Self-Defence / Home Defence - A Response

After my last post on home defence options, I received three emails that had opposing positions. Two of the respondents questioned whether I was being way too paranoid - after all, we do live in Canada, while the other emailer was nothing short of what I would consider a trigger-happy individual, who seemed to be relishing the opportunity to shoot someone. I certainly hope that that was not the impression my post relayed - it was not my intention, and I think that only the most liberal interpretation of my post would signify that. Anyway, while I could have simply responded to the three commenters by email, I thought it would be more beneficial to address the issues raised by another post. It would also help me to formulate and perhaps cement my own positions on these areas. I won't bother rehashing the previous post found here
but rather, I want to look at some of the resulting opinions.

First, let's look at the paranoia argument, since 2 of the 3 emails said that I was being a bit too paranoid. The two folks who wrote me about this were in essence arguing several things, which I will briefly try to summarize here:

1) this is Canada, supposedly a much more peaceful country and gun culture is not as ingrained here as it is in the U.S., where their Constitution not only assures them, but guarantees them the right to bear arms. The "Castle Doctrine" (essentially a British concept that says that one's home is their castle and as such, if their personal living space is breached, one has the right to defend it, even using lethal force to do so. The Castle Doctrine is highly ingrained in U.S. thinking about personal property and such; not so much in Canada.

OK, I can appreciate this point. However, I would contend that it would be fairly naive for us as Canadians to assume that we are subject to a different degree of crime here; that somehow level and nature of crime does not justify using lethal force. There have been enough cases of heinous crimes in Canada to make me realize that our country is not that much different than our U.S. neighbours. Sure, we don't have the crime-ridden ghettos that they do, but in the big cities in Canada, they are there and home invasions, break-ins, and burglaries are more than commonplace. Even in the suberbs, where supposedly it is "safe" and a false sense of security is established, murders and robberies do happen, and they are increasing in frequency once criminals realize that those living in the burbs are not exactly living on welfare. Plus, my viewpoint has always been that as long as there are humans there, the potential for crime will always be there. Don't think that all the crimes are committed by rough looking gang-bangers. That assumption has led many a person to be shocked to find that their investment banker neighbour who is a father of four is actually a pedophile behind closed doors.

2) Is lethal force really necessary? Can't you just incapacitate the intruder? What about the psychological and legal fallouts?
Is lethal force necessary? You tell me - I don't presume to know your situation. I can tell you that I'd consider it an absolute last resort. In fact, I hope I never come across this situation. But I can say one thing that I've resolved in my own mind. I would not resort to lethal force unless my life or the life of my family was in danger. Some gun nuts have put lethal force as their primary response, and I think there's a real danager in that - for one, it reveals to me a trigger-happy attitude, and a lack of value for life. Also, the typical blase response regarding lethal force being a primary response would indicate that they haven't really thought it through, but rather have been watching too many violent movies. Anyway, if I came home and found dude ransacking my house and taking my meager possessions off my property, I'd call the cops, but in no way would I confront them with legal force. Truth be told, I'm not all that attached to material things. However, a cold burglary is far different than a live home invasion, as I have discovered in researching this topic. Burglaries generally involve one criminal, who will break into your house when you are not there (generally daytime or when they know you are on vacation or away - they are after your stuff and generally have no intention of hurting you). Home invasions, on the other hand, are usually committed by several criminals, who are more than likely armed, and the intent is not so much to steal your possessions as it is to terrorize you in one of many ways. It could involve kidnapping, but in many cases it involves rape, sexual assault, and murder.

Now, that being said, if you advocate a wait and see approach, and I tend to agree in principle, although probably not in practice, what would happen if you assume the best, that it they just want your stuff, but they are intent on breaking in and raping your wife, or your kids? What are you going to do when you are tied by and beaten silly, if not killed, while your family is at the mercy of these animals? And, by the way, you do have your taser or firearm or bear spray, but it's not exactly within reach since you assumed you'll never need it? Not sure if the tradeoff of your life or the life or your loved ones is worth the risk of not being prepared. Something to think about.

