Odd that I haven't heard about this in the local news. This happened ~45 minutes away from where I live. Oh well.
Here are the important bits, with regard to the law:
Quote:
Canada allows people to claim self-defence for using force, including guns, to protect their life as long as the force is reasonable and they believe they have no other options.
“If the public are wondering can you run out of your house and [fire a handgun at an intruder], the bottom line is, according to the laws of Canada, no, you can’t,”
|
Based on that, I'd say there are a few questions that should be addressed:
Could he have harmed anyone (besides the 3 arsonists) by firing his gun?
If he was able to run out of his house, was his life in danger (thus making use of a lethal weapon reasonable)?
Was there another quick and effective way he could have dispersed the attackers without resorting to the use of a gun?
I'm inclined to think the answer to the first two is no, and the third is an unknown. But I'd like to believe that the court will understand why he did what he did, and since nobody was harmed because of it, nothing will result. On the other hand, if he had killed one of the arsonists, or worse ... an innocent bystander with a stray bullet, things would be much more complicated.