# Self Defence and Protecting Canadians



## Infanteer (30 Mar 2005)

Okay, perhaps a new direction since anything related to guns seems to go down the toilet.  Just a bit of a rant on two news items that were on the 6 o'clock news tonight with some questions on how our legal system serves the Canadian public:

1) Store owner is robbed at knifepoint.  He is punched in the face and has his money taken.  His son runs out of the back with a stick and the store owner pulls out a bat and they beat on the robber and chase him out of the store.  The robber is battered as he beats feet and makes his getaway in his car.  The RCMP Officer states that, although he sympathizes with the victim, he does not condone the action because if the robber was seriously hurt or killed then the store owner and his son would face charges.

Question - Ok, let me get this straight - man is physically assaulted, is threatened with death, and has his livelihood infringed upon by a robber, and yet the Law claims that he also being a criminal for defending himself?  Is the law supposed to protect citizens from the transgressions of criminals, or is it supposed to be some neutral arbitrator between the victim and the offender (well, you did hit him with a bat, so he is now a victim too....).

Obviously, our laws aren't configured in a way to protect citzens who protect themselves - we seem to relish in the cult of victimhood.

2) A man is fleeing the police in a vehicle he just boosted and hits a van, killing a local pastor.  The thief/killer is arrested and is found to have a record of 16 prior convictions, of which many were felony offences.

Question - Why was this man on the streets?  At what point does it become apparent that rehabilitation is not going to work - 3 offenses?  5?  10? Or should we wait until he commits a heinous crime?

Obviously, our laws aren't doing enough to keep people who exhibit sociopathic behaviour from returning to the streets to commit more crimes - what has inspired this, I am unsure of, but it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.  Obviously, we seem to have flushed "personal responsibility" down the crapper at some point.

Just ranting,
Infanteer  :threat:


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2005)

Because society is to blame, therefore society must be punished.

"You only hate guns in the hands of civilians because thy delay and disrupt the transfer of wealth from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, right?"

I wrote the above WRT the existance of a school of thought that portends that all property is theft, and that resources must be fairly redistributed by the state.  There are several methods of doing this.  The method chosen to distribute our wealth into the hands of the mentally disenfranchised is to allow them to bust into our homes and busineses and take the wealth we have created and unfairly kept for ourselves. 
We are alloewed to defend ourselves, but pursuit to inflict harm - not to be confused with pursuit to effect a citizens arrest - is frowned upon.  Reason: If we kill all the criminals, who will be left to commit all the crimes?

Who will redistribute our wealth?  Who will keep the judges and lawyers and corrections 'crats in hookers and SUVs?

Rock yourself to sleep tonight whispering "All property is theft,  All property is theft," and you will wake up in the New World Order.

 ;D

"Society is to blame."  "Right, we'll be arrestin 'im too!"  - Monty Python.

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (30 Mar 2005)

I'm not sure I would foist blame on socioeconomic egalitarianism.

I'm thinking that, perhaps, modern day bureaucratic models have begun to interfere with the institution of justice achieving its intended ends (the protection of society by addressing transgressions against the norms).  Quite simply, we seem to be focussing in on form at the cost of results.

Martin Van Crevald had an interesting statement about the intrusion of such a concept in a military organization, but I feel the comment may be applied to the institution of Justice today:

_"Above all, an organization should ever keep in mind the purpose for which it was created; this involves striking a balance between productive (output-related) and administrative (function-related) tasks, the latter to be adequate but limited to the minimum possible.  Under no circumstances should function-related tasks be allowed to equal, much less exceed, the output-related ones in importance.  This should be reflected in the organization's doctrine and structure."_

Maybe I'm off base on this one, but I see the news stories that I posted above and I genuinely feel that something is wrong (or at least out of wack).  Perhaps this is the place to start looking: a loss of institutional "output-related" tasks for the Justice system in Canada?


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2005)

For all forms of bureaucracy.  I think the Edmonton Public School board would hum along quite contentedly if it had no students.  Just one example.  

All bureaucracies want to grow.  Growth for the sake of growth is the philosophy of a cancer cell, but there we go, I guess.

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (30 Mar 2005)

> For all forms of bureaucracy.   I think the Edmonton Public School board *NDHQ* would hum along quite contentedly if it had no students *soldiers*.   Just one example.



Sorry, my sarcasm dial is on "MAX POWER" tonight - goodnight.    :warstory:


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2005)

So is mine - see my post on the "Boots.."

 ;D

 Tom


----------



## LowRider (30 Mar 2005)

> Rock yourself to sleep tonight whispering "All property is theft,  All property is theft," and you will wake up in the New World Order.



Finally somebody who can think for himself!Watch out Tom because Big Brother doesn't want us to know the truth.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 1) Store owner is robbed at knifepoint.   He is punched in the face and has his money taken.   His son runs out of the back with a stick and the store owner pulls out a bat and they beat on the robber and chase him out of the store.   The robber is battered as he beats feet and makes his getaway in his car.   The RCMP Officer states that, although he sympathizes with the victim, he does not condone the action because if the robber was seriously hurt or killed then the store owner and his son would face charges.
> 
> Question - Ok, let me get this straight - man is physically assaulted, is threatened with death, and has his livelihood infringed upon by a robber, and yet the Law claims that he also being a criminal for defending himself?   Is the law supposed to protect citizens from the transgressions of criminals, or is it supposed to be some neutral arbitrator between the victim and the offender (well, you did hit him with a bat, so he is now a victim too....).



Just make sure you drag the perp back inside before the cops get there


----------



## rw4th (30 Mar 2005)

It's the cult of non-responsibility. We have gotten to the point where not only do we not want to be responsible for ourselves, but we seem to have empowered the government to actively deter us from taking responsibility for ourselves. How we got here, I'm not sure anymore. I think it's tied into the socialists trying to create their â Å“worker's paradiseâ ?, but woe be it on me to encourage conspiracy theories.

In the case of the storeowner who chases the guy out of the store, I would agree that he committed a crime IF he chased the guy down the street; self-defense does not and should not extend to revenge or punishment. 

Do you have an actual link to the story? If this happened in the Montreal-Toronto axis of Liberal Evil then the storeowner would go to jail regardless.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Mar 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> In the case of the storeowner who chases the guy out of the store, I would agree that he committed a crime IF he chased the guy down the street; self-defense does not and should not extend to revenge or punishment.



Never chased the guy down the street - chased him out of the store.  They then smashed the windows out in his car as he got away.

My bone of contention is that the police were implying that the criminal was defending himself now that the storeowner and his son were swinging - isn't this the reason that he assumed his posture?  Do the authorities know if the citizens let down their "fight" instinct, the guy won't comeback with his knife and stab someone?

By pulling the knife on someone, the guy was fair game to be incapactiated with a bat - correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember being told (by a cop) that police have a shoot-to-kill policy with guys wielding knives once they get to within a certain distance.


----------



## rcr (30 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Do the authorities know if the citizens let down their "fight" instinct, the guy won't comeback with his knife and stab someone?



As I grew up in Toronto, like many here I presume, I can vouch for this as a predominant attitude amongst many juveniles.  An example of this is a verbal scuffle in a school can lead to a lynch-mobbing with or without the use of weapons after school.  Who's to say that the same mentality can't be applied to respecting laws and authority, especially that of retail establishments, or homes, that are ripe for the picking.



> By pulling the knife on someone, the guy was fair game to be incapactiated with a bat - correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember being told (by a cop) that police have a shoot-to-kill policy with guys wielding knives once they get to within a certain distance.



If your life is threatened, you should have every right to defend yourself until the threat is dealt with, plain and simple.  Given the response time of Police in many situations (ie. Domestic abuse, rural areas, etc) there's always a chance that if one can't depend on Police intervention to defend themselves, they may not be alive to be judged afterwards.

As for Police and a shoot-to-kill policy regarding weapons within close proximity - that exact use of lethal force was applied here in Winnipeg last month, and though certain groups are stating that this use of force was uneccessary and descriminatory, the same rights the officer had should be there for civilians too.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Mar 2005)

Anyone facing grief for beating on a knife-wielding assailant just needs to get the expert witnesses on the stand testifying as to what a person armed with a knife can do over short distances and spans of time.


----------



## x-grunt (30 Mar 2005)

Okay, true story time, maybe it fits with the first story in the original post.

A few years back someone took a swing at me in a public place. I punched him in the head, ONCE, and this ended the fight.
Cops came and charge us both with assault, although I had acted to protect myself.
The charge against me was later dropped, but the cops explained to me that some witnesses had said I had struck him more then once, and this was why they arrested me too. (As an aside, having that charge on a police record caused me no end of headaches, and it's costing me over $600 to purge my file of it.)

The thinking behind the charge:
If someone strikes you and you immediately strike back, the court sees this as a reflexive action to defend yourself. If you strike TWICE, this is thought to be a considered action, and therefore an assault. Only if the person has attacked again can you strike back. So if he hits, you can hit back once. If he hits again, you can hit back again, but always if it's an immediate and reflexive action, no standing back to get an opening and then moving in. At least, this is my understanding based on my lawyers explanation.

How does this fit the story? It sounds like they chased the bad guy and beat the snot out of him. In the eyes of the law, that's a second assault, and a chargeable offense. Is it right? Is it wrong? That is what the courts are for, to decide on a case by case basis. A sympathetic cop may let it slide I'd guess, if the bad guy wasn't injured and in need of medical care.

So the law does allow for self-defence, but it's limited.


----------



## rw4th (30 Mar 2005)

> By pulling the knife on someone, the guy was fair game to be incapactiated with a bat - correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember being told (by a cop) that police have a shoot-to-kill policy with guys wielding knives once they get to within a certain distance.



True, but that goes out the window when the guy turns around and starts running. 

Chasing him out of the store=good
Attacking his car=bad (at this point you've gone from self-defense to wanting to punish the guy for his actions; that's not your job).


----------



## rw4th (30 Mar 2005)

x-grunt said:
			
		

> Okay, true story time, maybe it fits with the first story in the original post.
> 
> A few years back someone took a swing at me in a public place. I punched him in the head, ONCE, and this ended the fight.
> Cops came and charge us both with assault, although I had acted to protect myself.
> ...



Now that is just assinine. So every fight has to basically look like a hockey fight? Do you know how this extends to the use weapons; i.e. guy slashes at you and you move out of the way and hit him. Do you have to wait for him to slash again before doing something else?

This just goes to re-enforce my point that we have made self-defense illegal.


----------



## x-grunt (30 Mar 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> Now that is just assinine. So every fight has to basically look like a hockey fight? Do you know how this extends to the use weapons; i.e. guy slashes at you and you move out of the way and hit him. Do you have to wait for him to slash again before doing something else?



rw4th, I can't tell you for sure. I think the guideline is you may not use more force in self-defence then is being used against you. Nor may you pursue someone who has disengaged and continue the fight.

In my case, the court withdrew the charge as it was self-defence, so to some extent it is permissible by law. I imagine in an extreme situation the court would consider the circumstances. At least, I bloody well hope so.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (30 Mar 2005)

x-grunt said:
			
		

> rw4th, I can't tell you for sure. I think the guideline is you may not use more force in self-defence then is being used against you. Nor may you pursue someone who has disengaged and continue the fight.



What if the robber (as in the original example) is running away with the money he stole from the store?  The shopkeeper has the right to defend his person but not his property?  THAT's assinine!


----------



## x-grunt (30 Mar 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> What if the robber (as in the original example) is running away with the money he stole from the store?  The shopkeeper has the right to defend his person but not his property?  THAT's assinine!



I have no clue. Maybe there's a police or other law type  lurking on the thread who can shed light on all this.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Mar 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> True, but that goes out the window when the guy turns around and starts running.
> 
> Chasing him out of the store=good



I think in many cases, this is to hard to discern; in the heat of the moment how is one supposed to tell (especially with the fight/flight mechanism kicking in) if a criminal, who has already escalated the violence to a high level, is necessarily willing to de-escalate his posture?   I personally feel that if you're going to threaten someone with death or intense fear for their well-being, you better watch out.

It's just like the example from my hometown of the old-man who blasted the kid who was running away after breaking into his house.   Old man finds 4 punks in his house and goes into survival mode - whether they were there to steal his TV or to rob and beat him (both of which happen frequently), he did not know so he was fully justified in fighting these guys off of his personal space (and the Jury aquitted him of any wrongdoing).

But I agree with you in principle - if the storeowner had a gun instead, I would not want to see him (or empower him) to run out of the street blasting away at the guy; this is why any legal-protection for citizens in self-defence cases must come hand-in-hand with the responsibility to know the proper ROE's.   Soldiers learn it, so I'm sure a civilian can too.



> Attacking his car=bad (at this point you've gone from self-defense to wanting to punish the guy for his actions; that's not your job).



Sure, that is where the Justice System is supposed to take over.   I wonder though, could you make a credible claim in this circumstance that you were trying to restrain a violent criminal?   I could see him believing that he was trying to stop the vehicle so that he could turn this man over (once subdued) to the police.   Should citzens, as part of a "Self-Defence ROE", be given guidelines for how to detain someone if they get in a situation where they use violence to defend themselves or their property?


----------



## rw4th (30 Mar 2005)

> Sure, that is where the Justice System is supposed to take over.   I wonder though, could you make a credible claim in this circumstance that you were trying to restrain a violent criminal?   I could see him believing that he was trying to stop the vehicle so that he could turn this man over (once subdued) to the police.   Should citzens, as part of a "Self-Defence ROE", be given guidelines for how to detain someone if they get in a situation where they use violence to defend themselves or their property?



Now you're getting into "citizen's arrest" territory. I'm honestly not sure if Canadian law still has anything to cover this.

Also, as pointed out, there's also the case of the guy running away with your possessions. While I think I *should* be able to run after and subdue him to recover my possessions, what am I actually legally entitled to do?

Oh, and here's another point I wanted to bring up on the Gun Control thread, but I don't think I can re-read without getting mad at the moment. The government has bared from civilian ownership almost all â Å“less-lethalâ ? options such as pepper-spay and tasers. My PAL enables me to buy a gun, why couldn't it also allow me to buy a taser? I'd much rather â Å“tazeâ ? the guy stealing my VCR then shoot him and the storeowner in the story above would have been much better served with taser or pepperspray.

After jumping through the PAL hoops, the government trusts me with a gun. Why can't it also trust me with a taser? My answer: it doesn't want to enable civilians to defend themselves in any way, but that's just my anti-socialist paranoia again.


