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.

 

Leadership involves risk, especially in policing

By Chris Lewis • March 28, 2026
Leadership is inundated with risk, every hour of every day, in all sectors. In policing, legislative authorities and established policy are the ever-present guideposts, but occasionally policy just doesn’t apply. At times someone has to just make a decision to do something, or not, or they will fail the public they serve and the personnel it is their duty to lead. If it goes bad, time to own up, do damage control, learn from it and move forward. It always frightened me when I saw some at the senior executive level in policing think that supervisors and managers operate in a pristine little bubble where nothing should ever go wrong. Then when it did because some supervisor tried their best to make something work for all the right reasons, they wanted to pigeon-hole the person that took the risk. There were times during my own career when executives were not encouraged to take any risk either. In fact, taking risk was career risk in itself. Despite the best of intentions, if it went bad, the one ‘responsible’ be forever labelled as having failed. Even if the gamble went well, the jaundiced eyes from above would still forever look at them as being a potential liability. It became the “Oh, him. He’s the one that...” At times the daily decision making of high-level commanders would be second-guessed by those in the executive suites – some of whom had never really commanded anything. My buddy retired Chief Wayne Frechette used to describe these folks as: “They’ve never been out after dark on company time.” I know this same concept was alive in many other police services. Some at executive levels actually did serve in operational roles at some point but they never took a risk. Somehow, they were fortunate to skate through difficult situations through sheer luck as opposed to good decision-making and never developed any scar tissue along the way. They didn’t learn from failure – they survived by luck. They also were viewed by weak executives above them as being golden because there was never a milli-second of negativity around them. They were Teflon. But those that worked under their “command” (for lack of a better word) had no respect for them. They simply watched them walk around with coffee in hand, never leaving the office or making a decision. It wasn’t leadership, but it did pave the way to stardom from on high, for some. True leaders do take risks at times. Many I worked with and for did it all and did it well. They did so in the best interests of those they served and those they led, because it wasn’t about themselves, but was done in the service of those that placed their trust in them. Policy simply doesn’t fit every situation. It is most often a guide that anticipates most circumstances that employees will face, particularly the more common (high-frequency) ones. But it cannot predict every possible scenario. When that happens in policing, it can occur in very unlikely situations (low-frequency) that are incredibly high-risk. Supervisors cannot say “Sorry folks, the book doesn’t cover this one” and run away crying. They also don’t have time to tell bad guys, “Hey big fella, sit tight. We need to take a pause here and get the whiteboard out so we can have a group-think about how to stop your murderous rampage.” I think that many pseudo-leaders – far too many, are afraid to make risky decisions out of fear that an error will jeopardize their career. Instead, they risk their careers by not making decisions. Or as I like to say: “their fear of career-risk, risks their careers.” This can be fatal in the policing world. When a police supervisor shirks their responsibilities or quivers, sucks their thumb, and prays for the situation to go away, thankfully constables will come forward and do their best to get their teammates through it. Sometimes that ends well and when the supervisor emerges from their fear-induced coma, they will more often than not take credit for the success. But when the situation goes to hell-in-a-handbasket – despite best efforts, the pseudo-leader will document the risk-taking employee and add another bullet-point to their list of things they’ve done to “hold people accountable.” The panel at their next promotional interview will likely hear the false rendition proudly told. I hear examples of this practise from serving police officers across North America on a much too frequent basis. True leaders develop a culture of trust among those they lead that their suggestions and feedback are encouraged and valued. Their confidence that the leader wants their input encourages them to constantly analyze situations and give thought to what policy says and the options available when policy says nothing. That is good for the employee’s development and may save the leader’s hind-end and the continuity of the team on occasion when an employee steps forward in a crisis. Having said that, there will clearly be situations where there isn’t time for the whiteboard, and a decision needs to be made by the responsible “leader.” When it doesn’t work out, the real leader will step forward and be accountable. But when it does go well, the true leader will allow the light to shine on the team they have the honour to lead. In my view, we’re not seeing enough of that in North American policing. We need more genuine leaders at all levels of law enforcement organizations. Developing and promoting real leaders that can manage risk effectively is a must. Anything less fails everyone.

Why Joint Forces Operations Are No Longer Optional

By Chris Lewis • March 26, 2026
They used to be simply a "nice to have."

Police investigating police: Is there another option?

