Canadians Flock to Peter Khill’s Defense

Peter Khill home in Glanbrook Ontario Shooting Case

On February 4th at about 3 a.m., Peter Khill observed a man stealing his truck. Before confronting the car thief, Mr. Khill armed himself with a shotgun. During the confrontation Mr. Khill feared for his life and the Ontario, Canada resident shot and killed the criminal. The police arrested Khill and charged him with second degree murder . . .


Police said Khill confronted Styres in his driveway, next to Khill’s pickup truck.

Homicide Det. Dave Oleniuk said Khill and Styres did not know each other.

Khill served as a reservist in the Brantford 56th Field Artillery Regiment. He was a student at Waterford District High School and Mohawk College and worked for GE Power in Mississauga.

His lawyer, Derek Martin, has said that his client felt threatened. A Facebook page calling for Khill to be freed has more than 9,000 signatures.

Martin told the Hamilton Spectator, that his client will make a case of self-defence, saying his client was protecting his property and himself.

Martin said Khill has no criminal record and will plead not guilty to the murder charge.

Mr. Khill’s been released from custody on $100,000 bail. The petition to drop charges against him is now approaching 15,000 signatures. Donations to his legal defense fund are increasing daily. From the petition:

We the undersigned citizens of Canada and people of the world, beseech Her Majesty the Queen of England in the Right of Ontario, Madeleine Meilleur the Attorney general of Ontario to unconditionally withdraw the 2nd degree murder charge against Mr. Peter Khill of Binbrook Ontario for acting in reasonable defense of himself and his property warding off a thief in the night on his property at 3:00 a.m., February 4, 2016 that regrettably led to the criminal succumbing to his injuries while committing a crime.

There has not been a lot of information released about the alleged truck thief, Jonathon Dwight Styres. From

Overlaid on the dispute is the issue of race. Police said Mr. Styres came from Ohsweken, a village on the Six Nations reserve about a 20-minute drive from Binbrook. When Mr. Khill was brought to a Hamilton court for a bail hearing on Friday, Mr. Styres’s group sat on one side of the courtroom, Mr. Khill’s group on the other. The court reserved judgment on the bail issue until next Thursday.

Binbrook locals say the area has seen a rash of break-ins and car thefts perpetrated in many cases, some believe, by native people.


One friend said he and his children will miss Styres.

“He lived hard, played hard and died hard and he wouldn’t have it any other way,” said the friend.

Most Canadians believe that Peter Khill did the right thing; thieves should be confronted and stopped. A minority believe that thieves should be allowed to steal without hindrance by property owners; such matters should be strictly left to police.

In the history of the anglosphere, the primary responsibility to uphold the law fell to the citizen; the sheriff and later, policeman, existed to back up and add structure to the law. It’s one of the reasons that Englishmen were reluctant to arm police.

The idea that citizens are merely spectators in the enforcement of the law is a late addition that “progressives” have tacked on to the anglosphere tradition. On the Continent of Europe, the idea that enforcing the law is only the business of the government, has a much longer history.

We haven’t seen all the evidence from that early morning confrontation with a truck thief; a jury may ultimately decide if the shooting was justified. That too is an anglosphere innovation designed to protect the citizen from an arbitrary and indifferent state.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch


  1. avatar jwm says:

    Let the people own all the guns they want. But make them live in fear of using one.

    1. avatar James in AZ says:

      I’m surprised there’s no inappropriate storage charges. Yknow, he accessed his gun too quick, it must not have been double locked

  2. avatar Russell says:

    Thank you for putting “progressives” in quotes. They’re not progressive. They’re regressive.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      The term originated with people who thought that communism was progress but didn’t want the bloodshed so they decided to progressively work toward progress (communism).

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        As someone in TTAG noted not long ago, ‘Progressive’ should be as in a cancer progresses…

      2. avatar rip_vw32 says:

        …. Forgive me if I misremember history,but weren’t the original “progressives” Republican WASPs under the Roosevelt administration that wanted to “help”, via social programs, those that were under privileged? Not sure how the tie into to communism comes in (which is the redistribution of physical wealth to lend equality to all)… If I am misremembering, please feel free to correct me – buy tying anything back to communism that truly isn’t is exactly how the “red scare” ran rampant…

        1. avatar B says:

          Incorrect. Democrat president Woodrow Wilson is the father of progressivism in the US. I’m not surprised he was from Jersey.