----------



## Quiet Riot (30 Mar 2005)

sec.38 of Criminal code of Canada
38.(1)Everyone who is in peaceable possesion of personal property, and everyone lawfully assisting him is justified:
            (a) in preventing a tresspaser from taking it, or
            (b) in taking it from a tresspaser who has taken it, if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.
      (2)where a person who is peaceable possesion of personal property lays hands on it(stolen property) , a trespasser who persits in attempting to keep it or take it from him or from anyone lawfully assisting him shall be deemed to commit assault without justification or provocation.

section38 sets out the limits on the use of force; it cannot include striking or causing bodliy harm to the trespasser.   the justification applies to the person in peaceable possesion of personal property and extend to everyone assisting him. The permitted actions are preventing the trespasser from taking the property or in taking property back from a trespasser.   The force used must not be excessive, but the section has been inturpted to permit pointing of a gun by a physically weak person  to prevent the taking of the property.

sec.34 self defence against unprovoked assault
34.(1)everyone who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
      (2) everyone who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if;
          (a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
          (b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

sec.494 give normal citizens the right to arrest without a warrant but they don't have the right to use violence unless he is assisting a peace officier in apprending the suspect(sec.25(4)) or unless he believes on reasonable grounds that is necessary for self-preservation of the person(acting party) or the preservation of anyone under that person's protection from death or grievous bodily harm(sec 25(3)).

so in short protecting store and chasing him outta there= good
chasing down street with bat=bad(could be charged with assault or worse)
And like the RCMP officier said even the intial use of the stick and bat could be enough to lay charges if bodily harm was caused.
Of course i am just a student and this is just my interpetaion of it. If any lawyers or Police officers are present please feel free to correct me.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (30 Mar 2005)

Um, so it's _legal _to point a "gun" if one is a "physically weak person" but it is _illegal_ to use it?  WTF?


----------



## rw4th (30 Mar 2005)

So if get this straight, according to the law

Guy breaks into my house and takes my DVD player
I confront him (no weapons) and say: â Å“hey put that downâ ?
He says no and tries to run

So according to Sec. 38 1(a) and 1(b) I cannot physically try and stop him (this would require a struggle and causing of bodily harm).

But, if I then catch up to him and grab my DVD player form him, according to Sec. 38-2 if he tries to grab it back from me, he is then â Å“deemed to commit assault without justification or provocationâ ?

Or do both 38-1 and 38-2 overlap?


----------



## J.J (30 Mar 2005)

I am one of those Law Enforcement types. As Quiet Riot posted we know what we are legally entitled to do. From my training and perspective this is what I know.  The use of force must be the minimum amount necessary. The theory is spelled out in the "Use of Force Continuum", which is the RCMP standard for force is; _the one plus one theory_. Meaning you may use a level of force one step above the aggressor. If he is non-compliant I can use soft and hard hand strikes, pressure points, arm bars etc. If he raises his fists I can use my OC; if I encounter or feel a heighten sense of danger, he is bigger than me, there is more of them, I am alone, etc. I can then deploy my Baton and only administer strikes in specific areas, no head/throat strikes. Deadly force can only be used for an imminent threat to life or limb. You must be able to articulate what threat you felt and everything you did prior, during and after the confrontation. Nothing is clear cut, it is all on perception and training. That is what governs Peace Officer's in the Criminal Code. For joe citizen, they can use force to protect themselves, but only the minimum force necessary. Meaning if you use a gun when an intruder enters your house, that is considered excessive and you will collect several serious Indictable charges. If you are walking down the street and you are punched you can use force to defend yourself, but if you pick a tire iron up, this is considered excess force. To clarify a false belief, you do not have to physically strike someone to be charged with assault, if you make motion to or attempt to, you can be charged with assault. 
To respond to the less than lethal options and why we are not allowed to possess them in Canada. First I do not support the registry, secondly I do support gun control and restrictions on the average person. I do not believe we should be allowed to possess  less than lethal options. I am from Windsor, on the border with Detroit Michigan and I see day to day during my job, talking to my Detroit colleagues and watching the news that gun crimes and other crimes involving  less than lethal options  is out of control. Using the argument of arming all the citizens does not seem to work in the US, as there are more guns and the use of less than lethal options than there are people. What happens is the criminal shoots first and then says "this is a stick up".
Canada is not a perfect and absoulutely safe society, but it is one of the closest on earth. Things do need to change, but taking that step towards the American mentality and their second Amendment would be disasterous.


----------



## Quiet Riot (30 Mar 2005)

you can try and physically stop him you just can't strike him or cause serious bodily harm.   You can try and physically restrain him with joint locks and the such, just as long as you don't snap anything.    They are both parts of sec38, they are just sub-sections sec.38(1) and 38(2).   As for your example with the guy breaking into your house;

sec.40 of the criminal code defence of dwelling
40.Everyone   who is in peaceable possesion of a dwelling-house and everyone assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority.

sec.41 CCC defence of house or real property
41.(1) everyone who is in peaceable possesion of a dwelling-house or real property, and everyone lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necesary.
      (2) a trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possesion of a dwelling house or real property or a   person lawfully assiting him or acting under his authority to prevent entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit assault without provocation or justification.

About the gun part, i guess the thinking behind it is that unless you are weak you can try to physically restrain him.(the gun part was in the Criminal code and isnt my interpetaion)
Again i'd like to say i am just a student and this is just my interpetation of the events and of the Criminal code.


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2005)

"I'm wrong, but I remember being told (by a cop) that police have a shoot-to-kill policy with guys wielding knives once they get to within a certain distance."

So do you.   Self defence does not have to be a fair fight in your own home. The gun makes up for the fact that the little old lady cannot - and should not - have to arm wrestle a crack fiend.

BE CAREFUL ACCEPTING LEGAL ADVISE FROM POLICE.   They are liable under various police acts - very odious legislation.   As well, they have a bureaucratic and institutional bias towards others who use lethal force - it breaks their rice bowl.   You are of more use to the police as a victim then as a victor - remember that.

One other point: "We are the police and the police are us." The police protect society full time, but cannot do it without the aide of witnesses and alert and responsible citizens.   We protect society part time: by assisting police and being responsible for our individual security.

Anyone have a copy of Sir Robert Peel's "Nine points of Policing" handy?

Tom


----------



## Quiet Riot (30 Mar 2005)

SIR ROBERT PEEL'S NINE PRINCIPLES(source   http://www.newwestpolice.org/peel.html )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2.The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions. 
3.Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public. 
4.The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force. 
5.Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law. 
6.Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient. 
7.Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8.Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary. 
9.The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it 

about the shoot to kill against a gun with knife, check this video out http://www.ebaumsworld.com/standoff.html 
i think the reason for that is a person with a knife who intends to use is considered as deadly as someone with a gun when he's 15ft  or closer, but i could be wrong with the distance and reason.


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2005)

I am much obliged to you, Quiet Riot. 

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (30 Mar 2005)

Sergeant Jacques, welcome to Army.ca - you should find a home here with the rest of the "Windsor Regt. Mafia" (Recceguy, Spanky, ARG)   

That being said:



			
				JJacques said:
			
		

> I am one of those Law Enforcement types. As Quiet Riot posted we know what we are legally entitled to do. From my training and perspective this is what I know.   The use of force must be the minimum amount necessary. The theory is spelled out in the "Use of Force Continuum", which is the RCMP standard for force is; _the one plus one theory_. Meaning you may use a level of force one step above the aggressor. If he is non-compliant I can use soft and hard hand strikes, pressure points, arm bars etc. If he raises his fists I can use my OC; if I encounter or feel a heighten sense of danger, he is bigger than me, there is more of them, I am alone, etc. I can then deploy my Baton and only administer strikes in specific areas, no head/throat strikes. Deadly force can only be used for an imminent threat to life or limb. You must be able to articulate what threat you felt and everything you did prior, during and after the confrontation. Nothing is clear cut, it is all on perception and training. That is what governs Peace Officer's in the Criminal Code. For joe citizen, they can use force to protect themselves, but only the minimum force necessary. Meaning if you use a gun when an intruder enters your house, that is considered excessive and you will collect several serious Indictable charges. If you are walking down the street and you are punched you can use force to defend yourself, but if you pick a tire iron up, this is considered excess force. To clarify a false belief, you do not have to physically strike someone to be charged with assault, if you make motion to or attempt to, you can be charged with assault.



I disagree with this legal principle, plain and simple - I know you are an Police Officer, and you don't make the laws, so I'll say I disagree with whoever legistlated this - perhaps I'll have to go get my LL.B. or something.

I see no reason why the law cannot protect citizens under the "Use of Force Continuum" as you have presented it.   Why should a citizen be restricted from using a "one plus one" theory - it seems perfectly sensible.

Say Mr X decides he wants to beat me to a pulp - perhaps I don't want to get into a fist fight with him (and thus use minimal force), so I knock him out with the tire iron and either run away or hold him down until the cops come.   The police are certainly justified in doing this; if I were to start a fist fight with an officer, I can see no complaint against using the baton to restrain me.   But if a citizen does this he is a criminal?

That being said, the same logical restrictions are in place - if I smash the guys skull in with the tire iron, I'm just as liable as if a cop went "Rodney King" on some guy who got a little feisty at the bar.   Clearly, both a private citizen or a cop have violated the "one plus one" principle in these cases.

I would fully support a "Citizens Use of Force Contiuum".   It should be something that, like sex ed, is taught to people in school.   Knowing your legal rights when confronted with being a victim is something very important - it should be, along with other things (like how our democracy works), something that should be part of a senior level "Civics" class for highschool kids.



> To respond to the less than lethal options and why we are not allowed to possess them in Canada. First I do not support the registry, secondly I do support gun control and restrictions on the average person. I do not believe we should be allowed to possess   less than lethal options. I am from Windsor, on the border with Detroit Michigan and I see day to day during my job, talking to my Detroit colleagues and watching the news that gun crimes and other crimes involving   less than lethal options   is out of control. Using the argument of arming all the citizens does not seem to work in the US, as there are more guns and the use of less than lethal options than there are people. What happens is the criminal shoots first and then says "this is a stick up".
> Canada is not a perfect and absoulutely safe society, but it is one of the closest on earth. Things do need to change, but taking that step towards the American mentality and their second Amendment would be disasterous.



I'm not sure if gun restrictions are the reason Canada has avoided the "American mentality".   This has been discussed to endless length on the gun control thread, but how do "Rights of Lawful Gun Owning Civilians" and "Criminal Acts with Firearms" always tend to get mixed up?


----------



## Infanteer (30 Mar 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Self defence does not have to be a fair fight in your own home. The gun makes up for the fact that the little old lady cannot - and should not - have to arm wrestle a crack fiend.



This is more a philosophical debate then a legal one (because we have the legal realities layed out for us right here), but I think this applies to anyone.   Why do I have to wrestle with a crack-fiend that has broken into my house?   I may be stronger, but you're right - what does "fighting fair" have to do with defending one's life and property.

If I come down and see Joe Blowfiend rooting around my stuff and I pull a firearm on him and he doesn't immediately cease and desist (ie: he rushes me) he is fair game as far as I am concerned.   Too many intangibles to play around with in a situation like this and the criminal has violated the victims well-being in a severe enough manner that he should have no recourse to legal technicalities.  Just my opinion, but one that seems to make sense to me.

I guess, with the current configuration of our laws, one has to apply "it is better to be judged by 12 then carried out by 6."   It is a shame that self-defence involves the judging though.


----------



## J.J (30 Mar 2005)

To put it bluntly and hopefully you do not take offence TCBF, but the notion that "it breaks the rice bowl" is a lot of B.S. It would be great if people would come forward and help Law Enforcement, but they do not. I have gone through rigorous training and a yearly prequalification to use force. I am subject to A LOT of oversight and armchair quarterbacks. I do understand the desire to hurt the scum that prey upon the weak. I have used force several times and I will admit, sometimes it is not easy to use the minimum amount necessary, but I like my job and my house and car and my freedom, so it is not worth it to use more force than necessary. I am not trying to say, only those with a badge have the god given right to use force. I am saying if you are in a situation where force is absolutely necessary, be smart about it and think if losing everything you have, including your freedom is worth it.
Yes, you are right Police Acts and other legislation like it does limit what advice can be given. Only lawful advice can be given, so yes take heed of the advice, it may not be what you want to hear, but it will be what is legal.
There is no Department/Agency anywhere in Canada that would have a policy of shoot to kill for a knife wielding subject. The policy is to use the minimum force necessary, if it can be done with a baton strike or if tasers are available that is what you use. If you have no other options and there is a risk for the loss of life or serious injury you can then use your last option, deadly force. You are supposed to work your way up the Continuum; Officer Presence, Tactical Communication (Verbal Intervention), Empty hand control (soft), Empty hand control (hard), Aerosols, Impact weapons and Lethal force. You can jump steps, up or down as the situation dictates. If the Officer has the mindset that they are going to use Lethal force with the first knife wielding subject they see, they will have a very short and dramatic front page career.


----------



## Quiet Riot (30 Mar 2005)

No worries TCBF.
How did youl like how the Toronto police handled that guy with a knife, pretty creative use of a squad car if you ask me.... (for those who didn't see the link here it is http://www.ebaumsworld.com/standoff.html )


----------



## dutchie (30 Mar 2005)

Well said JJacques, and welcome to Army.ca


----------



## Infanteer (30 Mar 2005)

JJacques said:
			
		

> I am saying if you are in a situation where force is absolutely necessary, be smart about it and think if losing everything you have, including your freedom is worth it.



Exactly, I agree 100%.   We don't teach Canadian citizens their rights and responsibilities when it comes to defending themselves, regardless of how the laws are configured.   I support better "ROE awareness training" for citizens either with the current system or if we were to give Canadians more leeway in defending themselves.

Considering that the StatsCan report on Violent Crime say that Canada's rate is roughly 1,000/100,000 people, I'd say that a 1% chance of being a victim of a violent crime justifies the importance that Canadians be aware and prepared both physically and mentally to defend themselves.   If they choose not to be then that's fine, they can join the multiple stabbing victims who have been targetted in violent robberies in a Burnaby, B.C. park over the last few weeks.



> There is no Department/Agency anywhere in Canada that would have a policy of shoot to kill for a knife wielding subject. The policy is to use the minimum force necessary, if it can be done with a baton strike or if tasers are available that is what you use. If you have no other options and there is a risk for the loss of life or serious injury you can then use your last option, deadly force. You are supposed to work your way up the Continuum; Officer Presence, Tactical Communication (Verbal Intervention), Empty hand control (soft), Empty hand control (hard), Aerosols, Impact weapons and Lethal force. You can jump steps, up or down as the situation dictates. If the Officer has the mindset that they are going to use Lethal force with the first knife wielding subject they see, they will have a very short and dramatic front page career.



I was told this by an RCMP officer - that a man attacking with a knife can be shot once he closes to within a certain distance - with Less-Than-Lethal methods available to police officers, I could see a change in SOP's.

However, you've argued against allowing Canadians to have access to Less-Than-Lethal Options, so I am limited in my response to what I can do.   If I am attacked by a knife wielding man (as in the Burnaby case) I have no recourse by to put 2 in the center of mass (assuming I had access to a CCW permit) or to hope that I had some hitherto undiscovered Bruce Lee powers that enable me to turn away this attacker with my bare hands.   Other then that, it is hoping for the Police Officers to turn up and hoping that I am able to recover from multiple puncture wounds to my chest....

Perhaps we do need to give citizens pepper spray (if trained properly to use it)?

PS: Here is the newstory on the Burnaby Stabbings - another reason why I believe civilians should have (if the desire) access to the ability to Defend themselves and their property from violent crime.

http://www.burnabynewsleader.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=41&cat=23&id=400361&more=


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2005)

"You can jump steps, up or down as the situation dictates. If the Officer has the mindset that they are going to use Lethal force with the first knife wielding subject they see, they will have a very short and dramatic front page career. "

I agree.   My point was that a citizen in her home does not have to comply with the Police Act mandated continuum of force.   Merely "what is reasonable under the circumstances".

