New Paragraph

Self defense in your own home: It’s bigger than fight or comply
September 8, 2025

There are always many rapidly changing dynamics

The rising number of home invasions and residential break and enter occurrences where residents are in their homes is concerning to say the least.


To add fuel to that fire, it has been reported that Canada now has more ‘home invasions’ per capita than our neighbors to the south. It is difficult to accurately compare Canadian and U.S. numbers due the vast differences between our countries as to how such data is collected, categorized and reported on. Although I don’t believe that any of our crime stats begin to compare to those of the U.S., the fact that Canada could even be close is alarming.


Media stories describing horrendous incidents of murder and the sexual assault of a child during one of these events, as well charges being levelled against a man that retaliated and seriously injured a criminal that broke into his apartment in the middle of the night, have churned up significant public debate. Subsequently, comments made by Premier Doug Ford regarding how he would react if victimized, as well as remarks made by an Ontario police Chief at a media scrum have brought the discussion to a fever-pitch.


Premier’s Comments

I totally get where Premier Ford is coming from following the City of Kawartha Lakes case, when he stated words to the effect that: “I’d rather be tried by twelve than carried by six”. I’ve said those very words, regarding ‘no other option’ scenarios, but I really don’t think politicians need to comment about issues before the courts without knowing all the facts.

We truly do not know the details of what happened in the case where both the intruder and the homeowner were charged by police, however, the police and the Crown Attorney do. The resulting trial may well show that the circumstances quite warranted both men being charged.

I suspect that although the man there would likely be justified to use deadly force against an intruder armed with a crossbow, perhaps at some point he went too far. Time will tell.


Comments by York Region Chief

I know Chief MacSween. He’s a bright and experienced police chief of one of the largest and best police services in this country.


I listened to his comments several times. What he said when commenting from his prepared text was in essence, “If at all possible get away from the situation and let the police handle it.” Those words were similar to the well-publicized terrorist attack adage: “Run, hide, fight”. In other words, don’t try to take on terrorists, RUN, and if you can’t run then HIDE, and if you can’t – then FIGHT like hell.


He also said he was, “...urging (people to) not to take matters into their own hands…”, and “…urge (people) to call 911 and do everything you can to keep yourself and your loved ones safe...” He added, “Don’t engage unless absolutely necessary…” That was his messaging and in my mind makes complete sense.


But then in answer to a reporter’s question, he said: “The best defense is to comply.” That short verbiage became the story that people are clinging to and IF that was all he said that day I’d be concerned too. But it’s not.


Only engaging to protect yourself or your loved ones does not mean comply and sit on your hands while your child is being sexually assaulted. My God, that is the last thing he would ever suggest or would ever do himself.


The Law

The right to use force in self-defense has been long entrenched in the Criminal Code of Canada, however it’s not a catch-all.


Section 34 gives the authority for anyone – not just police, to use force to defend themselves or another.

But it has to be “reasonable”. So, in the Kawartha Lakes case the question for the Judge or Jury to decide at trial will be, did the man use “reasonable” force to defend himself from the intruder?


In these cases, IF the perpetrator is disarmed, restrained or rendered unconscious, does section 34 give authority to the homeowner to continue to beat, or shoot or stab the perpetrator to death? NO. That would not be reasonable. When the perceived threat is gone, so is the authority to use deadly force in defense of yourself or loved ones. Being pissed off is not grounds to use force. Otherwise, every employee, supervisor, teacher, student, husband and wife, etc., would be justified every minute of every day.


The federal Leader of the Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, stated his belief that the fear of death or serious bodily harm should be “presumptive” in Canadian law. That’s dangerous in my view. We still must be accountable for the use of deadly force and not automatically be covered by presumptive legislation.


Otherwise, if your drunken neighbor who is known to you wanders into your home with nothing in his hands, you could presume he is there to cause serious bodily harm or death and shoot him. Is that we want in Canada? I don’t believe for a minute that it is. We are not a country where there are more guns than people and kids are not being shot here for playing nicky nicky nine door.


The current law allows for the Judge or Jury to decide whether the fear of death or serious bodily harm was reasonable and whether or not the amount of force used to retaliate was reasonable. I truly believe the police and courts will err on the side of caution in terms of prosecuting and convicting a person in the “iffy” situations that arise.


There will be extreme examples one way or another – some clearly a serious threat and others clearly not. If a stranger with a gun, knife or a crowbar kicks in your door at 3 am it would be an easy decision to use as much force as necessary. Of course, if you are subsequently able to disarm and gain physical control of them, you have most likely eliminated the threat.


Conversely, if an unarmed neighbor’s child comes into your home at 2 pm, in my view it is an easy call.


Then there are many greyer examples possible in between those extremes. In any of these cases, if you can get you and your family out of there to be safe when you hear a window or door broken, why not? I realize that these are tough life or death decisions for untrained citizens and every situation will be different – each one changing in a heartbeat. There’s always a ton of potential variables.


Police officers must make similar decisions every shift they work and even for trained professionals it is seldom easy.



Most often intruders have no intent to harm anyone, but they are just looking to steal and are surprised that anyone is home. It may be a case of “Give me your money and car keys and we’ll be out of here.” Fine. No personal property is worth losing your life over. Another judgment call on your part, but you would have to err on the side of caution. Hiding, fleeing or even negotiating with thieves that don’t want to be murderers may be the best response. It’s not totally “complying” per se but is more bartering to save lives.


What would I do?

When faced with a serious threat like an intruder entering my home at night (armed or unarmed – it can be difficult to determine), IF I could slip my family out a back door to safety, I would. If I could negotiate our way clear I would, and if I couldn’t do that or was unable to keep them or myself safe, I’d do anything humanly possible to neutralize the threat. That includes using deadly force with fists, feet, elbows, knees, teeth or whatever weapon I could get my hands on. At any step along the way, I’d notify police when possible and continue to make decisions in favour of the safety of my family, first and foremost.


What I wouldn’t do – nor would Chief MacSween I’m sure, is fold up like a cheap suit, cry, suck my thumb and let the bad guys do whatever they want to my family. Never.

 

