r/canadaguns • u/DoYouGetSarcasm • Feb 26 '26

News / Politics / Activism Assault charges dropped against Lindsay Ontario man who confronted home intruder

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/lindsay-ontario-mcdonald-charges-withdrawn-9.7106757
294 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

99 comments sorted by

View all comments

207

u/DoYouGetSarcasm Feb 26 '26

Fucking finally.

153

u/GabRB26DETT Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26

Absolutely should not have taken so long. This is specifically why laws need to be written.

What is it going to take for Canadians to be able to defend their homes from invaders and criminals ?

Edit : seems like some of you think I dream of just grabbing a 12ga for the first intruder no questions asked only to protect my TV. I absolutely don't. Y'all don't have any families though ? How are you supposed to know an intruder(s) intentions ?

20

u/Former-Homework-7833 Feb 26 '26

The ruling elite facing it themselves constantly, as long as it’s a problem only for plebs, nothin will change. Notice how fast ford changed his tune when it was his home? Suddenly speaking of castle laws because it finally wasn’t just the plebs, but when it’s just us? Who cares is the ruling elites view point.

60

u/Cager_CA Feb 26 '26

You'll first need to convince millions of Liberal Canadians that yes....my $5,000 PC or my $1,000 television is in fact worth more than the life or well being of the person breaking into my house and trying to steal it.

Right now they think a criminal getting seriously injured or killed trying to steal your property is a travesty and that human life is more valuable than your personal possessions and you shouldn't want to defend them because insurance etc.

56

u/Former-Homework-7833 Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26

It’s worth more than someone who doesn’t value their own lives by engaging in criminal activity*

Essentially, why is the onus on you to value the persons life who don’t value their own by engaging in criminal high risk activity?

Also why is the onus on you to “be reasonable?” To “use minimum force necessary” as if you can know what that is when a dudes in your house with a loaded crossbow (a weapon in commission of another crime),

You’re essentially having your hands tied behind your back and you have to try to gauge in real time if someone already engaging in criminal activity won’t go further and will just stop, that’s a bar higher than trained police have for the record. And I get the law isn’t exactly written that way, technically we do have self defence laws, but how they’re interpreted is clearly the problem, and that’s a systems / institutional problem that absolutely can be corrected to be more equitable to the law abiding citizens just trying to keep their family and property safe.

31

u/canada1913 Feb 26 '26

How dare you use the forbidden logic.

13

u/Former-Homework-7833 Feb 26 '26

I know, wait for the down votes if this was any other sub I guess

22

u/bigb3nny Feb 26 '26

Never mind that how about my and my families safety.

17

u/DuperCheese Feb 26 '26

What if I’m a single woman? What if I have a young child at home? Many home invaders do it for sexual reasons and abuse reasons - not just to steal stuff.

9

u/Q-Ball7 In the end, it's taxes all the way down Feb 27 '26

And those who vote to keep them out on the street (and you defenseless from them) are also doing it for sexual and abuse reasons.

14

u/Fit_Equivalent3610 Feb 27 '26

If the only question was whether my TV is worth more than the guy’s life, I would agree with the liberals. Or at least some of the time. A dipshit 16 year old kid who does a B&E can probably still be reformed, might be a productive member of society later, and likely is not irredeemably evil.

The problem is that you do not know, and cannot possibly know, if the thief actually just wants your TV, or (even assuming that is the case) what he will do to get it. Self-defence should be categorically justified under a castle doctrine because it is the thief who is risking their life, not me, and I have no way of knowing if the guy is a Nightstalker wannabe or just a criminal.

The comparative value of a TV and a life has literally nothing to do with this.

12

u/FailedCoder86 Feb 26 '26

That’s IF they are there just for your personal property.

12

u/InitialAd4125 Feb 27 '26

It's funny how when you point out the hypocrisy of letting brinks armed truck drivers have guns suddenly that's different. Because those guns are totally used to just protect the drivers who are at greater risk and totally not the money. Yet we're all just expected to hand our shit over to any would be thieves and not be armed because it's according to them more deadly to be armed. Yet at the same time they claim it's not for brinks truck drivers? Like both can't be true at the same time so which is it government.

-25

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Feb 26 '26

...no. its not.

Your possessions are not worth a human life.

17

u/nineshotwonder Feb 26 '26

So how am I supposed to know that the guy breaking into my house doesn't value my possessions more than my life? What's actually stopping the guy already actively committing a crime from committing another while they're at it?

13

u/ultragigasimp Feb 26 '26

You never know what the intention of someone breaking into your house is. Sure, it might just be to steal your TV and PS5. But what if they want to do something worse than steal? That’s what I’m more worried about. 

Richard Ramirez (The Nightstalker) used to go around seeing if doors were left unlocked at night, going inside if they weren’t locked, then killing the residents and leaving.

-4

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Feb 26 '26

The fuck? Because its a couple of years in prison for breaking and entering and 20 for murder.

Thats like saying oh that guy was speeding so i killed him because if he is already breaking one law why wouldn't he break another.