Willthe citizen be charged in a self defence shooting?   Unlike a police officer - yes.   But case law has been very kind to those who ensure their own right to life.   

I think your job as a police officer would be easier - not harder - if more citizens knew exactly what rights for self defence they DID have.   Listening to fools like Allan Rock say that use of a firearm in self defence was NOT allowed has left us with a demoralized and confused citizenry who have dumped all responsibilities for their own protection on the police.   An impossible job. Not very fair to the police, is it?

My "breaking their ricebowl" comment was a bit of an unfair smear.   I know there are police officers out there who hi-five each other every time a criminal meets his legal demise at the hands of a citizen (who acted within the law).

Welcome to army.ca!   (I too, am a rookie.)

Tom


----------



## Inch (30 Mar 2005)

JJacques said:
			
		

> There is no Department/Agency anywhere in Canada that would have a policy of shoot to kill for a knife wielding subject. The policy is to use the minimum force necessary, if it can be done with a baton strike or if tasers are available that is what you use. If you have no other options and there is a risk for the loss of life or serious injury you can then use your last option, deadly force.



If there's a JAG on these means I'm open to correction, but from my annual ROE briefing (which I did twice due to being posted), it was my understanding that a member of the CF can use up to and including deadly force if an immediate threat to life or serious injury is present. As well, if another member of the CF is in the same situation, we're authorized to use up to and including deadly force to defend that person (collective self-defence of the CF).

Of course I asked for clarification, it basically came down to if someone comes at me or another CF member with a weapon, we can shoot them. Even if they're unarmed but due to their size or state of mind if I feel they're a threat to life and limb, they can be shot. 

That's the Standing ROE on Self Defence, both for 1 CAD and MARLANT and I would assume the rest of the CF as well.


----------



## Freddy Chef (30 Mar 2005)

Assault is the use of violence or the reasonable threat of violence:

Eg) - Buddy punching you in the face (touching you without your permission)
      - Buddy coming at you to punch you in the face (approaching you without your permission)
      - (Even if Buddy threatens to punch you in the face, and you honestly believe he will do it)

Use of force for self defence is enough force to stop an assault. [My strategy is for a _mobility kill_, a side-kick to the knee cap. If buddy is coming at me, I tell him to stop, and he keeps coming at me, I'm kicking out his knee cap and backing off. If buddy still _limps_ after me, I'm kicking out the other knee cap. My explanation to the cop/judge; â Å“I told the guy to stop, he didn't stop, I honestly felt he was going to hurt me, I honestly felt he would chase after me for the purpose of hurting me, so I _immobilized_ him.â ?] Throw enough shots to stop the guy, or until he is no longer a threat.

Those who know the details of the CCC, feel free to sort out my above interpretation.


----------



## rw4th (30 Mar 2005)

Concerning the knife thing and the 15ft rule. What is means is that from 15 ft a person can close the distance and stab you before you can draw your gun and shoot. I think it has also been legally established that a person with a knife within 15ft of you can constitute a deadly threat (don't quote me here)



> To respond to the less than lethal options and why we are not allowed to possess them in Canada. First I do not support the registry, secondly I do support gun control and restrictions on the average person. I do not believe we should be allowed to possess   less than lethal options. I am from Windsor, on the border with Detroit Michigan and I see day to day during my job, talking to my Detroit colleagues and watching the news that gun crimes and other crimes involving   less than lethal options   is out of control. Using the argument of arming all the citizens does not seem to work in the US, as there are more guns and the use of less than lethal options than there are people.



JJaques, if my PAL makes me thrust worthy enough to own a handgun, why would I not be trustworthy enough to own a taser? I'm not saying we should sell OC and tasers at Walmart, just make them available and subject to restriction (i.e. you need a PAL to buy them) as firearms. 

My biggest problem as a civilian is that I have very little options in my own use of force continuum. I can have to go from verbally defusing, to strikes, to lethal force (tire iron/gun). If a guy breaks into my house and I have to confront him, I'd rather do it with a taser then directly with my handgun.   



> you can try and physically stop him you just can't strike him or cause serious bodily harm.   You can try and physically restrain him with joint locks and the such, just as long as you don't snap anything.     They are both parts of sec38, they are just sub-sections sec.38(1) and 38(2).   As for your example with the guy breaking into your house;



Ok, I have a major objection here. I don't want to get in self-defense/martial arts argument, but joint-locks and pressure points are crap against someone who's resisting and determined to fight back. To stop a determined person I WILL have to resort to strikes, sooner rather then later.




> There is no Department/Agency anywhere in Canada that would have a policy of shoot to kill for a knife wielding subject. The policy is to use the minimum force necessary, if it can be done with a baton strike or if tasers are available that is what you use. If you have no other options and there is a risk for the loss of life or serious injury you can then use your last option, deadly force.



There is not such thing as â Å“shoot to kill/shoot to woundâ ?. If you're shooting it's because you are justified in killing. If you find yourself thinking that you could just wound him, you are not using the right tool.


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2005)

"Ok, I have a major objection here. I don't want to get in self-defense/martial arts argument, but joint-locks and pressure points are crap against someone who's resisting and determined to fight back. To stop a determined person I WILL have to resort to strikes, sooner rather then later."

All well and good, but eventually all self defence discusions boil down to the fact that there is no legal requirement for a liittle old lady to turn her bedroom into the WWF and go hand to hand with the monkey who wants to snap her in two to get at her PIN.  The coroner would say, "Too bad she didn't shoot him." And so will most cops - to each other.

Tom


----------



## Quiet Riot (30 Mar 2005)

Well about the joint lock comment, unless you really know what you're doing they are absolutely useless.   But if you know what you're doing and the person isn't hyped on something they are very effective.   But I meant it as you can do something just not start throwing punches or kicks right off the bat.   And also has jjacques said as soon as the offender ups his force level you can do the same. 
The 15ft rule sounds similiar to what I was told in class, just wasn't sure.
Freddy you put it very well but i'll post the legal jargon anyway.

Sec.265 Assault
265(1)a person commits assault when
             (a) without consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
             (b) he attempts or threatens, by any act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe upon reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
             (c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I would fully support a "Citizens Use of Force Continuum".  It should be something that, like sex ed, is taught to people in school.  Knowing your legal rights when confronted with being a victim is something very important - it should be, along with other things (like how our democracy works), something that should be part of a senior level "Civics" class for highschool kids.



Unfortunately, our kids are taught not to defend themselves in school.  Just last week I sat in the Principal of my 13 year old daughters schools  office for an hour, getting a bollocking for teaching her to box.  It seems that a little assw*pe decided to drag her around the yard by her hair for 10 mins or so.  She got loose, unleashed a combination on him, and reported it to the duty teach. End result, you ask?  Broken snot-locker for the instigator, a week suspension for my little princess, and a reaming for me...Worth it? You bet!

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2005)

Try appealing the suspension by threatening the Board with suspending your daughter for defending herslf while being sexually assaulted.  Watch them freak out over that one.

Tom


----------



## dutchie (30 Mar 2005)

That would send me over the deep end, Kat. God help the bugger that tells me my kid can't stand up for her/himself. I never understood that logic. When I was a kid (I'm not THAT old - 30), it was the kid who started it that got the worst of the punishment, and only a slap on the wrist was given to the kid who defended himself (read:me). It meant I learned that I should never start a fight, but always finish one.

Anyhow, back on topic.

edit:lousy sensors.


----------



## rw4th (30 Mar 2005)

The school thing sickens me but it's like that everywhere now. According to them it's *never* ok to fight and if attacked you should just take it without fighting back. The school system is indoctrinating our kids to be victims. Why? I don't know but I could chime in with my conspiracy theory again.


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Mar 2005)

The Principal told me that parents like me were the reason for violence in school.  I replied that she was taught "controlled violence", and I though the little puke got off lightly: She can scrap! He would have been dismantled if she wasn't under control. I also said I'm willing to sit in his office every day, if it meant my girl wouldn't be a victim again.....

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (30 Mar 2005)

Wait a sec ... she was attacked first and then defended herself and caught sh*t for it?!?!?  That's scary!  Without knowing all the details, if I were in your shoes and that Principal had even suggested that I, or my daughter, had done anything wrong, I would have absolutely gone postal: what the hell kind of lesson does that Principal think your daughter should learn?  ... it doesn't take too much imagination to see where such a demented kind of mentality can lead to.

I can't believe someone like that is allowed to teach!


----------



## dutchie (30 Mar 2005)

This is not news to me. This policy of zero tolerance for violence in schools is about 10 years old. Basically the (failed) logic goes something like this:

Violence of any kind is bad. If you engage in it, whether that be 'offence' or 'defence', you will be punished (er, corrected). If you are confronted with aggression/violence, you are to reason with the person. Under no circumstances are you to strike the person (including self-defence). Talk your way out of the situation. "You can never accomplish anything with violence".

That is the happy-crappy theory. If some kid was to actually follow this policy where and when I grew up (North Surrey - 80's), it would go something like this:

Shitrat comes up to kid and asks him for a light. Kid says I don't smoke. Bully says, 'fine, give me your bike'. Kid says, 'No kind sir, I cannot do that as it is my bike. I simpathize with your plight of no effective transport, so I will offer my time so you can tell me your problems.' Bully says 'no thanks' and punches kid in face. Kid tries to reason with bully. Bully takes bike. Kid wasn't taught how to deal wiht this outcome (all kids can be reasoned with....right?). Kid looses his Kuwi (that's a Kuwahara for those that don't know), and so must walk home. Kid cries as he lost his bike. Helpful stranger (adult, creppy looking) sees him walking home alone.....

That's how I see it. Of course, I don't subscribe to this logic, so if there are any morons out there, please explain how this teached kids good life skills.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (30 Mar 2005)

<img src=http://protestwarrior.org/nimages/the_sign.jpg>


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Mar 2005)

I've also got an 18 year old daughter who carries a Kubotan on her keys.  she has been taught how and when to use it.  Also been told that if a cop ever asks, it's "just a keyring my Dad bought me".  The boost to her self confidence that little hunk of aluminum gives her is magical..

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Mar 2005)

I remember a movie years ago in my Corrections basic and the distance the "bad guy" could get to and use the knife on the officer was anything less than 21 feet.
...and that was with the knife showing as if its someone who "really" knows how to use a knife, you will never see it.


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2005)

READ THIS POST:

Tom

---- Original Message -----
From: "AOB" <awpaob@telus.net>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 11:39 PM
Subject: Copy of Letter from Justice Minister.

> Self explanatory Ladies and Gentlemen

> The Honourable / Lhonorable Irwin Cotler, PC., O.C., M.P./c.p., o.c.,
depute
> Ottawa, Canada K1A 0H8
> MAR 1 5 2005
>
 Dear Sir:

 The office of my colleague the Honourable Anne McLellan, Deputy Prime
 Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness,has
 forwarded to me a copy of your correspondence, addressed to the Honourable
 David Kilgour, enquiring whether a citizen is legally able to protect
 himself in a home invasion type situation. I regret the delay in responding.

 The criminal laws of Canada permit the use of force in defence of a
 person's home. Section 40 of the Criminal Code provides that a person in
 lawful possession of a dwelling house is justified in using reasonable
 force to prevent someone from forcibly breaking in to the dwelling house.

 Section 41, further, provides that such a person is justified in using
 reasonable force to prevent someone from trespassing on that
 property, or to remove someone who is already trespassing.

 In addition to wanting to defend the integrity of the house itself,the
 person inside the house is likely to also fear for their safety and the
 physical integrity of others inside the house in a home invasion situation.

 In this regard, you may also be interested to know that section 34 of the
 Criminal Code provides the basic defence of self-defence. Selfdefence
 allows for the use of reasonable force to defend against an assault, which
 includes both actual force on a person against their will as well as an
 attempt or threat to apply force.

 Both self-defence and defence of property clearly allow a person to respond
 to force, actual or threatened, with force of their own. Where these
 defences apply, they excuse behaviour that would otherwise be criminal,
 such as assault or even homicide. It is, however, necessary that the force
 used in response to the threat be reasonable. Factors such as whether or
 not the invader had a weapon, the threat posed by the invader, the
 vulnerability of the defender, and the defender's options for defending
himself and his house would certainly be relevant considerations in
 determining whether the response of the homeowner was reasonable. The final
 determination of what is reasonable, however, will of necessity vary
 according to the specific circumstance of a given incident. Each case would
 therefore have to be considered on its own.

 I appreciate having had your concerns brought to my attention. Yours
> sincerely,
> A~~- ~ CVtQVA.
> Irwin Cotler

EDIT: JUST CLEANED IT UP, TEXT AS IS

MB Edit: Removed name & address.


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2005)

Hey, Thanks Bruce!  I had just finished cleaning it up on the other thread, had copied it, and was coming back here to do a cut and paste!  But you beat me.  I was cleaning it up before submitting it earlier when my mouse froze my devilmachine.  So I thought I would post it raw and clean it up later. Thanks.

Tom


----------



## Inch (2 Apr 2005)

I guess there's a first time for everything, instead of starting a new thread, I'll just recount my incident from last night on this thread since it's related to the subject.

So me and the boys were at the mess for the 81st RCAF mess dinner, afterwards we went downtown for a few drinks and then called it a night around 2:30am. I got a ride with my buddy and his girlfriend back to their place and I was going to catch a cab home from there. As we're pulling into the underground parking in their building we see a car stopped ahead of us with the two guys getting out and yelling at someone. All of a sudden this dude takes off from behind a truck, my buddy and I hop out of the car and help the other two guys chase the thief down to the lower garage, he headed for the elevator and as we were getting there he pulled a knife on the first guy that got there so we all backed off. I called the cops and two of them showed up about 5 minutes later. They didn't catch the guy though, he was long gone. The guy had been breaking into cars in the parking garage stealing whatever he could get his hands on, he smashed the windows out of 4 of them (as well as destroyed the trunk on one in an attempt to get into it), a 5th car was unlocked, he had broken the side rear window on a truck, ripped the hood ornament off a Mercedes that was down there, and for effect, he slashed my other buddy's truck tonneau cover.

That shit just pisses me off, I wish we would have caught the guy, but knowing how the system is, he probably would have gotten off scottfree while 8 people are out a few hundred bucks to replace windows and whatnot.


----------



## camochick (2 Apr 2005)

I dont understand why we dont do the same thing california does. Three strikes and you're out. YOu commit three crimes and you go to jail for life. Everytime there is some violent crime, be a robbery, murder, rape etc, the person is always a repeat offender, and not once or twice, it's usually like 10 times or more. They just declared this guy in Edmonton a dangerous offender after more than 20 violent crimes. It took the fact that he beat an old man into a vegetative state for them to call him a dangerous offender. They need to crack down on this garbage. They also need to make our jails, actual jails instead of five star resorts.


----------



## Cloud Cover (2 Apr 2005)

Camochick, please define "crime". I do believe the nature of the offence plays a signifcant role in California, for example thousands of public safety regulatory offences, ranging from speeding to , [ahem ...] unsafe storage of a firearm are exempt from the 3 strikes rule.


