Proportionality, Self-Defense, and The Lindsay, Ontario Homeowner's Case
What exactly does ‘proportionality’ mean when someone breaks into your home? Many of you have likely heard the story of the Lindsay, Ontario homeowner who was arrested after an intruder broke into his house. An intruder, armed with a weapon and possessing a criminal record, broke into the homeowner’s residence. What followed was a brutal confrontation where the homeowner severely beat the intruder, to the extent that he had to be airlifted to a specialized hospital, as local facilities couldn’t adequately treat his injuries.
Predictably, the homeowner was charged, igniting a massive public outcry, including comments from the Premier of Ontario. The common sentiment was, ‘What the hell? This guy was defending his home and himself! Why is he being charged?’ Police and criminal lawyers, however, offered a different perspective, stating that while a home invasion is unacceptable, one’s response to the threat must be ‘proportional.’ But how exactly are you supposed to judge proportionality in such a moment?
We’ve discussed ‘Castle Laws’ previously, and my stance remains firm: if someone breaks into my house, how am I, in a split second, supposed to determine if they’re a threat, and precisely what level of force I’m legally permitted to use? It suggests a ludicrous scenario: if someone shoves you, you can punch them. But if they punch back, and they’re stronger, hurting you, then are you allowed to grab a baseball bat? And why even wait for them to strike first? If you know a punch is coming and it will harm you, aren’t you essentially putting yourself in an unnecessarily vulnerable position?
So, you grab a bat and start defending yourself. You hit him once – is that excessive? He’s still standing. You hit him twice – now he’s down. Can you hit him again? Where is the line? Are you truly expected to weigh all these factors in the heat of a life-threatening moment? When someone invades your home, threatening your safety, the capacity to calmly assess ‘Is this too much? Is this too much?’ simply isn’t there.
When adrenaline is coursing through you, when anger takes over, can you truly be considered in full control of your faculties? You’re likely just reacting until you perceive the threat has been neutralized. Expecting a precise, measured response in such a situation is wild. I understand the concept of proportionality in other contexts, perhaps in public spaces or less immediate threats. But inside your own home? I just don’t see it.
As I’ve said before, I am pro-Castle Laws. If someone breaks into your house, you have every right to be angry, to act decisively, even to some degree, to satisfy a primal instinct for self-preservation. When an intruder violates your sanctuary, potentially stealing your sense of safety or your possessions, anger is inevitable. You won’t possess the cool, calculated control that the law, lawyers, and police seem to expect. I’m certain that if someone broke into an officer’s home, they wouldn’t display the same level of restraint they demand from the average citizen.
Therefore, I firmly believe this law is broken. Politicians need to actively work to redefine the technicalities surrounding self-defense in one’s home. Bottom line: if someone invades your home, they are fair game. What are your thoughts? Let me know in the comments.
View On: