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.

 

The worst boss: Nightmare for some, reality for many

By Chris Lewis • June 21, 2025
Image: new-manager-training.com Imagine this scenario if you will, getting the worst boss on earth – a person who is the total antithesis of leadership. Your new “Boss” replaces a leader that wasn’t always right and was getting too old to meet the mental and physical demands of the job, but at the same time treated all those around him with respect. He tried to select people for key positions based on their experience base and his confidence that they may not always agree but the individuals picked would be honest with him, other employees and the client base. He undoubtedly made mistakes here and there and did have some flaws but would readily admit to most of them. This boss comes back to the organization having committed a list of publicly confirmed misdeeds and illegal acts – many of which would have singularly been a good reason to not hire even the lowest level of employee, and justification for imprisonment for others. However, he was chosen for the top job despite all that baggage. Conversely, he brings not one redeeming quality to the top position. From day one, it’s obvious that the new Boss is truly a “boss” and not a “leader.” He has old personal scores to settle and wreaks revenge on many employees that he doesn’t like. Not because they were dishonest, incapable or lazy, but because he perceives that they didn’t want him to return or didn’t always agree with his philosophies and rash actions during past affiliations. This activity causes panic among all employees who know they have no choice but to get aboard his out-of-control train or perish beneath it. Then – without any deep evaluation or thought, he makes tremendous cuts to many organizational programs – leaving thousands without work and lacking any strategy to provide much needed services to a vast array of client groups. He viciously cuts through the organization like a chainsaw through softwood. Why? Because he can. Some of these decisions may have had some degree of validity following a proper assessment, while others not, but that analysis never occurred. Most previous positive relationships with partner agencies and the majority of client groups are immediately scuttled by the new boss. He publicly demeans and taunts longtime allies with irrational statements and outright falsehoods. Never in the many decades of history of the organization has such broad-ranging international indignation been felt, largely as a result of his childish behavior. Very few productive relationships remain and although some new ones are developed, they are only with organizations that are poorly considered by clients and upstanding industry players. His decisions continually fly in the face of the needs of the immense client group but more align with the personal business interests of only the Boss and his business associates – some of whom are either known despots or of questionable character. Company stocks continue to plummet as a result of his silliness. That also has a significant negative impact on the fiscal picture of partner organizations around the world. Anyone that respectfully expresses disagreement or suggests alternative decisions to the Boss, are sidelined or fired, then are ridiculed and until they become unemployable. Gas-lighting, exaggerations, denials, the passing of blame and blatant lies are his norm. He seldom speaks the truth about anyone or any situation. The sycophants he has positioned to assist in his destruction of the organization, publicly praise him for his leadership and courageous decision-making, when the majority of employees and clients know it is just flagrant butt-kissing on their part. He constantly seeks and demands praise, even for things he didn’t do, then sulks and whines when he doesn’t receive it. He falsely takes credit for the few good things that do happen but quickly passes blame when things that have his fingerprints all over them, go horribly wrong. His God-complex is resounding and worsens with each passing day. His public claims of success – before and since becoming the Boss, and assertions of being the “Greatest Boss in history”, fall flat with anyone that truly knows him. He aggressively takes advantage of anyone he can but then turns on them at the flip of a switch. No one is beyond being found at the pointy end of his meanness stick. When caught making an error, he’ll blame everyone on his “team” before accepting any criticism. In fact, he’d turn on his own children if he felt it would make him look brave or heroic, or if it would prevent him from public humiliation. He states his 24/7 lies over and over so often to make his base of lemming followers believe him, that he seemingly believes them to be factual himself. Even when he is confronted with witness testimony or audio/video of his brazen lies, he blames others for being out to get him. Being accountable when things go wrong and letting the light shine on others when they go well, is beyond his comprehension. (Can you spell “narcissistic”?) Although he doesn’t understand the business, he refuses to surround himself with people that do, given that he thinks he knows more than any of them and possibly more than anybody, anywhere, ever, since the dawn of time. Public statements he makes are often completely ridiculous and childish, causing all those around him to force plastic smiles, offer him undeserved praise and nod like pre-programmed bobbleheads. People and even affiliated organizations live in such fear of his thirst for retribution that they either cow-tow to his insanity or prepare for annihilation. He is an embarrassment internally and externally, on an international scale. No past executive has even been so blatantly self-centered, mean spirited and/or inept, nor have they ever had such a negative impact on the organization and its people. It may take decades to repair all the damage he has done. Thankfully, his employment contract is only for four years, so there may be some light at the end of the tunnel. Most of those within and those reliant on the organization, as well as friends, associates, allies internationally pray that this nightmare will end at that time. If it’s not too late, that is. Just a bad dream for some or a reality for millions of us?

What did the PM’s most recent announcement on border security really mean?

By Chris Lewis • February 4, 2025
Is there any meat to this or is it more of the same?

What police don’t need during a crisis

By Chris Lewis • January 4, 2025
Police know how to conduct major investigations and find bad guys. Although several specific factors change from case to case, their general investigative playbook remains the same. Once some ungodly multi-victim attack occurs, in very simplistic terms: the scene is protected, and the health of the living victims is looked after. Forensic experts begin processing the crime scene. Witnesses are located and interviewed. Physical evidence is gathered. Area and witness video recordings are collected and analyzed. Victims are identified. An off-site reunification centre is established where there are multiple victims. Next of kin notifications begin. At any point – if a suspect or suspects become known, their background is gathered, and the hunt begins. They need to be apprehended before anyone else is hurt. Area law enforcement officers need to know suspect details ASAP. “Motive” is at top of mind as investigators are synthesizing all this information, whether the suspect is identified or not. Of course, establishing motive often leads to identifying the suspect, but at other times identifying the suspect helps fill in the blanks on motive. What was the initial basis of what became a murder? Was it a robbery? Could it have been a street fight gone bad? Was it simply a want or need to kill someone specific or maybe anyone at all? That’s for investigators to sort out. There is an onus to warn the public or at least tell them something, i.e. “ongoing threat”, “stay indoors”, or “no threat to public safety”. There are reporting protocols to follow. Senior officers need to be advised up the food chain as do their political masters, so everyone knows what is happening. None of that should detract investigators from doing what they do best – catching killers. But that’s when the ravenous “thirst for knowledge” and political grandstanding often take over and completely interfere with police work. The only knowledge the investigators are thirsty for in those early hours is evidence and then identifying, locating and capturing bad people. They do not need politics monopolizing their time or efforts. The New Years Day massacre in New Orleans was big. Fourteen innocent party goers were killed and dozens injured. The world wanted to know what happened and the community wanted to know if they were in danger. I absolutely get that. However, what sometimes comes with such tragedies is everyone wanting to know everything. We see it in most mass murder cases, but this was an exceptional example of the insanity surrounding such a high-profile incident. Whatever blanks weren’t immediately filled in by police officials and verified mainstream media reports, were filled in by social media. In such cases police totally lose control of the narrative as rumours, theories, falsities, conspiracy theories and “hey look at me” games take over. The political party and individual positioning in this case was nauseating. In any multi-agency response, having the leaders of those agencies at press conferences in a united front makes sense. The public needs to have confidence that the situation is in the best of hands. But where did these massive press conferences where police officials are flanked by numerous politicians come from? I can see some elected leaders being present when a new program is launched or government funding is being announced, but it should never be in the early hours of a mass murder. Having a bunch of partisan wonks peacocking on stage and in follow-up interviews, helps no one at the operational level. As some of them were speaking, I was responding to their dumb questions in my mind: Was it a terror attack? Maybe, but let the experts figure that out. In the meantime, it’s a mass murder. Was the killer an illegal immigrant? Let’s worry about that when the dust settles. What political party is to blame for allowing him into the country? We don’t care. Maybe he was born here. Let’s sort that out if he turns out to be an illegal immigrant. Why wasn’t the area more secure? Good question for a future debrief. We need to get the FBI and HSI leaders before a government committee right away so we can find out who failed! Shut up. We have police work to do. There are always enough social media theories, private citizens’ investigations into suspects, outright lies and misinformation being spread to the public, without silly partisan games sidetracking investigators who are fighting to stay ahead of legitimate theories and tips. In the early hours of a mass murder case investigators are probably the busiest they have ever been, and don’t need any of this interference. Controlling the social media fever is next to impossible. It would take a sudden level of maturity across the populace that may be unattainable. But politicians at all levels need to get the message that they are not welcome on stage at operational press conferences and their comments to the media – if asked for them – aside from expressing sadness, thoughts, prayers and confidence in the police, should be “Our law enforcement agencies are investigating, and we need to let them do what they do.” Adding any theories, raising questions or passing blame is totally wrong. If elected officials truly care about their electorate and feel the need to say more, they should have some prior dialogue with the police leaders or their Public Information Officers to ensure that what they say is helpful as opposed to harmful. Otherwise, be quiet.