Now, consider this. Obviously, no one wants to kill anybody, if they can help it. But let's consider the alternatives here. Incapacitating a criminal is fine...if there is only one of them, and you know how to properly do it. What if, in the case of a home invasion, there are a group of them? Are you seriously planning to give each of them a whack with your baseball bat or golf club? Or taser? Even if you have a knife, you'd have to get in close to do damage - are you trained for that? The odds are against you if it's you against a group. What if they are armed? Your baseball bat will do little. And if you spray your bear spray on one of them and he is down, you can be sure his buddies will be pretty pissed and will pummel you to death if you run out of bear spray (which you will).

The psychological and legal effects. This is a real concern, particularly for those of us who live in Canada, which, for all intents and purposes, is not a gun-friendly country. I recently was corresponding with someone on a forum who experienced a home invasion and he wrote that while he and his brother were able to take down the intruder and hold him for the police to arrive, in the end, both him and his brother were charged with aggravated assault and were treated like criminals, even though it was the home invader who should have received all of the punishment. Unfortunately, that does not surprise me about the lenient and very liberal Canadian justice system. Anyhow, yes, you will have to be prepared to deal with the fallout. As for the psychological effects - I've never been there so I can't say (and hopefully never have to be tehre), but let's face it, when snipers take out a criminal or a soldier takes out an enemy, they receive heavy psychological counselling afterwards. I guess if I were to say anything, it would be that because my sole criteria in using lethal force is if my life or the life of my family was threatened, I can definitively conclude afterwards that I exhausted all my other options.

3) Why not set up an alarm system? Or call the cops? Or get a dog?

This is a multi-part question, which I've happened to condense into one summary question. Getting a dog is one of the options I propose. Now, I know that animal lovers out there may take especial exception with my using a dog for utilitarian purposes; but be that as it may, I don't think pet owners own their pets for no reason. Most want a pet for companionship, others want a pet to keep up with others who also have a pet, others use pets to help them get around (ie. guide dogs for the blind), while others will have a pet (a dog, in particular) to give them a sense of security. I don't have a problem with this, so if you do, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Anyway, a dog is great in terms of both a deterrent and an actual self-defence tool. If you are edgy about potentially shooting someone or whacking them with a baseball bat, a dog is your answer.

The other parts of the question. Alarm systems. They are OK, and generally are a deterrent to a criminal (either the criminal will be discouraged by the alarm system and will hit another house, or will try twice as hard to defeat it, thinking that the alarm is guarding something valuable). However, I have learned to not rely on an alarm system, even though I have one. For one, phone lines can always be cut. That is major downside of phone-line based alerting (unless the alarm company by default sends the cops to your house if the phone line signal is breached - I don't know any who do that). Second, alarm companies make mistakes too. Most times that I have had a false alarm, the cops show up (that's what I pay them separately for, as part of my alarm package). Once or twice, however, the cops do not show up, even though my alarm was wailing for quite a while. The alarm company doesn't even call me. That has been the exception, but you don't want to be in an exception situation during a home invasion and learn the hard way.

The cops. Yes, calling them is fine, assuming they respond quickly (in 2005, when the schitzophrenic lady showed up at my door one evening on a Saturday, it took the cops 5-7 minutes to show up - if she was armed, I would have been dead by then). If guys are about to kick down your door with weapons in hand, you'll be dead by the time the cops show up. And not to mention my previous point about the phone lines being cut. OK, so most people have cell phones. Most, but not all. And even if you do, your cell phone's battery or signal can die at the most inopportune time (trust me, it's happened to me). I guess what I am saying is that while it's nice to have that peripheral service available, it should not be relied upon as the sole first response. It should be in conjuction with an overall home defence plan.

Now, even if the cops show up - then what? What would the intruder get? In Canada, it'd be a slap on the wrist (in Canada, the maximum sentence you can get for cold blooded murder is 25 years, but you can be let out early for good behaviour). With Canada's "catch and release" type of revolving door justice, your home invader will be out in no time, and guess who he will be gunning for first, since you were the one who put him there? You'd be living in fear for the rest of your life, or who have to move to an undisclosed new location?


4) Fear begets fear. You are contributing to a non-trusting society.