        2. avatar B says:

          And McCarthy was actually correct about communists infiltrating the government.

  3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Seems PC is factoring into this.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      anglosphere tradition. Non PC.

  4. avatar Tim says:

    If it was a good shoot, so be it. However, I’m reserving judgement until the facts come out. If he was attacked by the thief and there was a means/intent for the thief to seriously hurt or kill him…then it’s clear cut self defense.

    However, if he shot him and the guy didn’t attack him or make a break to attack him…then of course it’s murder.

    It’s not that hard to determine whether it was self-defense or not, it’s really sad that race/prejudice have to be brought up into everything.

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      Simple non rhetorical question: you go out to your driveway and there is a large man attempting to open your car. He has no visible weapons except for possibly a large screwdriver. As you approach him he tells you to stay back or he will kill you. At this point he is not a threat to you, since he has no ranged weapons and is not focused on you, but he is going to steal your car if you don’t stop him. So, do you risk your life and approach him knowing he will attack you so you can force a confrontation? Do you let him take your car? Do you shoot first and let internet commentators accuse you of murder?

      1. avatar Pascal says:

        If you are retired or current LEO, you shoot first and let others ask question later knowing that when the boys in blue come running, they will backup your story.

        If you are the average Joe citizen, unless you are in a state that allows you to defend your property especially if outside, and the jackass has the chance to flee without your shooting him and he is not a threat per your scenario, screw the car, your life is more important, call the cops and let him go. Insurance will pay for the car.

        If however, in said scenario, the person charges you or you have a legal right to protect your car, then shoot.

        I don’t see the advantage of getting into legal trouble over a car. Your life and that of your family is more important.

        1. avatar Vhyrus says:

          Insurance only covers theft if you have comprehensive. Many if not most lower income people cannot afford that, nor can they afford a replacement or rental vehicle. Furthermore, their employment is dependent upon reliable transportation to their job, and without their car they lose their income. In short, their car IS their life.

          There is a reason they used to hang horse thieves.

        2. avatar Vhyrus says:

          @ Bryant

      2. avatar Alexander says:

        A very simple (though rhetorical) test – try stealing Obama’s limo – if you don’t get shot, I would consider the Canadian case as murder. If. I heard somewhere that it’s supposed to be the government of the people by the people…

      3. avatar Kyle says:

        I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, “Defense of Property” needs to be in the self defense language. Until it is, the bad guys will just game the system and society itself will just be victims.

      4. avatar Joe 3 says:

        ” As you approach him he tells you to stay back or he will kill you.”

        “I came out to investigate a man who was breaking into my truck; I saw the man and he turned and held out a very large shiny metal screwdriver and said he would kill me.

        I had seen a video of of the 21′ rule on the interwebs. My driveway is only fifteen feet from my front door.

        I told him to leave, he stepped towards me and threatened my life again, I was afraid for my life, and that of my family inside if he killed me or simply followed me inside, so I shot him.

        I will be happy to give you a further statement after I speak with my attorney.”

        1. avatar Rambeast says:

          “I will be happy to give you a statement after I speak with my attorney.”


      5. avatar Danilushka Ozera says:

        How do you know is has no pistol in his pocket? I s it worth you life to guess he doesn’t and be wrong? He’s the low life criminal not you!

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      What if the guy didn’t attack him? What if the guy said “I have no intention to hurt you or anyone else? I only want to steal your truck. You have no right to stop me as long as I touch no person, you can’t do anything to stop me. Then proceeded to steal his truck. Is it still murder? Really? You don’t have a God given right to protect what is rightfully yours? Regardless of what the progressive, socialist leftists say? What if was your ox that pulled the plow to tend the field that feeds your family, OR the truck that gets you back and forth to work. That feeds your family? When you steal that which a man toils for, you are stealing his life.

