On August 18, 2025, a 44-year-old homeowner in Lindsay, Ontario, named Jeremy David McDonald, woke to find an armed intruder, Michael Kyle Breen, in his apartment. Breen, a 41-year-old with a criminal record and outstanding warrants, was wielding a crossbow. In the ensuing struggle, McDonald, armed with a knife, seriously injured Breen, who was airlifted to a Toronto hospital. Shockingly, McDonald now faces charges of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, while Breen faces charges for break-and-enter, possession of a weapon, and other offenses. As reported by Dave Urbanski in Blaze Media on September 6, 2025, this case has sparked outrage, with Ontario Premier Doug Ford declaring "something is broken" when citizens are punished for defending themselves. The Kawartha Lakes Police Service's response, urging compliance over resistance, exemplifies a troubling trend: authorities discouraging self-defence, effectively emboldening criminals over law-abiding citizens. I argue that the Lindsay incident highlights a systemic bias against citizens' rights to protect themselves, leaving them vulnerable as police often arrive too late to do more than "bring body bags."
At 3:20 a.m., McDonald awoke to find Breen, a known criminal, inside his Kent Street apartment. Court documents reveal Breen was armed with a crossbow, a lethal weapon, and had a history of legal troubles, including a June 2025 arrest warrant for failing to appear in court. McDonald, defending his life and property, used a knife, leaving Breen with life-threatening injuries. Both men were charged, but the homeowner's arrest for aggravated assault has ignited public fury, with many seeing it as a betrayal of natural justice.
Ontario law allows self-defence under Section 34 of the Criminal Code, provided the force is "reasonable" and proportionate to the threat. Legal experts, like former police officer Dan Jones, note that excessive force, such as attacking a subdued intruder, crosses the line. However, McDonald's lawyer, Steven Norton, insists his client acted within his rights, facing an armed intruder in his own home. The severity of Breen's injuries, requiring airlifting, suggests a desperate struggle, not a calculated overreach. Yet, the Kawartha Lakes Police, led by Chief Kirk Robertson, charged McDonald, doubling down with a statement that criticism of their actions is "unjust and inaccurate" and advising citizens to "comply" rather than engage intruders. Too bad if the attacker intends to murder; one is simply slaughtered.
Chief Robertson's admonition that "the best defence for most people is to comply," is a chilling directive. As Urbanski notes, this stance drew sharp rebuke, with commenters on X stating, "You just gave criminals a free pass." The police's position assumes citizens should cede control to intruders, hoping for rescue that often arrives too late. In reality, police response times, averaging 11 minutes in urban Canada, per 2023 data from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, leave homeowners defenceless in critical moments. As one X user quipped, police are more likely to "bring body bags" than prevent harm.
This advice aligns with a broader trend of authorities discouraging active resistance. York Regional Police Chief Jim MacSween, addressing recent violent home invasions, echoed Robertson, urging homeowners not to engage "unless absolutely necessary." Such guidance prioritises de-escalation over self-preservation, ignoring the terror of facing an armed intruder like Breen. The Lindsay case, where McDonald's decisive action likely prevented his own death, exposes the absurdity of expecting compliance against a crossbow-wielding criminal. Note, the same situation could arise in equally woke countries like Australia.
The charges against McDonald send a dangerous message: self-defence risks prosecution, while criminals face lighter consequences. Breen, already wanted for unrelated offenses, will face a bail hearing upon hospital release, while McDonald, a law-abiding citizen, awaits a September 25, 2025, court date. This disparity fuels the perception, voiced by Ford and echoed on X, that the justice system is "broken." Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre's X post on August 21, 2025, declared, "If someone breaks in, you deserve the right to defend your loved ones and your property, full stop." Yet, Canada's legal framework, requiring "proportionate" force, like Australia's often punishes those who act decisively.
This isn't an isolated case. In 2023, a Halifax homeowner stabbed an intruder to death and faced no charges, as police deemed it self-defence. The difference? Public and political pressure, absent in McDonald's case, influenced the outcome. The Lindsay incident suggests authorities are more comfortable prosecuting defenders than addressing systemic failures, like repeat offenders like Breen roaming free. As Saunders' Macrobusiness piece on Australia's migration protests notes, ruling elites often vilify citizens who resist, labelling them extremists to maintain control. Similarly, Canadian police and prosecutors seem to prioritise compliance over empowering citizens, tipping the scales toward criminals.
The Lindsay case reflects a deeper issue: a justice system that distrusts citizens' autonomy. Canada's strict gun laws and vague self-defence statutes leave homeowners with few legal tools to protect themselves. Knives, as McDonald used, are common, but can lead to charges if deemed "excessive." Meanwhile, criminals like Breen, armed with unconventional weapons like crossbows, exploit this asymmetry. The police's "don't engage" stance assumes a state monopoly on force, ignoring real-world delays and dangers.
Public sentiment, as seen on X, is shifting. Users like @LarryBrockMP argue for clearer laws allowing "whatever force is necessary" against intruders, echoing a 2012 repeal of Canada's permissive self-defence provisions under Stephen Harper. The backlash against Robertson's statement, calling it a "free pass" for criminals, shows growing frustration with a system that punishes victims. Ford's outrage, labelling the charges a sign of a broken system, resonates with the 80% of Canadians who, per a 2024 Angus Reid poll, support stronger self-defense rights.
The Lindsay case is a victory for criminals only if citizens accept it. McDonald's actions, facing a crossbow with a knife, were heroic, not criminal. Yet, the police's response, urging compliance and prosecuting self-defence, signals a dangerous precedent, also seen in other jurisdictions such as Australia. As Urbanski's Blaze Media report highlights, this incident fuels anger across Canada, with parallels to global trends where authorities discourage resistance, as seen in Australia's migration protests or Italy's security debates. To restore balance, Canada, like Australia, must reform its self-defence laws, clarifying that homeowners like McDonald have the right to act decisively without fear of prosecution. Until then, the message is clear: criminals can invade with impunity, while citizens risk jail for fighting back, a perverse inversion of justice that demands urgent correction.
Here is my drafting of a better self defence Act:
The Sufficient Force Self Defence Act for Australia and America
AN ACT to amend the law relating to the use of force in self-defence and the defence of others.
Section 10: The Doctrine of Absolute Defence
(1) General Principle. A person shall not be criminally liable for any act or omission that constitutes an offence if that act or omission was committed for the purpose of averting an immediate, severe, and unlawful threat to the life, physical integrity, or property of that person or another.
(2) Sufficiency of Force. For the purposes of this Section, the force used to avert the threat shall not be assessed on a measure of proportionality to the threat, but rather on its sufficiency to immediately and entirely neutralise and terminate the threat.
(3) Definition of Sufficient Force. "Sufficient force" means any level of action, including the use of lethal force, the incapacitation of multiple aggressors, or the application of overwhelming tactical advantage, that is demonstrably intended and necessary to prevent the aggressor or aggressors from continuing or renewing their unlawful threat.
(4) Immunity from Collateral Liability. A person who acts in accordance with the provisions of this Section shall be immune from prosecution for any injury, loss of life, or collateral damage that is a direct and unavoidable consequence of the application of sufficient force.
(5) Application. The application of this Section is not limited to threats from a single individual and may extend to organised, collective, or overwhelming threats. The assessment of sufficiency shall take into account the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the threat, the number of aggressors, and the urgency of the situation.
That should solve the problem!