Self-Defense: Canadian versus American Laws

A significant majority of those who have purchased handguns have done so for self-defense. Media coverage of muggings, home invasions and mass killings always trigger a rash of new weapons ownership as the public responds to concerns about protecting themselves, their loved ones and their property.

Concealed carry is legal in all American states. Many of them also have a “stand your ground” laws. This means you are justified to use lethal force to defend yourself, your family and/or your property. You have a right to stand and defend. You have no obligation to retreat from a threat. You may fight back using lethal force to protect yourself.

This may all seem logical but the fact remains: There are certain perameters required for a shooting to be deemed self-defense.

Self-defense also varies in definition from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and between countries.

A  famous Canadian case shone the spotlight on when it’s legally acceptable for Americans and Canadians to use lethal force. 

Canadian Peter Khill shot and killed an unarmed Indigenous man in February 2016. A jury found him not guilty of second-degree murder. The grounds of his acquittal were that he feared for his life. A Native Canadian was attempting to steal Khill’s truck. He was unarmed when Khill shot him.

Awakened by a loud noise, the Canadian reservist looked out his window, noted his truck lights in his driveway, and grabbed his 12-gauge shotgun from its gun safe and went to investigate.

He approached the would-be thief from behind and ordered him to put his hands up. Instead, the perpetrator moved his hands in a manner that convinced Khill he was holding a gun. Fearing for his life, Khill shot. 

The defense argued that Khill’s actions were “inexcusable”. They stated he should have called 911 and that there was no imminent danger if he had done so.

In a similar Saskatchewan case, Gerald Stanley killed a Native Canadian but the reason given was delayed discharge of the bullet. Stanley’s attorney—supported by rural farmers that Stanley had a right to protect his property. Stanley was acquitted. 

Debate over these and similar cases rages over perceived racial bias in Canada’s justice system.

What do Canada’s laws say about self-defense? Within the last seven years the laws on self-defense have been eased. According to a Calgary lawyer, you have to have a “reasonable belief that you are in danger.” 

Shooting must be for defensive—not retaliation—reasons. The level of force must be deemed “reasonable given the circumstances”. The defense must demonstrate an “air of reality” that the defendant felt self-defense was necessary. 

Defense of property has less leeway. You need to believe another person is there to enter, take, or destroy your property. Again, force must be reasonable in the circumstances. For example: If someone was trying to steal gas from your tank, you might fire a warning shot.

Khill did not shoot because the thief was trying to steal his truck. He shot because he was afraid for his life.

How do Canadian and American law differ?

Many Americans concealed carry handguns. This is not legal in Canada. Many American states have what are referred to as castle laws. This means that if someone trespasses on to your property you have every right to use lethal force against them. No one will question whether your action was reasonable or not!

In Canada, actions will  be measured on reasonable. Canadians do not have castle laws or stand-your-ground. 

In Canada it is not legal to point a gun—or facsimile—at anyone. You must convince the courts you were acting in self-defense.