      1. avatar Kevin says:

        That’s a straw man argument. But the answer is this, according to common law and that specifically of Colorado. I am not a lawyer. You should hire one before doing anything, anyone on the Internet tells you.

        Citizens’ Arrest means that any citizen has the right to demand any criminal stop what they are doing and wait for an LEO. If that person does not stop, the citizen may detain them, but must be very careful about force. You could remove the criminal’s hand from your car and tell them to stop. If they struck or pushed you and attempted to get in the car again, in MY state at least, they have committed one felony (assault) and are about to commit another (auto theft.) At that point, lethal force can be justified (call a lawyer, do not listen to random strangers on the Internet!) But the initial defense of the property was non-violent, the criminal escalated.
        Common Law recognizes Self Defense, Property Rights, and Citizens’ Arrest. Lefties, unfortunately, recognize none of the above.
        As an aside, an off-duty police officer has citizens’ arrest powers, and actually has LESS law restraining his actions. He has more rights off duty than on, in other words.

    3. avatar Huntmaster says:

      What if the guy didn’t attack him? What if the guy said “I have no intention to hurt you or anyone else? I only want to steal your truck. You have no right to stop me as long as I touch no person, you can’t do anything to stop me. Then proceeded to steal his truck. Is it still murder? Really? You don’t have a God given right to protect what is rightfully yours? Regardless of what the progressive, socialist leftists say? What if it was your ox that pulled the plow to tend the field that feeds your family, OR the truck that gets you back and to the work that feeds your family? When you steal that which a man toils for, you are stealing his life.

    4. avatar JJ says:

      If he was attacked by the thief

      What? the test should be if it reasonably appears he might be attacked and harmed. Not merely if he was attacked

      1. avatar Marc says:

        Guess what? When being interviewed by police, when talking to my lawyer, on the stand under oath………”He said he was going to kill me.”

        1. avatar Joe 3 says:

          “…and my family inside”

        2. avatar kevin says:

          Ah, well, words alone? No, unless he makes some physical movement toward that end, you’re still screwed. Now if he turns with the screwdriver and takes a step towards you, that’s different.

  5. avatar Ralph says:

    Canadians are very polite. Mr. Khill sould have said, “Please don’t steal my truck and hurt me.” And Mr. Styres should have said, “Certainly not, my good friend. Perhaps we should sojourn to the Pig and Peach for a glass of Labatt’s.”

    And that would have been that.

  6. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Meh. You reap what you sow, eh?

    Enjoy prison, and remember: elections have consequences.

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      I’m really getting sick of the schadenfreude gun people exhibit when good people get caught in bad situations with worse laws and somehow it is made out to be their fault. Injustice is injustice, regardless of the time or place or person involved. If you blow away a meth head trying to jack your ride and some a hole DA tries to fry you over it are you gonna say “oh well, serves me right!”?

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:


      2. avatar jwm says:

        For reals. I guess we all deserved obama.

        1. avatar James69 says:

          It’s just a sub-station of the UK. Shocker, they have crap laws for the “serfs” But being he’s a sworn servant of the queen he may get some cosideration. let’s hope so.

    2. avatar ColdNorth says:

      In this case, the elections of consequence were at least 40 years ago, and as you have likely noticed, it is very difficult to fight the ratchet effect.

      As for prison, a lot depends on the circumstances of the shoot, which at the moment are fairly unclear (Canadian media tends not to ask too many questions in situations like these, and the police tend not to offer). In Canada, you are “allowed” to resist someone stealing your property. What happens after you start resisting gets very complicated very quickly, especially if the criminal escalates.

      In many self-defense cases in Canada, we see the victim acquitted of any potential charges, but it costs an awful lot and takes a long time to do so. The process is the punishment.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        The process is the punishment.

        Or as the police say here, “You can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride.” Just ask Freddy Gray.

    3. avatar Paladin says:

      I didn’t vote for Trudeau 2.0, if I were to hazard a guess it would be that Mr. Khill didn’t either. So why is it again, that we deserve to be thrown under the bus for the actions of others?