----------



## camochick (2 Apr 2005)

OK, i guess i should have defined crime because i dont think sending someone to jail for a couple speeding tickets is appropriate. I guess to me, sending someone to jail would be for theft, drug related offences, murder, assaults, anything in the violent nature. My whole point was that we allow people to offend and offend and offend and then something really bad happens, ie: four RCMP get killed. and then we do something.


----------



## Kunu (2 Apr 2005)

> Camochick, please define "crime". I do believe the nature of the offence plays a signifcant role in California, for example thousands of public safety regulatory offences, ranging from speeding to , [ahem ...] unsafe storage of a firearm are exempt from the 3 strikes rule.



That's right, California's famous "three-strikes" law is only applicable for felonies, not misdeameanors.


----------



## rw4th (6 Apr 2005)

Ok, I'm going to revive this thread. 

Does anybody know if there is anything in Federal or Provincial law similar to England's "duty to retreat" law?


----------



## TCBF (6 Apr 2005)

Certainly not in your own home.  

The rest, I think, is covered by case law for self-defence and asault.

But, hey, I am not a lawyer.

Tom


----------



## rw4th (6 Apr 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Certainly not in your own home.



You'd think so, but I remember reading something to effect that during a home invasion you were legally obliged "escape" or at the very least avoid the intruder. This might have been specific to Quebec and/or Ontario.

This is why I ask


----------



## TCBF (6 Apr 2005)

Try some of the legal case law websites.

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (8 Apr 2005)

Seems that this debate is also going on in many States to the South:

----
_
Lawmakers In Fla. Back Public Use of Deadly Force 

Reuters
Wednesday, April 6, 2005; Page A05 

TALLAHASSEE, April 5 -- People in Florida will be allowed to kill in self-defense on the street without trying to flee under a new measure passed Tuesday that critics say will bring a Wild West mentality and innocent deaths.

The Florida House, citing the need to allow people to "stand their ground," voted 94 to 20 to codify and expand court rulings that allow people to use deadly force to protect themselves in their homes without first trying to escape.

The new bill goes further by allowing citizens to use deadly force in a public place if they have a reasonable belief they are in danger of death or great bodily harm. It applies to all means of force that may result in death, although the legislative debate focused on guns.

The "Stand Your Ground" bill passed the Senate last week, 39 to 0, and now goes to Gov. Jeb Bush Ã‚®, who indicated he will sign it.

"This is about meeting force with force," said Rep. Dennis Baxley (R-Ocala), the House sponsor. "If I'm attacked, I should not have to retreat."

Critics have few objections to allowing people to protect themselves from intruders in their homes but said the provision making it easier to use deadly force in public gives gun owners a license to kill. They added that the measure could lead to racially motivated killings and promote deadly escalations of arguments.

"For a House that talks about the culture of life, it's ironic that we would be devaluing life in this bill," Rep. Dan Gelber (D-Miami Beach) said. "That's exactly what we're doing."_


----------



## Foxhound (8 Apr 2005)

Seems to me that the only lives they're "devaluing" in this bill are the lives of those who would cause death or great bodily harm to innocents.  At least, that's the way I'm reading it.  Bang on Florida!


----------



## RCA (8 Apr 2005)

"The new bill goes further by allowing citizens to use deadly force in a public place *if they have a reasonable belief  * they are in danger of death or great bodily harm. It applies to all means of force that may result in death ..."

Self Defence is fine, but leaving it open ended as such opens up all sorts of negative possibilites. You can't read a dead man's mind.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Apr 2005)

I agree with RCA on the wording, much as I believe in the right of self-defense, I would hope the "official" wording would be more stringent than that. Don't we go on "peacekeeping" missions with tighter contols than that?


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Apr 2005)

The usual overhyped predictions that the streets will soon be awash with the blood of innocents have been made to varying degrees.  Wait and see if they come true (for the first time).


----------



## TCBF (8 Apr 2005)

"Self Defence is fine, but leaving it open ended as such opens up all sorts of negative possibilites. You can't read a dead man's mind."

The Americans are beginning to act on the fact that many crimes - and criminals - are ended not by police action, but by armed citizens shooting the bad guy and saving lives as a result.

This is being downplayed by the groups who find us a greater value as a dead victim than a live victor with a dead criminal at our feet.

I'm not interested in reading minds.   I am interested in seeing the US laws back a citizen who saves innocent lives by taking a criminal one.

Tom


----------



## RCA (8 Apr 2005)

And the average citizen can determine who the bad guy is. Some case are cut and dry. But I thougt he was going to hurt me so I shot him dead is way too vaque for killing another. Or is the dead guy always bad?


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Apr 2005)

Wait a year.  If Florida doesn't turn into "Escape From Miami" despite the presence of redneck southern boy culture in the north and drug gang culture in the south, which of these should be a policy factor:

1) Putting guns and greater latitude for self-defence into the hands of citizens is not a recipe for disaster; or

2) Canadians are less trustworthy and less mentally stable than Floridians.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Apr 2005)

I thought most Floridians were Canadian?


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Apr 2005)

Only during parts of the year, in limited regions, and not permitted to carry weapons anyways.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (8 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Never chased the guy down the street - chased him out of the store.   They then smashed the windows out in his car as he got away.
> 
> My bone of contention is that the police were implying that the criminal was defending himself now that the storeowner and his son were swinging - isn't this the reason that he assumed his posture?   Do the authorities know if the citizens let down their "fight" instinct, the guy won't comeback with his knife and stab someone?
> 
> By pulling the knife on someone, the guy was fair game to be incapacitated with a bat - correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember being told (by a cop) that police have a shoot-to-kill policy with guys wielding knives once they get to within a certain distance.


        There really are magic words.   "You are under citizens arrest, lie face down on the ground and await police, or I will use force to restrain you"   If I then have to kneecap the little puke, I am affecting a citizens arrest, using non lethal force to restrain a criminal who I remand into custody when police amble on scene.   "Come back here you little sh*t" as I kneecap the slack and idle piece of thieving civilian excrement, and I am remanded into custody for assault with a deadly weapon.   The words are important, they separate the legal intent to restrain a criminal in lawful support of police, and the criminal act of retaliatory violence.   The law is not your friend, the law is a tool.   Tools don't care who uses them.   If it works for the criminal (arguably the laziest and stupidest members of our glorious society), then how much better will it serve those of us who actually evolved enough to use tools effectively?


----------



## TCBF (9 Apr 2005)

You can say what you want, but if you shoot a Puke solely for the purpose of restricting his mobility and effecting an arrest the you are goiing down HARD.

The force must be "Reasonable under the circumstances."

Tom


----------



## KevinB (9 Apr 2005)

21ft.
  The Golden rule for Edge weapon assailants.

You shoot center of visible mass to stop threats - period.


----------



## TCBF (9 Apr 2005)

Ah, yes, "The Tueller Drill".  Good point.

Tom


----------



## Slim (9 Apr 2005)

Gents.

Two points:

1. To have a CCW in the state of Florida you must be a resident...Not a citizen of the United States. I know of Canadians who have them.

2. "Reasonable belief of injury or death" is not "I thought he was gonna get me so I shot him." Reasonable grounds is that the person who was assaulted believed 100% that they were going to be killed or badly hurt...And must prove this in a court of law.

Slim


----------



## rw4th (9 Apr 2005)

> 1. To have a CCW in the state of Florida you must be a resident...Not a citizen of the United States. I know of Canadians who have them.



You need to have some kind of permanent resident status. I think that post 9/11 the US passed a federal law that states something to the effect that firearms cannot be under the control of non- residents (or at least that's what BW said to me when I tried to book a course there last year.).


----------



## rw4th (9 Apr 2005)

While researching the "duty to retreat" stuff, I came accross this interesting tidbit



> 35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if
> 
> (a) he uses the force
> 
> ...



So back to the break-in scenario: guy breaks in, you try and subdue him physically (you assault him), and he escalates with a knife you may now use deadly force yourself and have it still be considered self-defense.

I wonder how this is actually applied by the courts though.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Apr 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> I wonder how this is actually applied by the courts though.



That's the rub, ain't it.  So much of our legislation seems to look good in writing, but some of it gets all mucked up when it hits reality.


----------



## TCBF (9 Apr 2005)

Hard cases do make bad law, but, check the case law notes in your copy of Martin's Criminal Code, or similar.  Self-defence in your own home is interpreted by the courts in the home-owner's favour where possible.  

the section 35 quote duty to retreat inference refers to someone who started or provoked the violence - not intending death or serious injury - but then fears death or serious injury as a result of the counter attack of the one he originalls assaulted.  

A different case from straight self-defence.

See Irwin Cotler's letter in a previous post.

Tom


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Apr 2005)

> You need to have some kind of permanent resident status. I think that post 9/11 the US passed a federal law that states something to the effect that firearms cannot be under the control of non- residents (or at least that's what BW said to me when I tried to book a course there last year.).



I can't speak for a CCW, but I just bought a shotgun about 3 weeks ago (at a store, not a private sale). I have a Green Card. I had to provide proof that I had been at the same residence for the past 3 months; and I couldn't have left the Country in the previous 90 days. My background check was "delayed" which is almost a given for resident aliens, from what I understand. (They can either be "approved", "delayed", or "denied"....

I haven't pursued a CCW (yet), because Arizona is an "open carry" state, and I can carry a firearm almost anywhere, as long as it is in plain view...


----------



## KevinB (9 Apr 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> You need to have some kind of permanent resident status. I think that post 9/11 the US passed a federal law that states something to the effect that firearms cannot be under the control of non- residents (or at least that's what BW said to me when I tried to book a course there last year.).



NON Perm resident aliens need a hunting license...  :  Go figure - here I am with a Alaskan hunting license with a Glock 23 in Fla.  ???  but it makes it okay...   For simple use at a site to take a course no problem - I have had friends take courses at BW no problems...


----------



## rw4th (10 Apr 2005)

A hunting license you say ... hmmm. 



> I have had friends take courses at BW no problems...



Were they mill or leo at the time? They told me that that was the one loophole: if I still had a valid ID card they could workout some kind of exception under NAFTA. Anyway, BW is one of the few places that actually applies this rule; most don't really care and some might run a background check  I just wanted to go to BW since it's in within reasonable driving distance from here (Montreal).


----------



## Quiet Riot (10 Apr 2005)

> So back to the break-in scenario: guy breaks in, you try and subdue him physically (you assault him), and he escalates with a knife you may now use deadly force yourself and have it still be considered self-defense.


   I interpet sec.35 alittle differently, maybe because i've just finished a 14hour shift....  but to me it seems it gives the person who starts a fight or provokes a fight, without the intention of causing bodily harm the ability and justification to fight back without being liable to an assault charge but other charges like B&E or robbery could still apply. From the CCC synopsis of Sec.35: 





> there are 3 criteria which must be met for the actions in self defence following the defender's initial aggression to be justified.  1st, similar criteria as that found in s.34(2) apply, namely that the force is used under the person's reasonable apprehension of death or greivous bodily harm from the person whom the defender originally assaulted or provoked and the defender must believe on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary to prevent his own death or grievous bodily harm being inflicted upon him. 2nd, the defender did not, at any time before the need arose to protect himself from death or grievous bodily harm, try to cause death or grievous bodily harm. 3rd, there is an obligation upon the defender to decline further conflict and leave or retreat as far as is feasible before the need to defend from death or grievous bodily harm arises.


  So, the robber from the first story could've turned around and fought back if he believed he was in danger of death or grievous bodily harm.....
About the citizen arrest part and winging him the leg or something, it's under sec.25 I believe , you have to be directly assisting a peace officier to use any force that will cause death or grievous bodily harm and there can't be anyother way that would be less harmful and the fleeing person has to pose the threat of death or grievous bodily harm to someone under thier direct protection. i'll post the legal jargon later or correct myself when i have time to research it fully.


----------



## TCBF (10 Apr 2005)

"I interpet sec.35 alittle differently, maybe because i've just finished a 14hour shift....  but to me it seems it gives the person who starts a fight or provokes a fight, without the intention of causing bodily harm the ability and justification to fight back without being liable to an assault charge but other charges like B&E or robbery could still apply. From the CCC synopsis of Sec.35: 
Quote
there are 3 criteria which must be met for the actions in self defence following the defender's initial aggression to be justified.  1st, similar criteria as that found in s.34(2) apply, namely that the force is used under the person's reasonable apprehension of death or greivous bodily harm from the person whom the defender originally assaulted or provoked and the defender must believe on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary to prevent his own death or grievous bodily harm being inflicted upon him. 2nd, the defender did not, at any time before the need arose to protect himself from death or grievous bodily harm, try to cause death or grievous bodily harm. 3rd, there is an obligation upon the defender to decline further conflict and leave or retreat as far as is feasible before the need to defend from death or grievous bodily harm arises.
  So, the robber from the first story could've turned around and fought back if he believed he was in danger of death or grievous bodily harm.....
About the citizen arrest part and winging him the leg or something, it's under sec.25 I believe , you have to be directly assisting a peace officier to use any force that will cause death or grievous bodily harm and there can't be anyother way that would be less harmful and the fleeing person has to pose the threat of death or grievous bodily harm to someone under thier direct protection. i'll post the legal jargon later or correct myself when i have time to research it fully."

This stuff ain't Canadian.  You have no duty to decline in your own home.  And you can use lethal force in self defence.

Tom

Tom


----------



## Quiet Riot (10 Apr 2005)

TCBF, I got the 3 criteria about sec.35 from the Criminal Code of Canada 2003 edition. when I used the store robber incident and said the robber could've turned around and fought I was wrong.  It could be argued that the robber went into the store with the intention to cause serious bodily harm  or death or caused the owner to believe that because of the knife he pulled out." 2nd, the defender did not, at any time before the need arose to protect himself from death or grievous bodily harm, try to cause death or grievous bodily harm."  An example of sec.35: Party"A" starts a fight or provokes a fight with party "B" with no intention of causing death or grievous bodily harm.  "B" then puts up a fight "A" wasn't ready for and "A" tries to run away.  "B" pursues him with the intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm or "A" on reasonable gounds believes he's in danger of death or grievous bodily harm "A" is then justified to defend himself within the limits of the situation.  I doubt sec.35 could be applied to a robbery or B&E.
"You have no duty to decline in your own home.  And you can use lethal force in self defence."  This is true but to use lethal force the circumstances are very stringent.  Unlike in the states you can't shoot someone simply for breaking into your home in Canada, they have to pose the threat of serious bodily harm or death to you or someone under your direct protection. From what we were told in class using force and especially deadly force anytime outside of defending youself from bodily harm or death, could open yourself up to a civil suit and assault charges. A while back a home owner was sucessfully sued by someone who broke into his house and then got attacked by the guys dog because he had no sign saying there was a dog present.... But i think the guy who commited the B&E was charged.

sec.40 of the criminal code defence of dwelling
40.Everyone  who is in peaceable possesion of a dwelling-house and everyone assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority.  
Once he's out or of the property you can't pursue him, to effect a citizen arrest under s.494.  
Synopsis of sec.40 from CCC: the section justifies the use of as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking in or entering a dwelling house if the conditions of the section are met.  the person seeking entry into the house must be without lawful authority. The force must be necessary for that purpose, ie to preventthe break-in and not for any additional reason. The defender using the force must be in peaceable possesion of the home.


----------



## TCBF (10 Apr 2005)

Did you read the letter from Irwin cotler, above?