By Chris Lewis • March 18, 2026
The March 17 th announcement by the Toronto Police Service (TPS) regarding the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) investigation into allegations by an Ontario Justice that three TPS officers colluded and lied during a 2024 murder trial against a man that ran over and killed TPS Constable Jeffrey Northrup in 2021, has further inflamed the debate over who should investigate alleged police wrongdoing. This instance combined with the recent arrests and ongoing police investigation into several TPS officers for their alleged involvement with organized crime, has brought this discussion to a boiling point. I appreciate the public perceptions around this investigative model given that the average citizen doesn’t necessarily understand the professionalism and commitment of police investigative teams like the recent OPP Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB) group. I have all the confidence the world in that team, but I also personally know the ability and integrity of the OPP Detective Inspector in-charge. So, if these investigations aren’t carried out by police, who will do them? They do not fall under the mandate of the Ontario Special Investigations Unit (SIU), which by the way is largely comprised of former police criminal investigators and forensic identification experts, many of whom investigated homicides in police services. For SIU to assume a larger role, they would have to grow exponentially and expand their team of ‘former cops’. These cases generally do not fall under the purview of Ontario’s Inspectorate of Policing either. They would loosely fall under the oversight role of Ontario’s Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA), who is responsible for receiving, managing and overseeing public complaints against police, but frankly they don’t have mandate or the horsepower to conduct complex criminal investigations. They oversee the “public complaints” that may lead to a criminal investigation, but the investigation would be the responsibility of a police service to conduct. An expansion of the LECA would require a tremendous amount of funding and human resources, most of whom would also be former police officers. Hiring and training civilians to conduct such investigations is an option, but largely an incomprehensible one. Police criminal investigators are trained officers that generally start out as uniformed officers responding to occurrences and investigating more routine and less serious crimes, i.e. minor assaults and property crimes. They build investigative expertise over time, including in interviewing and interrogation; gathering and securing physical evidence; legal processes like obtaining judicial authorizations; presenting evidence in court; and various investigative strategies. They learn how to work with special police units that provide specific investigative skills, and more. All of this doesn’t happen overnight, but over a period of years and with the tutelage of more experienced investigators along that journey. Trying to turn a group of young and well-educated civilians – no matter how intelligent and well-intended, into a team of elite investigators, would be a complete disaster and unfair to the public or to the officers being investigated. Over my many years as a member or as the Director of the OPP CIB, my colleagues and I investigated criminal allegations against cops from other agencies. Before the SIU was formed, we investigated officers from many Ontario police services – large and small, who had used deadly force. Many were cleared and a number were arrested and charged. We also investigated criminal allegations against police chiefs in Ontario. Again, several were appropriately cleared, and some were brought before the courts. Municipal, provincial and federal elected officials were similarly investigated and some charged. Our members also investigated police officers in other provinces, including high-ranking ones. I personally investigated two Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officers that were involved in an arrest that result in the death of a suspect. They were properly exonerated, but I would have charged them in a heartbeat if they had wrongfully killed than man. I arrested an OPP Sergeant for sexual assault. A CIB colleague investigated and arrested two different OPP officers for criminal offences. Both of those officers had been personal friends of mine and years later committed suicide. There are tons of similar examples that I can refer to over my career. All of these involved the oversight and legal analysis of a Crown Attorney, sometimes from another province. The interesting thing, and what most of the anti-police folks will never believe, is that in every single one of those investigations, the dialogue that I was involved in with other officers that I worked with or supervised, involved doing what was right. In other words, “If the allegation is substantiated, we will put the case together, arrest them and put them before the courts.” Not even once, did we think about or do anything that would give an officer a pass when they committed a criminal offence. Never. I have every confidence in the world that the vast majority of municipal and RCMP colleagues across Canada would operate under the same guiding principle. Has the occasional officer worked in conflict with that approach? Undoubtedly. Were some investigators not as committed or capable as they should be and perhaps did a poor investigation accidentally or deliberately? Quite likely so. But I truly believe those cases are the exception, not the rule in criminal investigations. Where I more often believe poor investigations or deliberate attempts to inappropriately give a colleague a break continues to occur, is in Police Act investigations, where policy or employee harassment wrongdoings are suspected. I like to think that the focus on that continues to improve, but not fast enough in some cases. Sadly, I know now that unbeknownst to me at the time, it happened under my watch. A focus for my next article. The public and police deserve the very best of investigators to ensure that bad cops are effectively put out of business and good officers are cleared. If there’s another effective option that would appease the doubting public – aside from using current officers from other agencies or creating a new and costly entity that would be staffed by former police officers, I’d like to hear it.