Scarborough resident charged after firing gun during attempted car theft

[u/Hmfic_48]

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

[u/steeleclipse2]

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

Soooooo, it worked, right? Fucking Canada.

[u/dannysmackdown → u/steeleclipse2]

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.

[u/IGnuGnat → u/dannysmackdown]

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.

[u/IGnuGnat → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/Curious_Joe2020 → u/IGnuGnat]

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.

[u/IGnuGnat → u/Curious_Joe2020]

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

[u/Curious_Joe2020 → u/IGnuGnat]

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?

[u/IGnuGnat → u/Curious_Joe2020]

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

[u/IGnuGnat → u/Curious_Joe2020]

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