Why can you not persue to effect a citizens arrest? I would check that out.

What classes are you taking?  Remember, the classes taught may be taught with caution, especially towards police and security students who will use force under the various provincial police acts - very strict pieces of legislation.

I recall one case from about twenty years ago in my hometown - Thunder Bay - where some rowdies went out to a guys house in the woods to lean on him regarding some criminal matter.  They made their intent known to one and all, and the homeowner shot one guy through his front door.  

No charges were laid.  Big sob fest from all of the deceased friends, but a tough titty.  

Case law on self defence invariably aids the homeowner against the intruder.  As long as the homeowner sticks to self defence.  Shooting the perp in the back as he exits, or as he is running down the street is called murder.  Chasing the perp to effect a citizens arrest using reasonable force?  No problem

The prob with discussions like this, is that our stories inevitably lead to the "Self defence is illegal in Canada because Mr Numbty  saw the guy who robbed his store three days later and shot him as he exited a waterslide at the West Ed Mall."

Half of the examples used invariably are good examples of assault, but not self defence.

Quiet Riot, does your RSC handbook have any good case law examples regarding self defence?

Tom


----------



## KevinB (10 Apr 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> A hunting license you say ... hmmm.
> 
> Were they mill or leo at the time? They told me that that was the one loophole: if I still had a valid ID card they could workout some kind of exception under NAFTA. Anyway, BW is one of the few places that actually applies this rule; most don't really care and some might run a background check  I just wanted to go to BW since it's in within reasonable driving distance from here (Montreal).



Yeah they where MIL,


----------



## Quiet Riot (11 Apr 2005)

Most of my knowledge comes from highschool law classes and a police foundation course at a local college.   I am also just interested in law and read up on it whenever I have the chance.   You could be correct about the instructors being a little cautious about teaching the use of force since they are all police officers or lawyers and teaching a police foundation class.   Maybe it's a lack of sleep but what do you mean by RSC handbook.     In your story of the rowdies going to this guys house and one getting shot.   They would be considered trespassers for being on his property without being invited and if they threatened him with violence or he believed on reasonable grounds that they would cause him bodily harm or death he would be justified in defending himself, using no more force than neccesary.   So if it was a group he would have no chance especially if they had shown up with weapons to defend himself just with his hands.   If someone breaks into your house to steal some stuff you can't just shoot him, he posses no threat of bodily harm or death.   
You are correct about the pursuing someone for a citizens arrest, I misunderstood the section about using force while pursuing someone without directly helping a peace officer.   It is stated in s.494(2)(a)(b) that the property owner or anyone authorized by the property owner can arrest anyone found commiting a criminal offence on or inrelation to that property.
well i am off to another wonderful night at work... :


----------



## Slim (13 Apr 2005)

Wed, April 13, 2005 
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2005/04/13/994570-sun.html

*Cop ruled justified in killing man*

DROVE CAR AT OFFICER

By JONATHAN JENKINS, TORONTO SUN

A TORONTO cop was justified in gunning down Courtney Peters after the thrice-deported crack dealer drove his car at him during a bust, the Special Investigations Unit has ruled. "The officer had a reasonable and honestly held belief that Mr. Peters posed a real and imminent threat to the officer's life and safety and to the lives and safety of those in the vicinity," the unit's director, James Cornish, said in a press release. 

"I believe the use of lethal force was necessary to attempt to end that threat." 

Peters, 32, died at the scene, near Ellesmere Rd. and Victoria Park Ave., on Oct. 14. 

The officer, whose name was not released, suffered a neck and arm injury after he was hit by Peters' Infiniti. 

Peters had been *ordered out of the country three times and had a lengthy criminal record, primarily for selling crack cocaine, which was found in his car. He once tried to electrocute a girlfriend and his former defence lawyer told the Sun he didn't believe his client ever would have surrendered peacefully. * 

end

*People like this are why we need to be able to protect ourselves with potentially deadly force!*

Slim


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Apr 2005)

....and if the sheep only know how many of these wolves are out there............


----------



## rw4th (13 Apr 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ....and if the sheep only know how many of these wolves are out there............


Oh, no, not in Canada! That kind of stuff only happens in the US   :

I've read a couple of books by John Douglas, and you'd be surprised how many serial killer/rape cases he consulted on in Canada. We definitely have our share psycho and sociopaths as well as murderers and rapists. It always amazes (and scares) me how people think that ignorance of danger is somehow translated into safety.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Apr 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> It always amazes (and scares) me how people think that ignorance of danger is somehow translated into safety.



That's a National Institution - look at our Forces....


----------



## Island Ryhno (13 Apr 2005)

On a sort of a side note to this, if anyone is interested in serial murders, violence rates etc, you should have a read of anything by Elliot Leyton, he is one of the most prolific authors of such items in the world and has been a consultant to FBI, Scotland Yard, Interpol, RCMP etc etc. I had the pleasure of doing a course called War and Agression with him at Memorial University and he was by far the best orator I've ever heard!


----------



## Sailing Instructor (26 Apr 2005)

One issue that blurs the line between self-defense & assault is the role of the victim & perpetrator.  When the perpetrator commits the crime (say break-in & theft) there is a victim created by virtue of the act of the crime.  But notice that the perpetrator and victim aren't immaleable persons who have existed as such from birth, they are mere roles as are 'mother,' 'teacher,' 'accountant,' and 'soldier.'

Thus, if the person who was victimised by the break-in & theft retaliates by assault, he then holds the role of perpetrator _for his assault_.  Then we have two persons, both of which are perpetrators & victims.  The distinction is that these roles are held with regard to different acts (the break-in & theft in one place, and the assault in the other).

This confusion of the roles of victim & perpetrator with the persons who occupy the roles is doubtless the reason behind so many assaults that are seen, by the perpetrator, as self-defense for a crime their victim committed against them.  This is an abuse of 'victim-status' that results in a vindication of the actions of victims because they were, at one time, victims.

(I thank Dr Trudy Govier for her insight to this point of logic.)


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Apr 2005)

That only applies to morally confused people who fail to understand it's all of a piece.  Germany was an aggressor until the Allies liberated occupied Europe.  Then the Allies assaulted poor Germany.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Apr 2005)

Please tell Dr Trudy Govier that she is morally confused....


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Apr 2005)

I guess we need to distinguish between boxing the thief about the ears in the heat of the act to recover the stolen property, and hunting him down to administer a punitive beating.  There is a difference.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Apr 2005)

Is it considered moral to  box a thief in the ears to eject him from your home that he is violating?


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Apr 2005)

The question is always going to be: what is reasonable restitution for the wrong committed?


----------



## TCBF (26 Apr 2005)

"The question is always going to be: what is reasonable restitution for the wrong committed?"  That isn't the question the judge will ask.  He will ask if the level of force used was reasonable under the circumstances.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Apr 2005)

Morality and legality are not always consonant.


----------



## TCBF (26 Apr 2005)

Tru dat.


----------



## Sailing Instructor (30 Apr 2005)

Now it is the words 'victim' and 'perp' that are getting us confused.  They are perhaps a poor choice as they imply the act (which donned the roles of 'vic' & 'perp' to certain persons) was wrongful.  We would consent to the theft being wrongful but not, perhaps, to the assault of the theif afterwards (i.e. he deserved the assault).  Still, using the poor terms of 'vic' & 'perp' we say that the theif was the 'vic' of the assault.  End of story.  We can call 'vic' & 'perp' 'x' & 'y' if it helps take away the semantic baggage.  (Damn you, evolving language, why can't you just stay static?)

All this distintion does is takes away the foolish notion that vics (x's) have some inalienable right to beat on the perps (y's) for perpetuety.  Not simply the old 'get over it' argument, though.

PS.  Not that I used the term moral, but when I do, I use it to mean a tradition, manner, practice, or common rule.  Thus, not all morals are ethical (which I take to be 'right').  

Thus, whether or not it is moral to box the ears of a thief (what the devil does that expression mean anyway?) in your home depends on whether or not your community has a history of boxing theives' ears.  Then you've a _right_ to it.  (Thanks to Edmund Burke for presenting a clear & proper idea of rights.)


----------



## TCBF (1 May 2005)

Community does not give you rights, it only takes them away.


----------



## Slim (1 May 2005)

What do we think of the new rule inFlorida, where its now completely legal to use deadly force in self defense (so long as you can justify it)

I know that in Canada it says "Up to and including deadly force to protect yourself," I just wouldn't want to be the guy to test that one in court here in this country...

Slim


----------



## TCBF (1 May 2005)

"I know that in Canada it says "Up to and including deadly force to protect yourself," I just wouldn't want to be the guy to test that one in court here in this country"

Slim,we put this one to bed a few pages back.  You definitely CAN use up to and including deadly force to protect yourself in Canada.  Read the thread!


----------



## Slim (1 May 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "I know that in Canada it says "Up to and including deadly force to protect yourself," I just wouldn't want to be the guy to test that one in court here in this country"
> 
> Slim,we put this one to bed a few pages back.   You definitely CAN use up to and including deadly force to protect yourself in Canada.   Read the thread!



I know it was discussed...However I have been dealing with the legal system here in Ontqario for a few years now. I don't care if the Governor General   of Canada gives you a get-out-of-jail-free-cookie with your name in orange i still wouldn't want to be the guy trying to protect myself from the provincial/federal prosecutors as they go after you with the taste of your flesh in their mouths!


----------



## TCBF (1 May 2005)

Well, that's natural selection for you.

Point being, deadly force implies you are killing to save a life - usually your own - where failing to do so would lead a reasonable person under the same circumstances to think that they too would have feared for their own life before taking identical action.  

So, if you, yourself, would not do this because you would "rather be carried by eight than tried by twelve", fine, that is your decision.

Now, after killing you, if the perps go on to kill other innocents, you may consider youself morally culpable for not summing them up when you had the right to.  But, being already dead, you might not worry to much about that.


----------



## Slim (1 May 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Well, that's natural selection for you.
> 
> Point being, deadly force implies you are killing to save a life - usually your own - where failing to do so would lead a reasonable person under the same circumstances to think that they too would have feared for their own life before taking identical action.



TCBF

I know what you're saying...And you're absolutely right.

Look, one of the ways I make my living is teaching combat handgun shooting to various institutions who have a legal and proffesional obligation to carry a firearm during the course of thier duties while at work (I won't go into who as its pretty much irrelivant to this discussion)

One of theings we make sure every student goes through is the laws and how they are implimented by the powers-that-be. I'm telling you that unless you're a police officer in this country, you will bhe charged if you kill someone, whether in self-defense or not. (even police are going through this more and more now) And its like guilty until proven innocent!

The law very quickly turns the victim into the agressor and does not seem to have any sort of bearing on what actually happened to you that placed you in a situation where deadly force was used, justified or not. 

I don't agree with it...And I know that, if it came down to it, I would kill someone rather than be worried about what a jury full of left-leaning citizens are going to think of my actions later on.

Society as a whole needs to recognize that someone committing a crime forfiets his/her rights to protection in certain regards if they are placing others in a position where those others could be hurt or killed due to the criminal's actions during the commision of that crime.


----------



## TCBF (1 May 2005)

Yep.

Case law backs up the self-defense issue - though the legal fees will bankrupt you.

The case law invariably used to teach people that self defence  is "murder" are cases where someone who was robbed/beaten/whatever follows the puke out of his store/house and shoots him in the back of the head.  Which is not self defence, it in fact IS murder.  Apples and oranges.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Dec 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Let's make the civilian population with the werewithal the defend themselves even more defenceless?



You still don't have the "right" to use a firearm to defend your property, so what are you talking about?   I wish the firearms advocates would stop using this line of logic.

Firstly, you have no private property due to our Charter of Rights which enshrines absolutely nothing in that regard (thank you Lieutenant (retd.) Trudeau).

Secondly, using a firearm to defend what you may think is your property may very well get you charged.   Check out the Wiebo case.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Firstly, you have no private property due to our Charter of Rights which enshrines absolutely nothing in that regard (thank you Lieutenant (retd.) Trudeau).



I think this one covers it somewhat:



> 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.



Would prohibition of unreasonable seizure count to protecting property rights?

As well, the Canadian Bill of Rights is still Federal Law, no?



> 1.(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person *and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;*



You are right though - we could use a more direct enshrinement of private property rights considering that it is the basis of a liberal democracy (so says Locke). 



> Secondly, using a firearm to defend what you may think is your property may very well get you charged.   Check out the Wiebo case.



Not necessarily.   Technically, I believe you are breaking the law by discharging a firearm in an unauthorized area but it is up to the authorities to lay those charges.   We had a elderly man shoot and kill a kid who broke into a secluded house with 3 of his buddies.   I don't blame the fellow; out in the sticks, you don't know who they are or what they are doing in your house.   He was charged because the kid was shot in the back.   His defence was that he didn't know what the kid was doing, only that 4 youths had broken into his house in the middle of the night.   The jury found him not guilty.

That's why we have Common Law and a trail by a jury of your peers.   Better to be tried by 12 than carried out by 6 I say.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Dec 2005)

Everything you point out, Infanteer, is up to the courts to interpret.  One judge might let you off for firing a shotgun in self-defence, another might throw the book at you for unsafe storage and attempted manslaughter.

What is "unreasonable"?

Well, if the law is passed that handguns are illegal, it is not "unreasonable" for the government to then seize handguns.  

Be nicer if protection against "unreasonable" legislation was enshrined instead.


----------



## Slim (8 Dec 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> This whole argument re: protecting yourself with firearms, while interesting, has nothing to with banning handguns. One does not need to justify the possesion of their own property to prevent seizure. In short, I can use my pistol to stir my soup if I wish. It's not the goverments business wtf I do with it, as long as I obey the law.



There is no mechanism in Canada for protecting yourself with a firearm. If you do so then you will go through the legal system in this country and have to get a lawyer and prove your innocence in a court of law.

That being said this handgun ban I believe has been in the works for some time now and the Libs have just been waiting for the right moment to unviel it to us the unwashed and easily awed masses.

The gangbangers may as well have been paid by the Libs as they're doing exactly what the govt wants in order to get rid of guns for good.

And yes it will not do jack to get gun-related crimes down. Its just another dirty tool to get a political party votes when they don't deserve them.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Dec 2005)

What mechanism is there in Canada for protecting yourself with anything?  AFAICT, if you injure or kill anyone - by whatever means - while protecting yourself or your property, you're going to take a trip through the legal system.  It might begin and end with the decision of the police to lay charges, but it's still there.  The tool is irrelevant.


----------



## Slim (8 Dec 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> What mechanism is there in Canada for protecting yourself with anything?   AFAICT, if you injure or kill anyone - by whatever means - while protecting yourself or your property, you're going to take a trip through the legal system.   It might begin and end with the decision of the police to lay charges, but it's still there.   The tool is irrelevant.



Very true Brad.

I was just putting it in the context of the proposed ban by the Libs


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Dec 2005)

The Conservatives don't support it (I don't have any quotes, just what I heard on the news), however they need to tread lightly so as not to be painted as assbackwards rednecks, but to highlight that this is a sham and will do zip to actually stop gun crime.  

