入室抢劫自卫却被控袭击罪，国家确实出了问题

一名男子在入室抢劫中自卫却被控袭击罪，这说明国家确实出了问题。

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

我们不断听到暴力罪犯在假释期间犯下滔天罪行的故事，街头到处都是公开吸毒的现象，被禁恐怖组织的头目却被允许继续煽动暴力，而一名男子在入室抢劫中自卫却被控严重袭击罪和持械袭击罪，这说明这个国家确实出了问题。

这种场景我们肯定在电影里见过，也曾想过自己会如何应对。半夜，你听到屋内有动静，惊醒过来。你起床查看，在穿过厨房的路上抓起一把刀。突然，你看到一个人影潜伏在阴影中。入侵者似乎持有武器，所以你仓促采取行动，拼命试图保护自己和家人免受伤害。

虽然我们尚不清楚周一发生在安大略省林赛市的事件的全部细节，但据称杰里米·戴维·麦克唐纳（Jeremy David McDonald）凌晨3:30左右醒来，发现迈克尔·凯尔·布林（Michael Kyle Breen）在他的公寓里，后者后来被控持有武器。随后发生了争吵，布林最终遭受警方所说的“严重危及生命的伤害”，导致麦克唐纳因袭击罪被捕。

正如卡沃萨湖区警察局长柯克·罗伯逊（Kirk Robertson）提醒我们的那样，重要的是要记住：“指控并非定罪；它们是司法程序的一部分，旨在确保所有事实在法庭上得到公正的审议。” 事实上，加拿大法律确实允许个人使用武力，有时甚至是致命武力来保护自己的生命和财产，只要这种武力“在当时情况下是合理的”。

当然，问题在于，所谓的“合理”多少带有主观性。正如哈珀政府时期《刑法》修订的政府背景资料所解释的那样：“住宅是一种特殊的财产——与住宅相关的威胁通常也会造成人身危险，这很可能足以引发自卫，从而允许使用致命武力。”

但法律迫使法官考虑一系列因素，包括“是否有其他手段可以应对潜在的武力使用”，攻击者的体型和性别，以及“该人反应的性质和比例”——这些因素很可能不是人们在从睡梦中醒来，面临可能危及生命的境地后会想到的。

这就是为什么许多人对涉案警员当初选择逮捕麦克唐纳感到愤怒。虽然将责任推卸给法院以查明究竟发生了什么以及其是否“合理”有一定的逻辑，但风险在于，一个人可能仅仅因为在家中自卫而最终锒铛入狱。在美国，确实存在一些房主没有受到指控的事件，即使是因为使用致命武力阻止入室抢劫。

美国大多数州也不会提起刑事指控，因为绝大多数州都遵循“城堡原则”。正如康奈尔大学法律信息研究所所解释的那样，“如果一方在自己家中，则在采取致命自卫行动前，可以免除撤退义务。根据自卫原则，如果一方合理地认为自己受到立即使用致命武力的威胁，可以合法地以相应的武力进行反击，以阻止该威胁。”

其核心思想是，正如俗话所说，“家就是城堡”，他应该有权采取任何必要手段来保卫自己的家。一些省长也持有这种观点。

“当有人闯入你的家，伤害你的家人和孩子时，你应该能够保护你的家人，”安大略省省长道格·福特周三表示。“这个人打了他，这个人被指控……肯定出了问题。” 阿尔伯塔省省长丹妮尔·史密斯周四也表达了同样的观点，她一针见血地指出：“如果你不想被枪击或殴打，就不要闯入别人的家。这很简单。”

他们指出了我们刑事司法系统的根本问题：为了遏制犯罪，必须对犯罪行为追究责任；但在这个国家，罪犯往往只是轻微的惩罚就被释放了。正如史密斯所说：“我们都遇到过这样的情况，有人被保释后又成为惯犯……所以我们知道，这个问题需要通过（联邦）立法来解决。”

保守党领袖皮埃尔·波利耶夫雷 (Pierre Poilievre) 对此问题发表了看法，他在推特上写道：“如果有人闯入，你应该有权保护你的亲人和你的财产rty——句号”——到目前为止，联邦政府对此一直保持沉默。渥太华应该认真考虑对那些对社会构成威胁的人实施严厉制裁，不要再浪费时间和金钱去起诉那些只是想保护自己和亲人免受严重伤害的人。

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.