  7. avatar WRH says:

    Damn, this isn’t far from me and this is the first I have heard of it. Time to make a donation to this young man’s defense fund.

  8. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

    How are they going to prove that Styres didn’t threaten him, with no living witnesses except Mr. Khill (unfortunate name for a fellow in court for a murder charge huh)?

    1. avatar Rusty Brown in Canada says:

      Apparently it’s pronounced Ka-hill. For the record.
      My question is: was this creep shot up close? If he was hit in the back from 30 feet away while trying to flee, well, that’s a very different matter.
      As a Canadian, I truly hope Mr. Khill is acquitted with the least possible delay. He should never have spent a minute in jail.

  9. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    Sounds like a good shoot to ME. But then I don’t beseech an old woman across the pond for mercy. Yeah oddly descriptive name “Khill”. You can’t make this up…

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      It reminds me of a movie:
      – What’s your name?
      – Sleigh.
      – Like “kill”?
      – No. Like “one horse open”.

    2. avatar Rusty Brown in Canada says:

      “…I don’t beseech an old woman across the pond for mercy…”
      Neither does anyone here in Canada. Our Supreme Court is just that: supreme. Same with our Parliament. That’s as high as you can go here in Canada.
      Long live our noble Queen!

  10. avatar FedUp says:

    I bet if he were OPP he could have jumped in front of a moving pickup and shot the driver because the truck was moving, and nobody would ever dream of filing murder charges against him.

  11. avatar Bob R says:

    “…a jury may ultimately decide if the shooting was justified. That too is an anglosphere innovation designed to protect the citizen from an arbitrary and indifferent state.”

    I wonder how brainwashed by “progressive” idiocy the jury will be? The more left they are the more likely they will convict.

  12. avatar Hannibal says:

    I don’t mind sheep that can’t imagine confronting someone and instead call the police.

    I do mind when they try to make everyone else into sheep.

  13. avatar wrightl3 says:

    Funny how these subjects have to ask mercy from a monarchy that we gained independence from over 200 years.

  14. avatar billy-bob says:

    Beseeching Her Majesty. Yeah, that’ll do it.

  15. avatar Bill Cook says:

    “He lived hard, played hard and died hard and he wouldn’t have it any other way,”
    Based on that, he got what he wanted. Nothing more to see. No charges to file.

  16. avatar ATTAGReader says:

    I spent Saturday in the North Carolina CCW class. I have a Virginia non-resident CCW permit but decided to finally take the longer NC class. The instructor is an NRA instructor and certified to teach both the VA and the NC CCW classes. I hope he knows what he is talking about. He presented a scenario like what happened in Ontario, and contrasted it with a carjacking. At least in NC, and he was quite emphatic, the situation described in the article would result in a voluntary manslaughter charge. The defendant would have to prove that not only was he in fear of his life, but also that he did not start the altercation, as clearly he was in no danger from the thief until he went down to confront the guy. The law in Ontario may be different, but I can only tell you what the guy here said is the local law.

    1. I was not at your class, so I do not know what was said, exactly. But in most states you can use physical force to protect your property. If the person taking your property presents a threat to your bodily integrity or life as you prevent him from illegally taking your property, You can use deadly force to protect your body and life.

      What I have seen with both American and Canadian juries is that if you are on your property, and stopping a thief, and the confrontation escalates to deadly force; you are almost always found not guilty.

      I would have to read the actual NC statutes to see if I agreed with your instructor; but I have seen and heard many instructors explain this rather badly.

      1. avatar ATTAGReader says:

        FWIW the instructor said that in NC the curtillage, so to speak, extends to the drip line of the house, not all the way to the end of the lot. Justified to take action if the guy is on your front porch, banging aggressively at the door, threatening to break in. You don’t have to wait until he is already in the house – you can even shoot through the door although this is not recommended. Not justified if he is out in the driveway banging at your car window trying to steal the car while you are in the house. Justified if you are in the car and he is banging at the window trying to carjack you because the car is considered an extension of the house. Not justified if you call out that you have a gun, he starts running, and you shoot him in the back at a distance (suggested to be around the magic 21 feet.) If the other guy has a gun and points it at you, everything changes and you are justified to shoot at any distance. These are the examples he provided. To the extent that I, as a non-attorney, have looked at the NC statutes I don’t find any of these specifics, so I have to assume it is case law. I realize that every state (and province) is different. And a jury might decide in the homeowner’s favor anyway.