On a side note If anyone actually bothered to read the criminal code, a person can use a firearm to defend themselves or there property provide the use of force is REASONABLY NECESSARY and JUSTIFIABLE.  Wiebo taking shots at teenagers walking across his land is neither reasonable force or justifiable.  A bunch of thugs trying to kick in your front door armed with baseball bats and machetes, have at er.  Criminal  Code of Canada S. 25(3), S. 34(2), S. 40, S. 41


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> The Conservatives don't support it (I don't have any quotes, just what I heard on the news), however they need to tread lightly so as not to be painted as assbackwards rednecks, but to highlight that this is a sham and will do zip to actually stop gun crime.
> 
> On a side note If anyone actually bothered to read the criminal code, a person can use a firearm to defend themselves or there property provide the use of force is REASONABLY NECESSARY and JUSTIFIABLE.  Wiebo taking shots at teenagers walking across his land is neither reasonable force or justifiable.  A bunch of thugs trying to kick in your front door armed with baseball bats and machetes, have at er.  Criminal  Code of Canada S. 25(3), S. 34(2), S. 40, S. 41



They weren't walking though, they were doing donuts in his driveway...like I said to Infanteer, it is up to a court of law to determine "reasonably necessary" or "justifiable" on an individual case-by-case basis.  You don't have carte blanche to defend yourself or "your" property.


----------



## Slim (8 Dec 2005)

personal defense is not a justified reason for owning a firearm in Canada..thats in the CC as well.


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> They weren't walking though, they were doing donuts in his driveway...like I said to Infanteer, it is up to a court of law to determine "reasonably necessary" or "justifiable" on an individual case-by-case basis.   You don't have carte blanche to defend yourself or "your" property.


 I never said you have carte blanche, but you can still use force to defend yourself and your property.



			
				Slim said:
			
		

> personal defense is not a justified reason for owning a firearm in Canada..thats in the CC as well.


 Where?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I never said you have carte blanche, but you can still use force to defend yourself and your property.



Only if a judge/jury finds your use of force to have been reasonable and/or justifiable, which is a fairly salient point.


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Only if a judge/jury finds your use of force to have been reasonable and/or justifiable, which is a fairly salient point.


 You skipped a step Michael, If the police and the crown decide that your actions were reasonable and justifiable then you won't be going to trial in the first place.


----------



## Old Ranger (8 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> but you can still use force to defend yourself and your property.



The criminal has to be inside you house, with a weapon, and *there must be evidence of a warning shot* to show do diligence in trying to avoid grievous bodily harm or death.

When the warning shot was fired is dependant on your statement to the Police.

Ben


----------



## Old Ranger (8 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> You skipped a step Michael, If the police and the crown decide that your actions were reasonable and justifiable then you won't be going to trial in the first place.



We would hope!  Crown and Police not having to bend to political pressure.

Ben


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> You skipped a step Michael, If the police and the crown decide that your actions were reasonable and justifiable then you won't be going to trial in the first place.



Yes, you're correct.


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Dec 2005)

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> The criminal has to be inside you house, with a weapon, and *there must be evidence of a warning shot* to show do diligence in trying to avoid grievous bodily harm or death.
> 
> When the warning shot was fired is dependant on your statement to the Police.
> 
> Ben



Seeing as how you did not bother reading the sections of the code I mentioned, no the criminal does not need to be IN your house Section 40 Defence of Dwelling


> 40. *Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority*



Section 41 Defence of House or Real Property


> *41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
> 
> Assault by trespasser
> (2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.*



Section 25 Protection of Persons Administering and Enforcing the Law


> 25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
> 
> (a) *as a private person*,
> 
> ...



The criminal does not need a weapon for you to use deadly force, all you need is the belief that on reasonable grounds that deadly force was your only option to preserve your life or the life of another person. Example, if you are a 5'0" 100 man/woman, and the person breaking into your house is like a 6'5" 240lbs bodybuilder, you would definetately have reasonable grounds to believe that person could cause grievous bodily or death to you, even if they did not have a weapon.  Lastly I have not seen it written anywhere that you are required to fire a warning shot (If you know where this is written please enlighten me), the police don't fire warning shots so why would a private citizen?   We are not in Bosnia.



			
				Old Ranger said:
			
		

> We would hope!   Crown and Police not having to bend to political pressure.
> 
> Ben


   Actually there was an incident in Scarborough last year were, a bunch of thugs tried ripping off a store near Cedarbrae Mall, and the store owner killed one of the thugs in self defence.   He was not charged at all, in fact the dead guys accomplisses were actually tried and convicted of the killing.   (This happened like two or three weeks ago).   So yeah if the police feel you are justified in your actions they will not charge you.


----------



## Slim (8 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Yes, you're correct.



No I'd be somewhat cautious about assuming that...

Anyone who defends themself with a firearm in Canada can expect to enter the Criminal Justice System in Canada and have to go through the whole trial thing in order to be exonorated of the charge, be it Murder 2, manslaughter or whatever.

I am anassistnat instructor at a shooting school that teaches private security (amoung others) to use firearms.

Most of the examples are concerning armoured car guards.

Several times in Ontario  A.C.G. have had to use firearms to defend themselves. Even though they are holders of ATC's they were still arrested and brought before a judge to answer for the incidnet.


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Dec 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> No I'd be somewhat cautious about assuming that...
> 
> Anyone who defends themself with a firearm in Canada can expect to enter the Criminal Justice System in Canada and have to go through the whole trial thing in order to be exonorated of the charge, be it Murder 2, manslaughter or whatever.
> 
> ...


  Cause the cops and crown did not think the shootings were justified.  They would not have pursued the matter, if they didn't believe the guards had f'ed up.


----------



## Old Ranger (8 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man,

I'm glad that I stand corrected.   Warning shot was from someone who actually did time defending his house and family.   Police told him there should have been a warning shot fired above the door frame.

In your Police studies, you might get to see the video of a gangbanger firing a handgun (canted sideways) at a store clerk.   Scum bag emptied the clip and missed...Store clerk hit said idiot upside the head with a baseball bat..then did time.

And are you sure about Police not bending (somewhat) to political influence?

Regards Ben.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Anyone who defends themself with a firearm in Canada can expect to enter the Criminal Justice System in Canada and have to go through the whole trial thing in order to be exonorated of the charge, be it Murder 2, manslaughter or whatever.



Is this due to firearms legistlation or is it locked in case-law in the criminal code?


----------



## Slim (8 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Cause the cops and crown did not think the shootings were justified.   They would not have pursued the matter, if they didn't believe the guards had f'ed up.



No...Not really true...

I know what you're saying and this time last year would've thoght the same.

howeer I've been involved in too many cases that should have been clear cut in favour of the ACG but were not treated by the police as such.

I'll ask my higher at work if I can present some of these cases to you all.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Dec 2005)

Just to clarify my comment; yes, Hatchet Man is correct that it is possible you will not be charged for defending yourself.  That's up to the police and the criminal justice system.  We have had "vigilantes" here in Calgary defend themselves also and not have charges brought against them.  However, as I said originally, there are no guarantees either way.


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Dec 2005)

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> Hatchet Man,
> 
> I'm glad that I stand corrected.   Warning shot was from someone who actually did time defending his house and family.   Police told him there should have been a warning shot fired above the door frame.
> 
> ...



Where was this out of curiosity?  I am thinking Infanteer may be onto something in that people getting busted for self defence related charges may be due to the case law out there which is its own can of worms.  I also agree with you Michael in that there are no real guarantees about being charged or not, it all comes down to how you cover your a$$ and how well you articulate your answers to the investigating officers.  In any case I think this topic has gotten far enough off its original track, that we can all agree to an extent that while the statute law is pretty cut and dry about when you can use force(including deadly force) and for what circumstances, the common law is very likely not so cut and dry (thanks alot bleeding heart lefties).


----------



## Old Ranger (8 Dec 2005)

Since we are a little of track, do you know any good defence lawyers??

Just in case of course. ;D

I'll ask my brother if he remembers the video.  (might be a while for an answer)

Ben


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Dec 2005)

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> Since we are a little of track, do you know any good defence lawyers??
> 
> Just in case of course. ;D
> 
> ...


 Clayton Ruby


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Where was this out of curiosity?   I am thinking Infanteer may be onto something in that people getting busted for self defence related charges may be due to the case law out there which is its own can of worms.   I also agree with you Michael in that there are no real guarantees about being charged or not, it all comes down to how you cover your a$$ and how well you articulate your answers to the investigating officers.   In any case I think this topic has gotten far enough off its original track, that we can all agree to an extent that while the statute law is pretty cut and dry about when you can use force(including deadly force) and for what circumstances, the common law is very likely not so cut and dry (thanks alot bleeding heart lefties).



WTF. Only an idiot would talk to the police after killing someone, self defence or otherwise. Thats why most criminals are idiots. Much of the underlying theory behind modern common law defences pre-date the criminal code. It has nothing to do with bleeding heart lefties- a good deal of common law defences arise or are developed in response to bizarre theories of liability advanced by the Crown.


----------



## Slim (8 Dec 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> WTF. Only an idiot would talk to the police after killing someone, self defence or otherwise. Thats why most criminals are idiots. Much of the underlying theory behind modern common law defences pre-date the criminal code. It has nothing to do with bleeding heart lefties- a good deal of common law defences arise or are developed in response to bizarre theories of liability advanced by the Crown.



Case in point a martial artist who was attacked outside a bar in toronto several years ago, was able to defend himself with very minimal force, and was convicted for it.

I'm going to try and find that story but Whiskey may already be familier with the specifics of the case.


----------



## TCBF (8 Dec 2005)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"personal defense is not a justified reason for owning a firearm in Canada..thats in the CC as well.:

- The reason you own it is immaterial to your necessity in using it in an act of self defence.

"The criminal has to be inside you house, with a weapon, and there must be evidence of a warning shot to show do diligence in trying to avoid grievous bodily harm or death."

- B_llsh_t.   Pure and utter.   And please don't say "A cop told me."   I will laugh even harder.   

Tom


----------



## Slim (8 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "personal defense is not a justified reason for owning a firearm in Canada..thats in the CC as well.:
> 
> 
> ...



No Tom

Its not BS. There are far too many bank and Armoured car guards out here who have been convicted, or at least gone though, the justice system after being involved in what we would consider to be a righteous shoot. And done in the course of their normal employment (ie guarding money or other valuables) I'm talking about people in Ontario, employed and trained by Armoured car companies, and in the course of their normal lawful duties.

Even though the CCC says that you have the right to use reasonalbe force up to and including deadly force if you doi so you WILL be arrested, you WILL be incarcerated (if only briefly) and you and your employer will be forced to defend yourselves in a court of law.

And...even if your aquited of any criminal charges you can still be heald civilly liable for any damage to persons or property that you cause during the course of your duties.


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Dec 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Case in point a martial artist who was attacked outside a bar in toronto several years ago, was able to defend himself with very minimal force, and was convicted for it.
> 
> I'm going to try and find that story but Whiskey may already be familier with the specifics of the case.



Converseley, a martial artist in calgary, after getting attacked with a hatchet, killed his assailant using only his bare hands, and wasn't charged.  Here's an early article reporting the news:



> Judo expert: After taking two blows to the head, man slays assailant with his bare hands
> http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.h........d={7356155D-7EA7-45C2-8440-27C77D53EF1B}
> Tourist kills campsite assailant
> 
> ...



So, obviously, killing someone in self defense in no way means that you will be arrested or charged.  It's the circumstances surrounding the incident that affect how you're treated.  If, for instance, you use a prohibited or unregistered firearm, or if you use a firearm on public land where you had no business to be carrying one, you'll deffinitely be arrested and investigated.  If the circumstances don't clearly indicate that it WAS self defence, you'll be questioned and possibly arrested.  If the police feel you used an unreasonable ammount of force, you'll be charged.


----------



## TCBF (9 Dec 2005)

"Secondly, using a firearm to defend what you may think is your property may very well get you charged.  Check out the Wiebo case. "

- You would have to be an idiot to say that you were defending your property.  Weibo (or whoever fired the shot)feared for his life, and rightly so, as a motor vehicle was being used in a dangerous and threatening manner on his land and it almost hit one of his family.   

That is why no one was ever charged or convicted for that act.  He went to jail for his oil well activities.

Tom


----------



## Old Ranger (9 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "The criminal has to be inside you house, with a weapon, and there must be evidence of a warning shot to show do diligence in trying to avoid grievous bodily harm or death."
> 
> - B_llsh_t.   Pure and utter.   And please don't say "A cop told me."   I will laugh even harder.
> ...



Tom, that was a story from someone who did time protecting his home and family.

He said the warning shot was advice from the Police after the fact.  Hatchet Man was good enough to quote CC to correct me.

But always happy to make you laugh...."A cop told me."

Cheers,

Ben


----------



## Slim (9 Dec 2005)

> Okay, your first post said you "can't", now you say "You can, BUT:.."



I didn't say can't...I said in my origional post that there is no provision for owning a firearm in Canada for self-defense. And that if you cap someone, whether its in the course of your legal duties (police excluded of course due to the Admirals rules the CFO's office enjoys here in ontario) you will probably be charged, you will most certainly be taken into custody and can fully expect to be processed through the legal system prior to being exhonorated.


----------



## TCBF (9 Dec 2005)

Ben,

Cool.  I just get frustrated at the continous legislative and regulatory harrassment directed at the RFC (Recreational Firearms Community) caused in part by the apathy of Canadians who niether know or care what rights they actually do have.

I guess it comes down to use it or lose it.

Tom


----------



## 48Highlander (9 Dec 2005)

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> Tom, that was a story from someone who did time protecting his home and family.
> 
> He said the warning shot was advice from the Police after the fact.  Hatchet Man was good enough to quote CC to correct me.
> 
> ...



So how did that encounter go exactly?

Burglar walks through the door and stops.

*bang*

STOP!

*bang*

OR I'LL

*BANG*

SHOOT!

As I said, it depends on the circumstances.  If your buddy did time for "defending his family", obviously the cops, the crown, and the judge and jurry all felt he had other options.  A warning shot is not only unneccesary, but a really bad idea.  Shoot you door-frame?  Yep, and when that round busts through and hits some poor guy walking his dog, you'll DEFFINITELY be going to jail.


----------



## Old Ranger (9 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> So how did that encounter go exactly?
> 
> Burglar walks through the door and stops.
> 
> ...



Not that any of that matters, 

I like Tom's Passion and understanding.


----------



## TCBF (9 Dec 2005)

"I didn't say can't...I said in my origional post that there is no provision for owning a firearm in Canada for self-defense. And that if you cap someone, whether its in the course of your legal duties (police excluded of course due to the Admirals rules the CFO's office enjoys here in ontario) you will probably be charged, you will most certainly be taken into custody and can fully expect to be processed through the legal system prior to being exhonorated."

That doesn't mean "You don't have a right to."  Exercising that right will prompt an over reaction from the justice industry to be sure (you are, after all, breaking their rice bowl by removing a major source of their income from the gene pool).  But, once all of the hoops have been cleared, your rights will stand.

You would still be alive.

I do love the way this is sold to women, who foolishly fall for the myth that a dead woman - raped then strangled by her own panty hose - is morally superior to a live woman with a smoking gun standing over the dead body of her attacker.

Points?