By Chris Lewis January 26, 2026
It’s certainly not Bovino, Noem and higher. Over the past several months the U.S. President’s seemingly valid promise to close the southern border and to rid the U.S. of illegal aliens who are “killers, rapists, drug dealers and individuals from mental institutions” has evolved into something less defendable. Like him or not, it was tough to argue with the public safety need to deport dangerous criminals back to whence they came. I wish Canada would do the same, but in a more strategic way. Chasing undocumented women through Home Depot and dragging U.S. citizens out of vehicles on Main Street – while clad in mostly civilian attire, screaming profanities and with covered faces, has not worked well for ICE and CBP, in terms of public perception and community trust. Enforcing these laws is not easy for those agencies, even when acting within their legislative framework and with probable cause. Angry crowds; individuals with far-left anti-government convictions who just want to hijack the agenda and commit violent acts; and the doxing of federal agents to cause threats to them and their families, cause untold stress on and danger to law enforcement. None of that is justified and is most often a crime. The public needs to stay out of these operations. If someone interferes with the agents and/or their lawful operations, they should expect to be arrested. Placing cameras in officers faces or trying to obstruct them as they conduct an activity, does nothing but raise the temperature of the operation and will end with the placement of handcuffs. Videoing from afar is different, but some take it to the next level. If they threaten anyone with a weapon of any kind, they should anticipate being shot and perhaps killed. That is reality. But at the same time, law enforcement cannot exist without public trust. If the various Department of Homeland Security (DHS) entities that are conducting these operations always acted as per the original strategy and didn’t often violate the rights of people based on the look or colour of so-called “suspects”, as professionally as possible, there would likely not be such an inflammation of the normal American citizen psyche. After all, Trump was elected in part based on his stated “criminal illegal alien” agenda. However, the way his goal was operationalized and the questionable tactics often publicly witnessed has denigrated the trust of many citizens on both sides of the political spectrum. The most recent loss of life occurred in Minneapolis Minnesota on Saturday January 24th. I won’t pass final judgement on the actions of the agents involved in the shooting death of the U.S. citizen there before the results of a professional and unbiased investigation are released. I was obviously not on the ground with those officers to see and hear all they did from their various positions and angles. I have watched all the videos that have been posted, however, and I will say this: “At this point, it does not look good.” When I was a police commander and received information from the field of a critical incident, the initial information was seldom accurate. In fact, over the hours to follow it changed regularly. I would not make any proactive statement to the media, but if asked, I would simply say that we had the proper resources on the ground and I would await verified information, etc. If it was an officer involved shooting or chase that involved injuries or death, I would follow the protocol of the mandatory independent investigation, and would generally say: “It’s undoubtedly a tragic situation, and my thoughts are with the involved officers, citizens and their families, but it is an ongoing investigation and I cannot provide any more information than that.” But what is the DHS leadership saying? What are elected officials saying? Some have already defended the agents and others – like the Governor, are damning them. Within hours of the shooting CBP Commander Greg Bovino publicly defended the actions of the officers, saying that the deceased man had been armed and that the suspect intended to “do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” Yes, he was armed, according to local police, but lawfully licensed to do so according to the 2nd Amendment that many Americans treasure. Regardless, it is not clear in any video so far that the man held anything but a camera in his hand when brought to the ground, and Bovino himself could not bring any clarity to his early statement when asked by the press on Sunday morning. He simply fell back to letting the investigation run its course. Sorry Greg, you’re a day late and a dollar short on that one. Then DHS Secretary Kristi Noem told the media, “This looks like a situation where an individual arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement.” She acts like the deceased man brandished a gun and threatened the officers. Trump administration officials then called the dead man a “would-be assassin.” If that was the case, being shot and killed should have been the expectation, but are we seeing that? Not so far. How does any of that banter from so-called leaders lend itself to public confidence for an independent investigation that they can trust? True ‘leadership’ involves doing what is right for the people you serve first and foremost, closely followed by the people you lead. These comments do not exhibit leadership at all. ICE and CBP normally operate in enforcement environments at or near (within a hundred miles of) international border points. They absolutely make dangerous arrests at times. But are they selected and trained to operate within the urban environments we are currently witnessing? Perhaps to a degree, but DHS has hired thousands of agents this past year who have received abbreviated training. That’s never a good thing from organizational and officer risk perspectives. I’m not saying normal ICE/CBP agents aren’t as trained and capable as local and state police officers. I’ve known many and they were wonderful officers, but their basic training cannot be the same. Their operating environments may overlap but are generally different. Similarly, most local cops aren’t trained in border enforcement and immigration laws and practices either. In the Minneapolis situation, local police are not supporting the operational activities of the federal agents. The Chief of Police and Mayor are both publicly opposed. Support by local police should be a given – not for random stops of people that look Hispanic and yelling demands for proof of citizenship, but during valid probable cause arrests and the execution of warrants. To stand and watch DHS officers who are unprofessionally targeting innocent U.S. citizens – including off duty local police officers of colour, comes with a loss of public trust as well as ethical and civil liability conflicts. However, I do believe it is the duty of local police to protect DHS agents who are being attacked in the street. DHS should put an immediate halt on any operational activities outside of international border points and pull back from municipalities. Municipal and state police leaders across the country must put their heads together with DHS officials and sort out who does what and how, very quickly. The need to clarify the roles, responsibilities and rules of engagement for their agencies and their people on the street. By being intelligence-led; conducting thorough investigations; working cooperatively and professionally through their varying legislative authorities as they search for and arrest undocumented criminals, they may be able to restore some level of public trust. This cannot continue as is. CBP’s Greg Bovino gave a passionate speech on Sunday afternoon where he spoke of “choices” made by protestors, politicians and the media. It was apparent that he was passing blame on everyone but the DHS in this debacle. Undoubtedly there have been poor choices by many but come on, man. You, the DHS Secretary and your ICE counterpart need to make the “choice” to pause, reflect, regroup and strategize for the good of the people you serve, the American people. Then your President needs to make the right choice and support the change.
