Lindsey Man Charged Defending His Home

The charge sheet alleges that McDonald used a knife in the confrontation to defend himself and his family The documents say McDonald is charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon after he “did endanger the life” of Michael Kyle Breen, 41.

What I have been able to understand, even with the limited shared information, is that Michael Breen was also armed, with a cross bow and attempted to, or did strike McDonald with the butt of the cross bow. The altercation ended with Breen having to be air lifted from Lindsey to another hospital for life saving treatment. A charge of Aggravated Assault in Canada is a serious criminal offense, carrying imprisonment of a term not exceeding 14 years. The weapons charge could effectively add another 10 years to this sentence.

The laying of this charge against McDonald has created an uproar across our Country from many citizens, as well as some politicians. People are in disbelief that a home owner has been charged by police in the defence of his family and home by felon wanted by the Lindsey Police.

As a Violence Prevention and Self Defence Professional, who teaches to high risk corporate clients, high school students across Ontario, as well as working with Municipalities, including Peace Officers, Woman in both Pre and Post circumstance, as well as men and children as young as 5, I felt some clarity on this needed to be brought to Canadians attention. I have seen a thousand comments from good people who say they would have done the same thing. I’ve also read many, many comments from the “Canadian John Wicks and Trumpers” who are saying they would have killed him and got rid of the body. Ego is an amazing thing! Something I do know, we as humans, we DON’T know what we would do or how we would react unless we lived what Jeremy McDonald lived. This I have seen this hundreds of times.

I’ve seen and heard many call for change in Sec. 34 of the Canadian Criminal Code since this unfortunate situation occurred. If Canadians want change, we must make this need known to our political leaders and we must push for these changes. Without pressure from citizens, Sec. 34 will remain as it is. Castle Doctrine will never become a law in Canada, however our rights in self defence need to be more clearly defined. I do support that clarity.

I wanted to give an example of the possible out come of this case, and then explain where the grey area in Sec. 34 occurs. Martial Arts Instructors, please understand this. As many within the Arts teach so called self defence, the unfortunate part, is far too many teach the use of physical force within a social violent encounter. This lack of professionalism will put your students behind bars every time.

Scenario

A man wakes up late at night, hearing noises inside his home. He opens a draw, pulls out a knife and aggressively approaches the intruder inside his own home. The intruder strikes at the homeowner and the defender stabs the aggressor multiple times before calling police. Question, only for your thoughts – Who became the aggressor with motivation to take a life?

Canada – Section 34

Analysis:

Was there a reasonable belief of imminent threat? Yes, possibly… (POSSIBLY)

Was the response proportionate? NOT EQUAL, as many Canadians believe, but PROPRTIONATE!

This is where courts scrutinize. Self Defence is only justified if no other safe option existed (escape, calling police, disengagement, leaving the house)  The fact that the aggressor never produced a weapon until they themselves where threatened by the armed home owner could weigh heavily against the defender.

Likely Outcome:

Crown would likely prosecute.

Defence would argue “reasonable fear for life.”

Court/jury decides if lethal force was the only reasonable choice. High risk of conviction if escape, calling police or leaving the residence was possible.

Key Takeaway

In Canada, the defender would face serious legal risk unless it was clear escape was impossible and deadly force was absolutely necessary. A conviction against the defender (Homeowner) would most likely happen.

PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF THE FOLLOWING: Is escape, leaving, or barricading yourself in a safe place POSSIBLE or IMPOSSIBLE – this is critical in your reason to use force in self defence under Sec.34 One thing I will say, if McDonald had of stayed in the bedroom with his wife, armed himself, called the police, and had Breen entered the bedroom, these charges would have been dropped by the Crown, however that’s not what occurred.

Understand the difference is crucial in your ability to defend! Canada Law: Emphasize escape, de-escalation, situational awareness, and lasting resort force.

If you must defend, then defend! If you can leave without risk or threat during the event, then leave! If you cannot leave, or if leaving places you,  your wife and children at risk then stay and protect yourself, your family, but only if that threat is real.

We often use an example to answer questions around home invasion. Here’s the example – if the intruder sees you and starts running to the door to get out – DON’T TOUCH THEM, LET THEM GO! If they confront and attempt to harm or threaten you. You do everything you need to put them to the ground and keep them there. However if your life is no longer in threat, you must stop, no revenge, no teaching them a lesson and no JOHN WICK.

You have the right to self defence in Canada. You don’t have the right if it’s is safer for you and your family to leave, or call police.

Yes, we need a change to Sec. 34 – write your government, email your MP, email your MPP. Don’t sit and hope it changes, it won’t, only we can get the clarity under Sec. 34 made.

“Always be nice, until it’s time not to be nice” – James Dalton