r/canadaguns • u/Hmfic_48 • 29d ago

News / Politics / Activism Scarborough resident charged after firing gun during attempted car theft

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2026/08/19/scarborough-resident-charged-firing-gun-vehicle-theft-toronto-police/
107 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

123 comments sorted by

View all comments

230

u/steeleclipse2 29d ago

"...a resident of the home fired a gun during the encounter. The suspects fled before officers arrived."

Soooooo, it worked, right? Fucking Canada.

52

u/dannysmackdown 29d ago

Yeah, he hit a house tho and could've killed someone (other than the thiefs). Can't buck rounds at dudes stealing your car unless your life is at risk, which will be hard to prove if you choose to come outside to confront them.

40

u/Sad-Stop-2401 29d ago

I think we should not hold layfolks at higher accountability than we hold police when it comes to self defense with firearms.

Do you expect people to make judgement call in situations like this?

Do you expect people to moderate their response more than police?

If a cop was confronted like this, he would have reached for his or her gun. If they are not charged why charge lay folks trying to protect themself and their property much more harshly?

And lets not get started how many police fired rounds hit bystanders or even people in their homes.

7

u/War_Hymn 29d ago

Hell, those RCMP jokers who indiscriminately opened fire on a fire station filled with people hiding from the dentist shooter in Nova Scotia didn't even get so much as a slap on the wrist for what they did. 

-6

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

5

u/Ongogo 29d ago

If you're not planning to shoot, don't pull the gun out. It's a quick way to escalate the situation.

2

u/Curious_Joe2020 29d ago

Not true. Police reach for guns all the time in such a scenario but rarely ever shoot them. Ever seen a tactical team? 99% of the time the suspect surrenders or is apprehended with guns pointed but never shot. 

3

u/Sad-Stop-2401 29d ago

Thats firearms 101. Do not reach for the gun or point the gun unless you want to commit.

Police are neither expected nor capable to have those kind of reflexes. You present as a threat to cop, very likely you get shot.

1

u/Curious_Joe2020 29d ago edited 29d ago

Not true. Police reach for guns all the time in such a scenario but rarely ever shoot them. Ever seen a tactical team? 99% of the time the suspect surrenders or is apprehended with guns pointed but never shot. This wasn't a surprise. The guy approached the suspects that were trying to steal a car on his driveway. A cop would point a gun at them or in their direction at the ready but not shoot unless they were also armed and posing a threat. This guy messed up big time simple as that and shot at a neighbour's house. If the suspects ran away and he had not shot probably nothing would have happened to him legally. If he hit them then it's manslaughter, attempted murder, or aggravated assault with a firearm and a lot of jail time.

1

u/Sad-Stop-2401 28d ago edited 28d ago

The expectation during an encounter is that cop will defend their life first. Someone not getting shot after presenting as a threat to cop is his good luck NOT cop's duty. The person here presented himself as a threat to the owner of the car and his property. Most encounters with cops end in compliance because most folks are NOT trying to threaten cops or their official property (car, firearm etc). When a person does it, they ..... often meet fatal consequences.

See it in other way, if a cop misread the threat and shoot you, they will walk free.

If you misread (or courts feels so) and shot a person doing forced entry you will be charged.

Thats the issue. We can not hold cops at lower standard than lay folks.

18

u/IGnuGnat 29d ago

My understanding is that you have a legal right to confront a thief (see Lucky Moose incident)

It might be possible that he confronted the thieves and they tried to rush him. If I am in legal possession of a firearm, and somebody rushes me, I think it is prudent to assume that my life is in danger; I would assume they are going to take my firearm and kill me.

If a jury agrees that my life is in danger, then I have a legal right to self defense.

That is probably not what happened here, but also we don't have the whole story.

2

u/Dartmouth-Hermit 28d ago

I'm pretty sure if you arm yourself with a firearm BEFORE there is a threat to your life, you're going to lose that case. It is hard enough to win a clear cut self defence case, but threatening someone with a gun because they are stealing your car is careless use of a firearm and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. I don't want to be the test case for that even if I thought you were right.

-13

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

9

u/IGnuGnat 29d ago

Before the Lucky Moose incident you had no right to confront a property theft; that was a historical case that ALL Canadians should familiarize themselves with.

Post Lucky Moose incident you 100% have a right to confront thieves and escort them off your property, as long as you use reasonable force.

If they attack you, at that point according to the law you have a right to self defence; if a jury of your peers agrees that it was reasonable to fear for your life you may use lethal force. I think anyone would fear for their lives in a 2 on 1. The right to self defense trumps almost every other law

-3

u/Curious_Joe2020 29d ago edited 29d ago

You will 100% lose that argument in court and will get charged before ever getting to court. Reasonable and proportional force. If they were not armed the firearm is in the wrong. And they would have had to be equally armed for it to be reasonable and proportional. Did he fire because he panicked or because they were armed and feared for his life? Was it a warning shot? He should not have left his house and called the police. It's just property theft and a car has insurance. Now he will face charges, expensive lawyers, possible long jail sentences, firearms taken away, license cancelled, and for what, an insured car? Now what if they were armed and as you said it was 2 on 1, who do you think would win the guy who missed a shot point blank or the 2 armed gang members with AKs and Glocks? I don't think they were armed with a gun so it was not reasonable or proportional. And if they were armed his plan was to get into a shoot out with gang members over a parked car?

Confronting them means telling them you called the police and then retreating back inside the house.

3

u/IGnuGnat 29d ago

Oh I have no doubt he would get charged

We have a legal right to confront trespassers or thieves, we have a legal right to defend our property, within reason.