By Chris Lewis January 14, 2026
I’ve been watching the enhanced and prominent activity of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers over the past several months with interest. Under President Donald Trump’s second Administration, as promised he has directed ICE to arrest and remove dangerous criminal illegal aliens, and specifically pointed out murderers, rapists, etc. That sensible goal has resulted in some bad people being taken off the streets as well as roundups of people that seem to be hardly dangerous criminals, albeit technically “illegal aliens.” Regardless, the issue I want to speak to is the ongoing controversy over ICE officers – some clad in civilian attire for the most part and others wearing ICE uniforms, but all covering their faces in some fashion. My comments are not “anti-ICE.” I am 100% behind law enforcement but I’m also always honest when I see what I believe is a wrong. I worked with and still maintain friendships with people that are now retired U.S. border and immigration officers. They were the best of the best and I’m sure most current officers are nothing but well intended. This is simply about my concerns around the covering of officer’s faces. I simply don’t get it. This is not Seal Team Six deploying on a dirt road to nowhere in Pakistan, to kill Osama Bin Laden. This law enforcement operating on Main Street USA, in commercial parking lots and sidewalks. These are law enforcement officers not an anti-terrorist unit. If ICE officers need to hide their faces for some legitimate operational reason like they are engaged in an undercover operation somewhere, they should stay out of the public and media spotlight. Members of the public that support the covering of ICE officer’s faces, speak of the dangerous work they do and threats of retaliation by relatives and extremists. ICE officials defend the practice and the Acting Director of ICE stated in a July 2025 CBS interview: “I’m not a proponent masks. however, if that's a tool that the men and women of ICE need to keep themselves and their family safe, then I'll allow it.” [1] If that’s his rationale, I hope they don’t tell him they need heat-seeking missiles with nuclear warheads too. Yes, their job comes with dangers and risk. They’re law enforcement officers not ice cream truck drivers. If the reason is to mask their identity from potential bad guys (which I simply don’t buy), there are also public accountability concerns, for the good guys. For example, identifying an officer that is alleged to have used excessive force, or has even been unprofessional, is important for the public from a process perspective. In terms of the whole pile of good guys ICE also ends up dealing with, I’m concerned for the safety of ICE when they run up to a vehicle, aggressively screaming commands through their facial coverings, sometimes with guns drawn. If I was a wanted criminal, I would likely know my goose was cooked and have to make a decision in terms of my response. That would be on me. But if I was a legally armed U.S. citizen who knew they had no warrants and had never so much as received a parking ticket, I might respond with some aggressive action of my own if not 100% sure that I was dealing with law enforcement and not some half uniformed/half civilian clothed maniac with a gun. That might include initiating a gunfight or at the very least stepping on the accelerator. That’s a frightening scenario for the lawful public and should be for the ICE officers. Uniformed police officers in Canada for the most part wear either name tags, their badge numbers or both on their uniforms. In Ontario, it’s the law. Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers wear name tags when they enforce our borders. So do many, many local and state police officers across the U.S. They also do not hide their faces except in extremely rare circumstances. Do all of these officers not make arrests of gang members; illegal aliens; drug smugglers; and dangerous criminals? Do they hide their faces and their names out of a fear of retribution? Do they testify behind a curtain and using a pseudonym during subsequent public trials? Absolutely not. The same rules apply to our police Public Order Unit (POU) officers that unfortunately have seen more violent protest operations in the past 20 years than they did in the 100 years prior. In Toronto, it has become a full-time job. In addition to a lot of good people that are just exercising their right to peaceful protest, at times POU officers deal with some very radical extremists who want to achieve absolutely nothing but cause mayhem, destroy property and if possible, fight with police. As a uniformed police officer, tactical team member and investigator – as did many colleagues, I arrested murderers, outlaw motorcycle gang members and local criminals. I interrogated murderers and rapists for hours. I testified against all these people in court. In small town Ontario, every community member knew where my family and I lived. People I had arrested (and even their parents) knocked on the door of my home to further their arguments. I curled with a local man I’d locked up a week before and against several I’d arrested or charged. I was in and out of provincial jails and federal penitentiaries on investigations and prisoner escorts. In London in the 1980s, my wife and I dined in a lovely restaurant, just two tables away from a notorious biker I’d dealt with on a raid and at biker check-points. We simply nodded at each other and ate our meals. Many of the folks I dealt with were simply not nice people. But I was doing police work! If it was all peace, love, flowers and unicorns, everyone would want to do it. Mind you through all those years, even when I had to use force to arrest some of these individuals or take them into custody at gun point, I treated them like humans. I didn’t disrespect them; didn’t use excessive force; was professional and spoke to them like they were human beings. I truly think that can make a significant difference. In fact, some very bad people I met along the way told me that it did. Some of the publicized ICE interactions with the public have been far from professional. I know their job is difficult and at times they are dealing with complete idiots, but cooler heads should most often prevail. The leaders of ICE should ensure “Professional Public Interaction” is strongly emphasized in ICE officer training and placed front and center in their rules of engagement, then ban facial coverings during public operations. Take that decision out of the hands of the frontline ICE officers that are bravely out doing their jobs. The officers will be safer and so will the law-abiding people in the community. [1] CBS News, CBS News presses ICE head on why agents can continue using masks, YouTube, July 18, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOOGyLuRkgU 
By Chris Lewis January 6, 2026
In my view, when all the decisions are made at one end of the room, it’s a failure of leadership.