That is fine, since I don't trust society anyways. It is way too idealistic to think that nothing bad will happen to you in your lifetime. Even if you are a person who trusts that God will protect you, God has also given you a brain. If you have life insurance or wear a lifejacket when boating, it is not a mistrust in God that allows you to do these things, but it is utilizing the sense or common sense that He gave you, since He did not make you to be a robot. As for fear - it would be rather naive to think that the world has become a better, safer place than it was 50 years ago. I remember my sister telling me 15 years ago or so that she was home from school one day, not feeling that great. So she lay in bed to rest in the afternoon, and was all by herself. She heard the front door knob jiggle. My Mom and Dad were both confirmed to be at work, and my brother and I were both confirmed in school. Any one of our friends would not jiggle our doorknob (they would ring the doorbell). My sister told me that the doorknob was turned and then jiggled and then it sounded like something (a key or perhaps a pick) was inserted into it and jiggled again. She was petrified. If that had been my Mom, she would have been hiding in a corner. I don't forget stuff like that, nor do I forget things like my garage door being ajar or open even though we're not home...and my wife and I didn't open it. I take a lot of precautions now when I get home at night, even though I have a motion sensor alarm in my residence. I sweep the house normally and have my hand on my Buck hunting knife that I conceal on me at all times. As the old saying goes, I'd rather be prepared and never have to use my planned response, than to need to respond appropriately but I am grossly unprepared. People can call me paranoid or whatever, but if it keeps me alive and not at the mercy of some punk intending to cause me harm, so be it.

Now, let's turn our attention to the respondent who I found to be a bit too trigger happy. His/her response disturbs me far greater than the other two who thought I was overthinking these things. I'll now address his/her views in order:

1) Once an invader gets into your home, they have forfeited their right to live.

I don't agree with this in full. Again, I make a distinction in terms of why they are in my house. If they broke in when I wasn't here, and I arrive to find them moving my printer to their van, I'll call the cops but if I had lethal means at my disposal, I won't use it unless they threaten my life. I think it's a shame to automatically assume you'll pull the trigger for anyone unwanted who comes into the door. However, I understand the reasoning behind this, and like I said, in a home invasion, you won't have that luxury of careful deliberation insofar as the motives of the criminals. However, if I think much discretion needs to be taken. I'd much rather call the cops from a neighbour's home and observe the licence plate or details of the robber, rather than confront him/her. If it's a home invasion and my sense is that I will need to grab a firearm, I'd rather shoo them away with it or hold them until the cops show up (but this also introduces further complications, not the least of which is the fact that you may be setting up a return engagement once they get out from behind bars, which inevitably happens in Canada).

2) Shoot to kill, don't shoot to wound.

Again, I disagree in part with this. First, any jury (especially in Canada) who hears you talking about shooting to kill, will no doubt brand you a gun-toting, trigger happy crack-head. I can't say that I would disagree with the assessment. Shooting someone should always be a last resort, and one which is taken after all avenues are exhausted. At the very least, your goal should be to shoot to stop the attacker. If that ends up killing him/her, well, you'll need to deal with that.

I also want to (slightly) revisit the whole wounding vs. killing thing. Most home defence "experts" will say to use ammo which is graded to penetrate into the perpetrator's vital organs. Which is why birdshot and a shotgun is considered ineffective, as its penetration is not as deep (it is used to shoot birds, after all). If nothing else, you'll leave a grievous wound, to which the perp may succumb later...or not. Large buckshot will penetrate organs and likely kill the attacker. Wounding may come back to haunt onself later, if the liberal court system puts that wounded criminal on the stand to talk about his life of suffering. But I think that once you are seriously wounded, you probably will steer away from home invasions in the future. Plus, if the criminal turns his/her life around as a result (which has happened), you'll be glad you didn't kill them. You can always take out their knees or something so at the very least, you'll know you are not taking their life, but they will not be able to perform any more invasions, even after they are released, as they will be.

3) Forget guns - use your whole arsenal against the (expletives) - throw IEDs, grenades, blow them to pieces.

I think a person who thinks like this should lay off the video games and / or the violent TV shows. Sounds to me that someone wants to kill for killing's sake. If this person has a firearms licence, it should be revoked. And maybe they need to be psychiatrically evaluated. It's as if they take great pleasure in seeing a human blown to bits. There's nothing glorifying, heroic or justifiable in that, in my opinon. That's all I'll say to that.