 |
| John L. Hill |
Many Canadians believe that our laws of self-defence resemble American laws, which state that there is no duty to retreat from an attacker and that avoiding confrontation is not required when it is necessary to protect oneself or property. Supporters refer to these laws as “stand your ground” laws, while critics call them “shoot first laws.” In 2005, Florida introduced legislation with the phrase “has the right to stand his or her ground.” The law gained public attention in 2012 when unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was killed by neighbourhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, 29, who claimed he acted in self-defence with justifiable deadly force. Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges.
Even with the notoriety of the Martin case, 29 U.S. states and Puerto Rico now have Stand Your Ground laws in place. These include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
One major criticism of such laws is that they encourage violence. John Roman, director of the Center on Public Safety and Justice at the University of Chicago, conducted a study examining 53,019 cases involving Stand Your Ground laws. He told the BBC, “People feel like they have an added protection that makes them more likely to shoot where they wouldn't have shot without that perceived protection.”
He also added that it “tragically” worsens racial disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system. His research showed that, when the shooter is white and the victim is Black, the white shooter is 10 times more likely to have their actions deemed justified than when the shooter is Black and the victim is white.
Racial tension has also been a key issue within Canada’s self-defence laws. In two cases involving Indigenous individuals suspected of criminal activity, both ended in fatalities. The first case involved the killing of 22-year-old Indigenous man Colten Boushie by a white farmer, Gerald Stanley, in Saskatchewan. The case garnered significant media attention, leading to an unsuccessful attempt by Canadian outlets to allow cameras in the courtroom (CTV et al. v. The Queen, 2018 SKQB 27).
In 2018, after 15 hours of deliberation, a jury found Gerald Stanley not guilty of both murder and manslaughter. The Saskatchewan Attorney General chose not to appeal the verdict, despite Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould commenting on the need for improvement. They responded to the racial tensions, where Indigenous community members felt the law did not fully protect them.
Following the Boushie decision, Peter Khill was charged with second-degree murder for shooting Jonathon Styres, an unemployed Indigenous man who was high on methadone, after he broke into Khill’s pickup truck parked in the driveway of the Khill home at 3 a.m. Racial tensions once again flared up. In his first trial, Khill was acquitted. However, the verdict was appealed, and ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada was called upon to decide what constitutes self-defence in Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada interpreted s. 34 of the Criminal Code as requiring a jury to consider an accused’s behaviour throughout the incident when assessing the person’s responsibility for the final confrontation and the reasonableness of the act underlying the offence (R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37).
In Khill’s second trial, he was found guilty of manslaughter and was ultimately sentenced to six years in prison. The jury believed that the reasonable action would have been for Khill to grab his cell phone and call 911 instead of using his shotgun.
The Kawartha Lakes Police Service was correct in laying the charge. It will be up to the Crown to determine, once all the evidence is in, if the victim of the home intrusion could have used lesser force to decide whether the prosecution will succeed. Political intervention and a call for vigilantism are not necessary in such cases.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books) was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.