Your argument makes no sense.

If someone breaks in call the police grab a pump action shotgun, shout the police are on the way and i have a gun then rack a shell but dont shoot him for running away with your tv. Thats what youre supposed to do.

10

u/nineshotwonder Feb 27 '26 edited Feb 27 '26

If jail time was enough of a deterrent to everybody, people wouldn't be breaking and entering in the first place.

I'll admit, the second part of my comment was worded poorly. Rather, what is stopping someone actively committing a violent crime against my property from escalating that into a violent crime against me. I understand the difference in jail time, but again, if that were enough of a deterrent, we wouldn't be here in the first place.

Intent is the hardest thing to determine in a defense scenario. That said, if someone is in the process of running away, TV in hand or not, they're making it pretty damn clear they have no intent to harm me or anyone near me. It's that initial part of the break in where it's really hard to tell if that person is there just to steal something or is there to harm me or my loved ones. Or if they're there to steal my TV, and they decide that yeah, it is worth killing the the guy that owns it.

Also, given that brandishing a weapon is against the criminal code, grabbing a pump shotgun and racking it is also not what you're supposed to do. Your solution just replaces one crime with another.

Edit: It's a 5 year sentence for brandishing, and clearly jail time isn't enough of a deterrent.

Edit2: It would likely fall under Careless use of a Firearm, which is only 2 years for a first offense. 5 Years for second and subsequent. Still clearly not enough of a deterrent

22

u/Cager_CA Feb 26 '26

Yeah,  they’re worth more than the criminal breaking in’s life.  

-24

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Feb 26 '26

Good Lord no. Criminal or not their lives are worth more than 6 grand and frankly its pathetic to think otherwise.

15

u/RYRK_ Feb 26 '26

What about your safety? What if he has a concealed weapon, what if he plans to kill anyone he comes across inside? You can't take the time to assess this because you didn't put yourself in this situation and he was willing to. Don't break into people's homes.

-12

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Feb 26 '26

What if hes your neighbour or your buddy or your brother who you gave a key and they just needed a place to crash because they had too much to drink and lost their phones. And its too dark for you to see and you blow their heads off?

Are we done with rhetorical bullshit? You call the cops grab a pump action rack a shell and only shoot if your life or someone elses is in danger.

Dont kill a man for your shitty tv.

10

u/RYRK_ Feb 27 '26

Racking a shotgun isn't a solid way to prevent someone with ill intent in your home.

I don't give out my house key to anyone but I guess you do you.

If they fail to identify themselves they're probably not a harmless person who just happened to do a home invasion.

-2

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Feb 27 '26

You missed the point. Fuck stupid theoreticals.

Property is not worth a human life.

→ More replies (0)

13

u/ultragigasimp Feb 26 '26

If someone were to break into your home in the middle of the night, how would you know what their intentions are? How do you know they aren’t going to murder or rape you/your family instead?

-5

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Feb 26 '26

Better question is how do i know they're not going to detonate a nuke and turn my home into a crater?

Despite what your murderboner and the media want you to believe your more likely going to wake up to a housefire than a guy raping you.

Call the cops, arm yourself and only shoot to defend you or others.

11

u/Cager_CA Feb 27 '26

Your logic doesn't really hold up. By breaking into somebody's house, especially if Castle Doctrine became a thing, you are conveying to everybody that you as the criminal do not value your own life

Why should I as the victim defending myself be forced to place a higher value on the criminal than my own family or property?.

Make it make sense.

0

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Feb 27 '26

Dude your entire argument is based on if something becomes law that is not going to become law.

Crime isn't black and white its shades of grey and everyone sucks. This post is about a criminal who now defended himself against another criminal and everyone is treating him like a saint. As if he didnt do time for beating someone with a baseball bat.

If you kill someone breaking into your house who isn't threatening you or anyone else you're both victims and both criminals.

7

u/Cager_CA Feb 27 '26

Dude your entire argument is based on if something becomes law that is not going to become law

Another reason why Canada sucks to live in. Beyond high home prices, high cost of living, a government that wants to ban the sport I enjoy and now I have to serve proverbial tea and crumpets to any criminal who breaks into my house because bleeding heart people like you think the victim of a break in should value the life of a criminal more than the safety of their own family or material possessions.

Crime isn't black and white its shades of grey and everyone sucks. This post is about a criminal who now defended himself against another criminal and everyone is treating him like a saint. As if he didnt do time for beating someone with a baseball bat.

I think it's pretty black and white when you're the victim of a break in and have to defend your home. I don't see how him beating somebody with a bat somehow removes his right to defend his own home from somebody entering with a crossbow.

If you kill someone breaking into your house who isn't threatening you or anyone else you're both victims and both criminals.

Disagree. Breaking into my house is unto itself a threatening action and anything past that is self defense. It is also completely voluntary to do so if you make the choice to do it, you make that choice with the understanding that anything can happen.

To quote a great movie

"Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's 'understanding'."

1

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Feb 27 '26

Buddy you clearly have some things to complain about that you want an outlet for and that's fine we can talk about it.