Here is the law:

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-35.html

We also have the right to make a citizens arrest:

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-494.html

If we are in the process of defending our property by confronting trespassers or in the process of making a citizens arrest and we are attacked, we have a right to self defense. At that point, it has nothing to do with the parked car at all.

In Canadian case law, a 2-on-1 dynamic (known as a disparity of force) is widely recognized as a factor that dramatically increases the threat level. Two unarmed adults can easily inflict fatal trauma, cause permanent injury, or disarm the defender and use their own weapon against them.

Of course they would be charged. That is because we don't actually have a justice system; instead we have implemented a system of injustice where we rake victims over the coals and break them at the bank.

Confronting them means telling them you called the police and then retreating back inside the house.

Additionally we have no obligation to retreat when inside our home. If we open the door to see someone stealing our car, we have a legal right to confront them, within reason.

If two attackers come to our door and attack us, we have zero obligation to retreat when we are inside our home. At that point we are no longer defending property at all; we are defending our lives.

https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Self-Defence_and_Defence_of_Another#Obligation_to_Retreat

If we are outnumbered, Canadian law will recognize that multiple unarmed attackers has the potential to be a lethal threat. The size, age etc of the attackers and defenders would be considered

2

u/Curious_Joe2020 29d ago edited 29d ago

He wasn't inside his home. He went outside to confront them. He was armed and they were not. Sorry it's not self-defence and never will be. It was about property which they never even stole. At most it was trespassing. In fact they ran away. A good prosecutor will argue he engaged in offensive chase with a firearm and that's proven because he shot at them as they ran away well outside the dwelling. There was nothing reasonable or proportionate about his actions. He didn't merely point a firearm at them but shot at a neighbor's house. Does that neighbour have a right to fire back then? In fact they did not come to his door nor attack anyone. He chased them outside with a gun. If two teenagers came and tried to steal a bike on his lawn, what would be reasonable to do there? Same logic eh?

1

u/IGnuGnat 29d ago

Also, it says literally NONE of what you just made up in the linked article

0

u/IGnuGnat 29d ago

I maintain that there is a difference between a teenaged bicycle thief and a car thief. Car thieves are very often armed

3

u/mywaaaaife 29d ago

"I feared for my life."

8

u/Geralt-of-Rivai 29d ago

What about that guy that shot a man stealing his truck, he came out of his house with a shotgun to try and defend his property, there's an altercation and he shot him. Charges were dropped

8

u/CorsicanMastiffStrip 29d ago

He was convicted on appeal, if you’re thinking of R. v. Khill.

9

u/Geralt-of-Rivai 29d ago

Oh I thought that had a happy ending. But you're right, he was acquitted and then the Crown appealed and then was later convicted of manslaughter

26

u/steeleclipse2 29d ago

Agreed on not a great idea. Did it hurt someone? No. Pay for the damage and let's all move on.

-11

u/givemehellll al 29d ago

I mean, what about the next time when it does kill a neighbour?

17

u/Glad_Impact_7532 29d ago

I would honestly trust legal owners more than gangbangers of knowing their target and what's behind it. 

1

u/kestik 29d ago

I would tend to agree however you must have seen how our crown land shooting spots are being treating and understand that our assumption here isn't always true.

16

u/steeleclipse2 29d ago

How many what-ifs are we gonna go through here? He didn't, and statistically it's an anomaly. If someone did get hurt, completely different story.

Not sure what type of "justice" you are looking for right now.

-5

u/givemehellll al 29d ago

The kind where people who do beak and enters are actually held accountable. Not the kind where my drunk neighbour fires a round through my kids bedroom wall because someone was trying to steal his truck that is worth $4000.

-20

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

8

u/steeleclipse2 29d ago

Not sure where you got that out of what I said.

Every situation is different and should be addressed accordingly. In this case a person in time of peril fired a gun and no one was injured, and the threat ended. In a fair and just society, we would take that into account and move on with our lives.

-7

u/dannysmackdown 29d ago

Is it a time of peril when the thiefs never entered the house though? Because of they were only in the driveway during this encounter, then I'm not sure how you could argue that your life is at risk.

If they entered the home, totally different story and shooting at them is 100% justified.

-3

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

1

u/steeleclipse2 29d ago

Hrmmm didn't read the part about entering the home. The impression I got was that it did some damage. I'm confident they would have mentioned a bullet entering the home if that were the case.

Again, I stand by treating every case individually.

-1

u/dsac 29d ago

"yes officer, that was me shooting pop cans off my back porch in downtown Toronto, but no one got hurt, so it's all good, right?

-8

u/Frreed 29d ago

What horrible logic

9

u/steeleclipse2 29d ago

So you would like to see him in jail? His guns taken?

What's the solution in your opinion?

-3

u/dsac 29d ago

If he walked out his front door with a gun and fired it without reasonable justification, yes, he should be charged and, if the judge decides, jailed.

Regardless of his criminal guilt, he has clearly demonstrated an inability to be a responsible gun owner, and should have his PAL revoked.

-1

u/ProtoJazz 29d ago

That's always been my opinion. Legally, you shouldn't do it all. If your life is in danger and you decide breaking the law is better than dying, that's your choice, and you'll have to deal with whatever consequences come from that.

Which to me means warning shots are dumb and a sign the situation wasn't all that serious if you have time to dick around.

1

u/Curious_Joe2020 29d ago

His life was not in danger. He was trying to protect a car outside his house which is property.

0

u/ProtoJazz 29d ago

Yeah, that would fall under the dumb category like I said.