about imposing severe sanctions on those who pose a threat to society and stop wasting time and money prosecuting people who are simply trying to defend themselves and their loved ones from serious harm.