Housing prices are on the rise around the globe. It's a global phenomenon and not restricted to Canada.

The cost of living is high because we have higher median wages and we need public grocery stores btw but that's off topic. And frankly we've been too reliant on the US and have been sacrificing domestic production.

Agreed on the despising the feds for making the hobby I love more restricted. But c'mon man read the writing on the wall. The buyback is on it's last legs.

The thing is you keep equating property theft and being murdered. These are 2 separate things. Even Castle doctrine is based off of reasonable force like our self defence laws it just lowers the bar for what is reasonable. No ones expecting you to serve tea but you can't kill someone unless they're a real threat to your life and existing in your space is not enough of a threat. You can physically remove them just not kill them. Because that is reasonable.

>I don't see how him beating somebody with a bat somehow removes his right to defend his own home from somebody entering with a crossbow.

It doesn't it just explains why it took so long for the charges to be dropped.

>Breaking into my house is unto itself a threatening action and anything past that is self defense.

Yes agreed. Beat their asses and drag them out of your house. Just don't kill them unless they're trying to kill you.

>"Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's 'understanding'."

The second one was better. And are you quoting Ra's al Ghul? Hes the bad guy in every adaptation he's in.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/InitialAd4125 Feb 27 '26

Someone should tell that to the government of Canada. They can stop putting armed guards outside the mints and stop letting brinks truck drivers carry firearms.

0

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Feb 27 '26

That's whats called a deterrent. Feel free to come up with a valid argument.

5

u/InitialAd4125 Feb 27 '26

Great then regular people should be allowed "deterrents".

1

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Feb 27 '26

That what laws, cops, and prisons are bud.

3

u/InitialAd4125 Feb 27 '26

Laws are used to force the peons to rely on the cops. Cops are used to keep the prisons full. Prisons are used to keep you afraid.

11

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '26

[deleted]

0

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Feb 27 '26

Dude if you're a lawyer read my comment.

If he is threatening your life thats an entire different story.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '26

[deleted]

0

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Feb 27 '26

First of all no.

Second of all define a weapon.

Third of all no one is talking about weapons other than you. I'm talking property.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '26

[deleted]

0

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Feb 28 '26

No. I was talking about possessions not being worth a human life. Then you pulled out random points not related to anything I'm talking about.

Read.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/Q-Ball7 In the end, it's taxes all the way down Feb 27 '26 edited Feb 27 '26

Your possessions are not worth a human life.

Wrong.

My possessions took a significant and directly measurable fraction of my lifespan to generate.

Stealing, then, is not simply theft "of property", but of lifespan directly. The thief has stated, by attempting to steal, that taking lifespans like this is acceptable to him or her.

So, by Golden Rule...

-1

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Feb 27 '26

Fucking hell you're tripping over yourself to justify killing a person.

8

u/Hot_Piano_4387 Feb 27 '26

Tell that to the criminal who values my possessions more than my life

8

u/soundssarcastic bc Feb 27 '26

The theives certainly think its worth more than their lives 🤷🏻‍♂️

-1

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Feb 27 '26

Yea because everyone who commits crimes thinks theyre going to get caught. Cmon bud find an argument that makes sense.

28

u/RoundLegitimate261 Feb 26 '26

The crown will not allow it. It is a hallmark of commonwealth countries and being ruled by the King as “subjects”.

29

u/looloopklopm Feb 26 '26

I don't need to defend myself from the damn King, just from the crackhead trying to steal the copper from inside my walls

1

u/Q-Ball7 In the end, it's taxes all the way down Feb 26 '26

The crackhead is there on the King's orders, generally through the judges he appoints and the executive he accepts.

Thus, defending yourself from the crackhead and attacking the King are the same thing.

This is why, if you do the former, you are prosecuted for having attacked the King.

9

u/Eisenbahn-de-order Feb 26 '26

the king can take the boot if that's what he desires

-1

u/Foreign_Active_7991 Feb 26 '26

being ruled by the King as “subjects”.

It's nice for him that he thinks that, the reality is I neither accept, recognize, nor respect this supposed "king." The only being I am subject to is God, I neither bow nor bend the knee to any man. Old sausage fingers can eat my ass for all I care, Quebec had the right idea by doing away with the oath of fealty to the crown for their provincial representatives.

2

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Feb 26 '26

Dude. It took so long because Macdonald is a criminal with jail time under his belt.

They're supposed to take a bit longer and look closer when the guy defending himself previously beat someone with a baseball bat, failed to follow probation rules, and failed to follow his release rules.

Don't die on this hill for this guy.

-2

u/BartAndLisaHadIncest Feb 27 '26

I think there's more to this story nobody is telling us. The intruder and the homeowner apparently knew each other, as this was initially reported. Also Lindsey is a tiny town in the middle of nowhere, it's not the type of place with random break-ins.

Unfortunately we'll never know what actually happened. The fact that the homeowner never came forward to defend his position publicly tells me he wants this to stay quiet. That's strange.