        1. Those example seem pretty well thought out, but in my opinion, they do not fit the Khill (pronounced KayHill, I am told) situation very well. If, as Khill’s attorney asserts, he attempted to stop the theft, and was then threatened by the suspect, it is a different situation from the suspect running away. I do not know of any state where the law says that you are to allow someone to steal your property.

          Thanks for the explanation. It gives me more faith in your instructor’s competence.

        2. avatar I1ULUZ says:

          A case from about 5 years ago, retired Suffolk officer, shot and hit a guy trying to steal a dog box from his yard in the middle of the night. From the start the Commonwealth Attorney knew he would never get a conviction if charges were filed. The crackhead stole $355,000 worth of US Navy valves from a repair shop, sold them for scrap, $133, not the brightest criminal master mind.

          In NOVA, he might have been convicted, outside of NOVA/Norfolk/Ptown/Richmond, better chance of seeing God than finding 12 to say he was guilty of shooting at a theif.

  17. avatar THC says:

    And we will beat our swords into plow shears, the lion will lay with the lamb, and man will war no more. … Praise JESUS my savior

    1. avatar James69 says:

      Until the thieves steal the church’s money,property or molest the preachers goat……….. then the eye for a eye part comes out.

  18. avatar Nate H says:

    THC go back to hitting your bong, you’re not adding anything constructive here.

    Here in NV that would have been an open and shut case of self defense. The man was stealing his car. Castle doctrine covers your vehicle here.

    I also found it rather amusing that they have to beseech the queen of England for this man’s release. Jolly good luck with that one. I hope this guy sees justice and is released from incarceration.

    1. avatar Arod529 says:

      If by NV you mean Nevada, there I no castle doctrine.

  19. avatar jjimmjonga says:

    .”he lived hard and died hard, he wouldn’t have it any other way”. Interpreted reasonably as “he was a drug taking criminal who existed to commit crime who got what he wanted and deserved”. Just sucks that the poor victim of has to go through this, but I hope a jury will agree he feared for his life and was justified. Too bad he did not blow the guys knee off, and all would be hunky dory.

    1. avatar James69 says:

      Yeah, then the guy would sue him and get a check from him and the government forever. Great.

  20. avatar LordGopu says:

    Sucks that this happened in Ontario. The last guy got dragged through the mud over an even more clear cut case of self defense (Ian Thompson). Though there were no injuries or deaths in the other case.

  21. avatar MeRp says:

    It seems that, if he was carrying a shotgun and said “get away from my truck” and the response was “I’ll kill you” he is pretty justified in feeling his life is threatened (it was literally threatened, not even figuratively). Even the seriousness of the threat is pretty obvious if you have a shotgun in hand and they STILL threaten your life; they are either unpredictably crazy (so dangerous) or seriously intend real physical harm (so, also, dangerous).

  22. avatar Matt says:

    I lived near there when it happened. One thing everyone should know is that truck theft is very common around here. Especially 99-07 chevys. A few indians have been caught (i cant remember if tyres was indian. But a few others have been caught.) They steal the truck since gm made them easy to steal. Then run it to the indian reserve nearby where they have time to tear it. Apart. Then they take the left over out to a field and burn it. The police do nothing and the insurance companies know this happens so your rates reflect this. Khill was just one of the ones lucky enough to have caught the thief before he lost his truck. And also he did give the thief fair warning but the thief decided to keep going any way. Also styres was one that had facebook picture of him holding two pistols and i thought there was one of him holding a shotgun. Id like to remind everyone. Styres got into this truck without setting the alarm meaning he’s done this a time or two. He is no saint and i hope the rest of his car jacking buddies think twice. But more than likely they will think they can get away with it now

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email