Tom


----------



## Slim (9 Dec 2005)

I couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## The_Falcon (9 Dec 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> I didn't say can't...I said in my origional post that there is no provision for owning a firearm in Canada for self-defense. And that if you cap someone, whether its in the course of your legal duties (police excluded of course due to the Admirals rules the CFO's office enjoys here in ontario) you will probably be charged, you will most certainly be taken into custody and can fully expect to be processed through the legal system prior to being exhonorated.



I am hesitant to believe that without knowing the details of the incidents you mentioned.   When I was at Brinks earlier this year, our use of force training was very specific to where and when we were allowed to draw and discharge our sidearms.   99% of the scenarios we were told to just give up the money and get the hell out of there.   There was an incident earlier this year in York Region in which a Securicor truck was held up and the Guard fired warning shots in the air.   Now I don't know what happened to him, but it would not surprise me if he was charged, and if he was I agree with the charge.   I don't know if it is possible Slim, but if you can provide specifics to back up your arguments it would help, as you have requested others from time to time.


----------



## TCBF (9 Dec 2005)

"the money and get the hell out of there.   There was an incident earlier this year in York Region in which a Securicor truck was held up and the Guard fired warning shots in the air.   Now I don't know what happened to him, but it would not surprise me if he was charged, and if he was I agree with the charge.   I don't know if it is possible Slim, but if you can provide specifics to back up your arguments it would help, as you have requested others from time to time."

- Righto.   If you are defending the money, it is not self defence.   If the armed bad guy(s), however, convince you that your life is in immediate danger of being snuffed out, and you really do "fear for your life" then a warning shot is both unecessary and in fact counter productive.

Now, if you go to grab the money/property/TV set BACK from the puke, you are using the minimum effort to safeguard your belongings.   If the puke then directs his attention to YOU, and you then feel you reasonably fear for your life, weather you are right or wrong, you will have a somewhat tougher go if you slot the monkey.

Not saying you are not correct in doing so, but it might be easier to let the BBQ go over the fence.

Point is: that would be YOUR call - not the courts, not the pukes.

Is a scuffle triggered by a BBQ worth a life?   Well, not mine, not yours.   Is it worth the puke's life?   That's his call. If he thinks not, he can leave without it.

We're easy.

Tom


----------



## TCBF (9 Dec 2005)

My letters to the Editor - feel free to plagarize them 500 times if you must ( ;D):

 mailbag@edmsun.com   
Subject Ltr to the Editor 

               Show additional options 

Sir,

Edmonton Police Association President Peter Ratcliff stated
"Every handgun that killed a person started out legally
somewhere."
Okay, and every prostitute started out as a virgin. And
every cop charged under the police act started out as a good
cop. We could go on. What exactly is his point?

(And...)

 letters@thejournal.canwest.com   
Subject (no subject) 

               Show additional options 

Dear Sir,

This is "Hillbilly Logic": Peggy-Sue is asking Elly-May why
she has a black eye and a fat lip - again.   Elly-May says
that her boyfriend, Billy-Joe-Jim-Bob, beats her daily. 
Peggy sue asks her why she doesn't leave him and get a new
boyfriend. Elly-May says "Well, any new boyfriend I get
might beat me too."
Thats Hillbilly Logic - that's Liberal voters.

Tom


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (9 Dec 2005)

I have always used a shortsword for home defence.  Three feet of shining steel do a hell of a job of convincing intruders to beat feet (even when they are holding crowbars or other items of greater practical lethality), and if you have to use it, it doesn't punch through walls to kill sleeping neighbors or family members the way that pistol and rifle fire does.  I can't imagine wanting to use a firearm in a townhouse complex, even if my double tap to the chest was bang on, do I want to bet the punk will survive, but the round bouncing off his vertebra will kill the infant across the street, the baby sitter next door, or my eldest's best friend who lives kitty-corner?  Half the people on this list have been under fire, you all know as well as I do that only in the movies do bullets magically stop when the hit their target, we've all had ricochets howl past us, had close calls or injuries from rounds that meandered all over the bleeding place before finding someplace soft and to land.  The last thing I want is my neighbor trying to defend his home with a hail of 9mm that has a greater chance of killing me and mine, than it does his intruder.  I am in favour of keeping handguns out of the hands of amateurs.  I have long favoured an automatic 5 year addition to the sentence of any crime where an unlicensed firearm was used or seized.  Let the guy do sixty days for his million dollar grow op (who cares), but do five years min for having the arsenal (they all do).  If we let you off with a slap on the wrist for robbing the liquor store (because we will), then slap that extra five years on for using a gun to do it, maybe they will switch back to knives (less killing, less empowering for cowards).


----------



## R0B (9 Dec 2005)

Well, if you have something like a .25 with JHP bullets, I don't really think you need to worry about stray bullets unless you miss.

I hope your sword will protect you if such a horrible situation would confront you, but a lot of crimianls would not hesitate to try to take it away from you, anyways. Especially if you're intent on detaining them until the police arrive, or if there are two or more of them.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (10 Dec 2005)

R0B said:
			
		

> Well, if you have something like a .25 with JHP bullets, I don't really think you need to worry about stray bullets unless you miss.
> 
> I hope your sword will protect you if such a horrible situation would confront you, but a lot of crimianls would not hesitate to try to take it away from you, anyways. Especially if you're intent on detaining them until the police arrive, or if there are two or more of them.


     Son the police detain people, if I respond to an intruder in my home with my sword, they have until I reach them to flee, for I shall not pursue. If any man stands against me in my home, he will surely die for it, as the army neither trained me to hesitate nor to disable.  If he has a firearm, then the odds are that a single bullet will not kill me, even if it hits me, and before he can get a second, he will be discovering that the killing stroke of the hoplites and the roman legions has lost none of its effect, and I have drilled it into muscle memory using the same techniques that they did.  There were once three intruders, had they fled less swiftly, they would have found that while wheat may outnumber the scythe, the smart money is on the scythe.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Dec 2005)

Man, that was like poetry - self-defence poetry.   :cheers:


----------



## TCBF (10 Dec 2005)

"Son the police detain people, if I respond to an intruder in my home with my sword, they have until I reach them to flee, for I shall not pursue. If any man stands against me in my home, he will surely die for it, as the army neither trained me to hesitate nor to disable.  If he has a firearm, then the odds are that a single bullet will not kill me, even if it hits me, and before he can get a second, he will be discovering that the killing stroke of the hoplites and the roman legions has lost none of its effect, and I have drilled it into muscle memory using the same techniques that they did.  There were once three intruders, had they fled less swiftly, they would have found that while wheat may outnumber the scythe, the smart money is on the scythe."

- Churchillian in it's elegance.  
My hat is off to you, sir.



Tom


----------



## Infanteer (10 Dec 2005)

I firmly believe that Canada needs a "Castle Doctrine" enshrined into law - this needs to be backed by a clear constitutional protection of the right to private property.   Why should anybody be forced, under the threat of legal punishment, to abandon their hearth and home to a criminal who has unlawfully invaded it?

http://www.snowbirds.org/html/gunlaw.html



> On October 1, 2005 a new Florida law came into effect.
> Regrettably some anti-gun groups are engaging in a wide-reaching advertising campaign that would give the impression that Florida is no longer a safe tourist destination. This is not true.
> 
> Florida believes in the "castle doctrine" which actually dates back to the Middle Ages. The doctrine proposes that a person's home (castle) is a safe haven for him/herself and their family. In Florida, a person acting in self-defence outside of his/her home or workplace has a duty to use every reasonable means to avoid danger, including retreat, prior to using deadly force. In the event that an individual (the victim) chooses to defend him/herself and the attacker becomes injured or killed, the victim could be charged with assault or an even more serious crime.
> ...


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Dec 2005)

This little item (and 2 more just like it strategically placed) are my home defence system.  I had the unfortunate need to produce it once.  Druggie home electronics relocation specialist got one clear look at it, peed his kilt, and headed for the high heather.  Power perceived is power achieved.. >


----------



## 48Highlander (10 Dec 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> This little item (and 2 more just like it strategically placed) are my home defence system.   I had the unfortunate need to produce it once.   Druggie home electronics relocation specialist got one clear look at it, peed his kilt, and headed for the high heather.   Power perceived is power achieved.. >



And isn't it amazing how much more often you win at Texas Hold'em when you have an "item" like that sitting right beside you?


----------



## Slim (10 Dec 2005)

I spent just under 14 years training in this fine establishment.

Home invaders can come by if they want to...

http://www.kageyamadojo.com/index.html


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I firmly believe that Canada needs a "Castle Doctrine" enshrined into law - this needs to be backed by a clear constitutional protection of the right to private property.  Why should anybody be forced, under the threat of legal punishment, to abandon their hearth and home to a criminal who has unlawfully invaded it?



As I pointed out in the other thread - how often do total strangers break into other people's homes with the intent of killing the occupants?  Most murders in Canada are done by people who are known to the victims.  

In other words, why should the mere act of trespassing carry the death penalty?


----------



## Slim (10 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> As I pointed out in the other thread - how often do total strangers break into other people's homes with the intent of killing the occupants?   Most murders in Canada are done by people who are known to the victims.
> 
> In other words, why should the mere act of trespassing carry the death penalty?



Well...just to play Devil's advocate (stealing your role for a change Mike) home invasions, which were virtually unheard of just a few short years ago, now seem to be on the rise as criminals realize that people (for the most part) are pretty helpless in their homes.

A good many have taken place in Toronto in the last little while.

I, for one, would welcome the "Castle Law" in this country!


----------



## 48Highlander (10 Dec 2005)

They may not break in with the intent of murdering the occupants, but how many incidents has there been recently of "them" breaking in, tying people up, raping the women, and stealing anything not nailed down?

Knowing you have the option to employ your firearm would make you more confident in handling such a situation, and at the same time would put doubt and fear into "their" minds.  If I want to rob and rape some random woman, these days I really have very little to discourage me.  Even if I'm caught, I'll spend what, maybe 2 years in jail?  If on the other hand I know that every time I break into a house I may end up getting my head blown off, I'd be a lot lesslikely to do it, eh?


----------



## Slim (10 Dec 2005)

Most criminal types fear very little...

Certainly not the police from what my limited experience has already shown me.

They don't fear the courts

...But they do fear death or pers injury!


----------



## Infanteer (10 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> As I pointed out in the other thread - how often do total strangers break into other people's homes with the intent of killing the occupants?   Most murders in Canada are done by people who are known to the victims.



In my hometown (10,000 people) we just had a guy caught for home invasion.   A meth head, he would approach a random house and try the front door.   If locked, he used a shotgun to blow the door down.   Once inside, he would hold up the inhabitants with said shotgun for whatever money they had - he hit one house for $17 cash.   He hit 3 houses in a week before he was finally caught.   Now, I'm not saying it would be wise to engage him, especially if he got the jump on you while you were watching Hockey Night in Canada, but you shouldn't be legally obligated to be a victim if you found the opportunity to repel him.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85F0027XIE/85F0027XIE2002002.pdf

Although narrowly defined, 2/3's of home invasions are done by strangers.   There is a weapon present in over half of them and about half report an injury.   Sure, home invasion (narrowly defined) is a small percentage of recorded crime, but what difference does that make?   The criminal code and the police that enforce it are reactive measures - they respond to the commission of a crime and seek to punish transgressors accordingly.   You are already a victim once they are involved.   A "Castle Doctrine" is a preemptive measure - it gives citizens the legal backing to protect themselves and their homes (or vehicles) against illegal tresspass.   Besides, what difference to the numbers make?   One person who is becomes a victim due to our legal system is bad enough.   You can't say for certain what an "invader" (broadly defined) is going to do - steal your stereo (very likely)?   Hurt you in the effort to get something (somewhat likely)?   Rape or murder you (unlikely)?   Burn your house down?   Steal your car?   Preempt that uncertainty by sending the message to criminals that once they violate the security of somebody's house, they leave the "public domain" and enter the "private" where they take their lives into their own hands.

Why should person being targetted with a crime in their own home be forced to have to figure out what the intentions of the criminal are?   In my opinion, any law that empowers a targeted citizen over the criminal is a good one.



> In other words, why should the mere act of trespassing carry the death penalty?



That's not what the law states - did you read what I posted, especially the bold parts?   It is not a death sentence, it is the legal backdrop to letting criminals know that, irregardless of their intentions, that they can expect lawful, *matching comparable force* if they invade your private abode (up to and including deadly force, but not necessarily meaning it).   Why should criminals expect to be free from harm as long as they don't target you in the process of violating your hearth and home?.   Your private dwelling is an extention of your personal space - the "Castle Doctrine" acts as a legal protection to citizens who prefer to stand their ground instead of forcing them to flee and become victims in order to avoid legal sanction.


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Dec 2005)

As I have said time and again Section 40 and 41   of the Criminal Code of Canada, give you permision to use* FORCE* to prevent someone from unlawfully entering your home, and removing them once they are in your house.  Use of force, and what is reasonable is covered under Sections 25-27.  There is NOTHING in the code that say you have to flee your house, if there was why would there be provision in the code that allow you do to the exact opposite.  The fact is there are cops out there who get rather incensed when they perceive people to be taking the law into their own inhands.  That is the culprit propagating this attitude that we can't defend oursleves in our own home, that we have to tuck tail and run; ignorants cops and overzealous prosecutors who are ignorant and/or indifferent to the laws on the books the expressly ALLOW us to use force to defend our homes.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Dec 2005)

Obviously "Defence of a Dwelling" and "Defence of house or real property" aren't clear enough to do so if citizens are getting tagged for using force on perps.


----------



## R0B (10 Dec 2005)

You're only allowed to use "as much force as is reasonably necessary." If you stab someone who breaks into your house unarmed, you'll almost certainly be charged for it. If you shoot anyone who does not have a gun, especially with today's anti-gun climate, you'll almost certainly spend some time in jail. Your best bet, if you use a firearm to protect your home, your family or yourself, is to try cover-up the crime afterwards.

In order to tackle this issue, Canada really needs to pass something on the order of this American bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-47



> A BILL
> To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and
> to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and
> to provide for the enforcement of such right.
> ...


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Obviously "Defence of a Dwelling" and "Defence of house or real property" aren't clear enough to do so if citizens are getting tagged for using force on perps.



It seems very clear to me. It just some police officers tend to very disapproving of citizens doing thing that encroach on their territory.   When Ross Mcleod started Intelligarde in the 80s the police would actually arrest the security officers for assault after the security officer arrested someone under the Trespass to Property Act.   This happened on routine basis, because they were ignorant of the Fact that Ontario Trepass to Property Act contained arrest provisions, and they were also ignorant of Section 494 of the Criminal Code (which covered citizens powers of arrest).   He had to go to each police divison and teach the police about these sections of the law.   I think the criminal code provisions Sec 40 and 41 are fine the way they are, it is the police/crown (and it would seem quite large number of people in the civil population) who need the adjustment.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Dec 2005)

I think the USC that R0B put up spells out in plain English what needs to happen.


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Dec 2005)

R0B said:
			
		

> You're only allowed to use "as much force as is reasonably necessary." If you stab someone who breaks into your house unarmed, you'll almost certainly be charged for it. If you shoot anyone who does not have a gun, especially with today's anti-gun climate, you'll almost certainly spend some time in jail. Your best bet, if you use a firearm to protect your home, your family or yourself, is to try cover-up the crime afterwards.



Reasonableness is dependant on the circumstanse and how well you articulate what happend to the police.   Your scenarios are too ambiguous, for example if I were a 5'2" 120lbs person (man/woman it doesn't matter in this case), and the intruder was in 6' 215lb range, stabbing that intruder even if they were unarmed would not be unreasonable given the size difference.   It would also not be unreasonable to stab that person, even if we were both approximately the same size (height/weight) and this time in the intruder is high on drugs and impervious to pain.   Also a person does not need to have a firearm in order for them to be dangerous enough that deadly is a viable option.   A person with a knife/icepick/awl, is just as dangerous as person with a firearm if not more so especially in a close situation.   It has been documented and proven that you need a minimum distance of 25-30 feet to create a safe zone for you to engage a hostile person with a knife, if you are using a firearm.   I doubt most of us here of that kind of floor space in our homes.


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think the USC that R0B put up spells out in plain English what needs to happen.



I agree but in this country at this time that is very unlikely to happen any time some, so in the mean time it looks like we are stuck with S. 40 and 41.  We could hope that the coppers who read these boards put a little post-it in their criminal codes, and tell their cop buddies about these sections.


----------



## R0B (10 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Reasonableness is dependant on the circumstanse and how well you articulate what happend to the police.   Your scenarios are too ambiguous, for example if I were a 5'2" 120lbs person (man/woman it doesn't matter in this case), and the intruder was in 6' 215lb range, stabbing that intruder even if they were unarmed would not be unreasonable given the size difference.   It would also not be unreasonable to stab that person, even if we were both approximately the same size (height/weight) and this time in the intruder is high on drugs and impervious to pain.   Also a person does not need to have a firearm in order for them to be dangerous enough that deadly is a viable option.   A person with a knife/icepick/awl, is just as dangerous as person with a firearm if not more so especially in a close situation.   It has been documented and proven that you need a minimum distance of 25-30 feet to create a safe zone for you to engage a hostile person with a knife, if you are using a firearm.   I doubt most of us here of that kind of floor space in our homes.



The entire reasonableness thing is purposely vague so that the courts can interpret it as they wish; what you might find reasonable may not be deemed reasonable by the courts. I'd say, if you stab someone for breaking into your house, you're going to get charged unless you were actually physically attacked. And even then, there's a pretty good chance you'll still face charges, especially if you cause death or serious injury. In fact, if you kill someone for breaking into your house, I'm just about certain that you would be charged with manslaughter, at the very least.
A lot of it boils down to police discretion. If you live in a small town, you're more likely to avoid prosecution than if you were in Toronto.
Regardless, the ambiguity of this law is a bad thing.


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

R0B said:
			
		

> The entire reasonableness thing is purposely vague so that the courts can interpret it as they wish; what you might find reasonable may not be deemed reasonable by the courts. I'd say, if you stab someone for breaking into your house, you're going to get charged unless you were actually physically attacked. And even then, there's a pretty good chance you'll still face charges, especially if you cause death or serious injury. In fact, if you kill someone for breaking into your house, I'm just about certain that you would be charged with manslaughter, at the very least.
> A lot of it boils down to police discretion. If you live in a small town, you're more likely to avoid prosecution than if you were in Toronto.
> Regardless, the ambiguity of this law is a bad thing.



It's ambiguous because it's impossible to account for every possible scenario in this situation. It leaves the courts room to interpret each individual case. 

Using as "much force as is reasonably necessary" may very well apply to stabbing an unarmed trespasser. For example, I'm a 5'2" female weighing 115 lbs soaking wet. If the trespasser is twice my weight and shows any resistance to leaving my property, then I could reasonably use more force than say, a man of the same size could use. Put some small kids into the house and again the situation changes again, more into my favour. 

As long as you can justify your actions you'll find that the Criminal Justice System often favours the property owner.


----------



## Slim (12 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> It's ambiguous because it's impossible to account for every possible scenario in this situation. It leaves the courts room to interpret each individual case.
> 
> Using as "much force as is reasonably necessary" may very well apply to stabbing an unarmed trespasser. For example, I'm a 5'2" female weighing 115 lbs soaking wet. If the trespasser is twice my weight and shows any resistance to leaving my property, then I could reasonably use more force than say, a man of the same size could use. Put some small kids into the house and again the situation changes again, more into my favour.
> 
> As long as you can justify your actions you'll find that the Criminal Justice System often favours the property owner.



Hi M.C.

I would just like to play Devil's advocate regarding you statement for a moment.

Am I correct in saying that a criminal can sue a homeowner (successfully) if he/she somehow injures themselves while gaining forced entry into your home? I believe that has happened in a number of cases here in Canada. I know tht issue is not exactly the topic but it is one part of a larger problem. Why does someone who is commision of a crime against anyone else have the right to pursue legal action against the person they were committing a crime on?

Now to your statement: some 5'2 ladies and gentlmen are far from helpless and can, with their bare hands, easily overpower and dissable anyone who is taller, heavier and stronger. Likewise some very large and strong people are not cut out to defend themselves against an attacker/home invader whatever. 

How do the courts deal with those types of cases?


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Hi M.C.
> 
> I would just like to play Devil's advocate regarding you statement for a moment.



Hey Slim. No prob.  



> Am I correct in saying that a criminal can sue a homeowner (successfully) if he/she somehow injures themselves while gaining forced entry into your home? I believe that has happened in a number of cases here in Canada. I know tht issue is not exactly the topic but it is one part of a larger problem. Why does someone who is commision of a crime against anyone else have the right to pursue legal action against the person they were committing a crime on?



As far as I know, anyone has the right to pursue civil action on anyone for anything. The real question is whether they can convince a Judge that their case has a leg to stand on. 



> Now to your statement: some 5'2 ladies and gentlmen are far from helpless and can, with their bare hands, easily overpower and dissable anyone who is taller, heavier and stronger. Likewise some very large and strong people are not cut out to defend themselves against an attacker/home invader whatever.
> 
> How do the courts deal with those types of cases?



Hmmm...are you asking, for example, should a small female who is a blackbelt in martial arts be expected to use her bare-hands vs. using a knife/weapon because she's more physically capable? 

I dunno. Good question. But I doubt the courts would dig that far into her history/training. 

If she's a more physically capable small female and she kicked the guy's a$$ in whatever fashion, I'd call her a superstar.  8)


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Dec 2005)

If I break into your house and step into a bear trap, you can be found liable for illegally setting a trap.  Booby-traps of any kind are, as far as I know, illegal.


----------



## Old Ranger (12 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> If I break into your house and step into a bear trap, you can be found liable for illegally setting a trap.   Booby-traps of any kind are, as far as I know, illegal.



That I am positive is correct!

Ben


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> If I break into your house and step into a bear trap, you can be found liable for illegally setting a trap.  Booby-traps of any kind are, as far as I know, illegal.



Never heard of it. But who woulda thunk it? It exists: Criminal Code Sec 247.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Dec 2005)

I've posted this old saw before, but it bears repeating even if apocryphal.  Heard it from our Brigade RSM who was DM at the time.

Prosecutor: "Is it true that on the morning in question, you had come into your garage to find that the plaintiff was lying in your garage?"

Defendant: "Yes, it is."

Prosecutor: "And is it true that the plaintiff's fingers were caught on fishhooks and was unable to extricate himself, and had been lying there for several hours?"

Defendant: "Yes, it's true.'

Prosecutor: "And is it true that these fish-hooks were in place underneath the dash of your car, behind the stereo system, in a location that was impossible to see without disassembling the dash first?"

Defendant: "Yes, that is also true."

Prosecutor: "Is it true that you've had several stereos stolen from your automobile?"

Defendant: "Yes."

Prosecutor: "You may be interested in knowing that setting traps is illegal under the criminal code.  Is that not why you hid the fishhooks underneath the dash?"

Defendant: "No, I put them there because I didn't want the wires from my stereo dropping below the dash and looking untidy."

Judge: "Works for me, case dismissed."


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

;D


----------



## The_Falcon (12 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> It's ambiguous because it's impossible to account for every possible scenario in this situation. It leaves the courts room to interpret each individual case.
> 
> Using as "much force as is reasonably necessary" may very well apply to stabbing an unarmed trespasser. For example, I'm a 5'2" female weighing 115 lbs soaking wet. If the trespasser is twice my weight and shows any resistance to leaving my property, then I could reasonably use more force than say, a man of the same size could use. Put some small kids into the house and again the situation changes again, more into my favour.
> 
> As long as you can justify your actions you'll find that the Criminal Justice System often favours the property owner.



Thank you, took the words right out of my mouth.


----------



## dutchie (12 Dec 2005)

It is a fact that defending oneself in your own home is a criminal offence if you use firearms, but it doesn't make it right. The best way to not get shot is not to do something that warrants you getting shot. 

Gun control: I don't know, just a thought, but what ever happened to giving people enough rope to hang themselves, and then kicking out the stool from under them when they screw up?

I have had a complete reversal on this issue:

Make all pistols, rifles, and shotguns legal, with restrictions (like training, permits, etc). Keep them semi-auto, if you wish, and obviously anything bigger is a no-no (like say, a Carl G, artillery, MG42).

THEN, when someone commits a crime with one, kick the stool out, figuratively.

Sound good?


----------



## R0B (12 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> It's ambiguous because it's impossible to account for every possible scenario in this situation. It leaves the courts room to interpret each individual case.
> 
> Using as "much force as is reasonably necessary" may very well apply to stabbing an unarmed trespasser. For example, I'm a 5'2" female weighing 115 lbs soaking wet. If the trespasser is twice my weight and shows any resistance to leaving my property, then I could reasonably use more force than say, a man of the same size could use. Put some small kids into the house and again the situation changes again, more into my favour.
> 
> As long as you can justify your actions you'll find that the Criminal Justice System often favours the property owner.



Ambiguous laws are bad because they reduce the certainty of the law.

Stabbing an unarmed trespasser may be considered "reasonable" for you as a woman, especially if you claim you were afraid for your life and that the trespasser was intent on raping you, etc... A jury would probably go for that. On the other hand, if some woman tried breaking into my home and I were to do so little as say, punch her in the head, I'd almost certain be charged with assault.

In general though, if a home owner attacks with a weapon an unarmed intruder, they will be charged with assault, and they will almost certainly be found guilty if the intruder did not instigate violence. While the system tends generally to side with the homeowner, many people have been screwed by these laws.

The ambiguity of this particular law is a threat because it does not, as I believe it should, automatically vindicate the homeowner as H.R. 47 would. Occupants cannot be sure of the intentions of an intruder, so it would be prudent for them to err on the side of caution.


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

R0B said:
			
		

> Ambiguous laws are bad because they reduce the certainty of the law.
> 
> Stabbing an unarmed trespasser may be considered "reasonable" for you as a woman, especially if you claim you were afraid for your life and that the trespasser was intent on raping you, etc... A jury would probably go for that. On the other hand, if some woman tried breaking into my home and I were to do so little as say, punch her in the head, I'd almost certain be charged with assault.
> 
> ...



So how would you reduce the ambiguity of the law? How would you legislate it so as to account for your situation?


----------



## Infanteer (12 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> So how would you reduce the ambiguity of the law? How would you legislate it so as to account for your situation?



Read his post - he made reference to a specific piece of legislation in Congress that is posted on this thread.


----------



## The_Falcon (12 Dec 2005)

R0B said:
			
		

> Ambiguous laws are bad because they reduce the certainty of the law.


The laws regarding self-defence are not that ambiguous.   Force can be used as long as it is reasonable under the circumstances. It would be impossible to list every convievable scenario that might arise and the setting out what level of force you can use.   Thats why the police (in ontario at least) have the use of force wheel (there is a graphic of it here on this site)



> Stabbing an unarmed trespasser may be considered "reasonable" for you as a woman, especially if you claim you were afraid for your life and that the trespasser was intent on raping you, etc... A jury would probably go for that. On the other hand, if some woman tried breaking into my home and I were to do so little as say, punch her in the head, I'd almost certain be charged with assault.


Again you scenario is too vague.   Is this woman bigger than you, armed with a weapon, high on drugs?   There are a number of factors that are taken into account, not just geneder.



> In general though, if a home owner attacks with a weapon an unarmed intruder, they will be charged with assault, and they will almost certainly be found guilty if the intruder did not instigate violence. While the system tends generally to side with the homeowner, many people have been screwed by these laws.


   Do you have any specific instances to back up your claims?   Have you taken any kind of use of force training?   Taken any classes on the laws regarding use of force?   Spoken with any police officers about what you can and can not do legally to defend yourself?    Once again YOUR statement is the one that is being vague and amibigous, was this unarmed intruder larger than you physically, high on drugs and impervious to pain inflicted through empty hand techniques?




> The ambiguity of this particular law is a threat because it does not, as I believe it should, automatically vindicate the homeowner as H.R. 47 would. Occupants cannot be sure of the intentions of an intruder, so it would be prudent for them to err on the side of caution.



WTF, Occupants cannot be sure of the intentions of an intruder!?!   If someone is BREAKING into my house, it is not for tea and biscuits.   Only people who are involved in criminal activity would enter another persons home forcefully and illegally.   As well for the THIRD flippin time S. 40 and 41 say that I can use FORCE to prevent and/or remove people illegally inside my house.   I DO NOT need to know what there INTENT is.   If I did not invite them in they are not welcome.   It is because of weak-kneed statements like yours "to err on the side of caution" that we are in this mess in the first place.   If more and more people started asserting their rights, the prevailing tuck-tail and run attitudes in spite of what the law says we can do, will change.


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Read his post - he made reference to a specific piece of legislation in Congress that is posted on this thread.



Er, we don't have congress in Canada.


----------



## Slim (12 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> Er, we don't have congress in Canada.



He means the "Castle Law" in the stae of Florida


----------



## Infanteer (12 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> WTF, Occupants cannot be sure of the intentions of an intruder!?!    If someone is BREAKING into my house, it is not for tea and biscuits.    Only people who are involved in criminal activity would enter another persons home forcefully and illegally.   As well for the THIRD flippin time S. 40 and 41 say that I can use FORCE to prevent and/or remove people illegally inside my house. I DO NOT need to know what there INTENT is.    If I did not invite them in they are not welcome.    It is because of weak-kneed statements like yours "to err on the side of caution" that we are in this mess in the first place.    If more and more people started asserting their rights, the prevailing tuck-tail and run attitudes in spite of what the law says we can do, will change.



How can they assert their rights when ambiguities in the law have the potential to punish them?  For a third flipping time, despite what is written in the law books, there seems to be a general uncertainty about how a Canadian can lawfully protect themselves and their property.  If you read through this entire thread, you'll see that general ambiguity as the root of the entire discussion.  The idea of a "Castle Doctrine" was introduced as one measure to reduce such ambiguity.



			
				midgetcop said:
			
		

> Er, we don't have congress in Canada.



Thanks tips, I guess I should cash my B.A. in.  If you go back to the posts that got this debate going, you'll see how the Act of US Congress was introduced into this discussion.  More reading and less posting will save you from asking questions 3 pages after the fact.


----------



## The_Falcon (12 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> How can they assert their rights when ambiguities in the law have the potential to punish them?   For a third flipping time, despite what is written in the law books, there seems to be a general uncertainty about how a Canadian can lawfully protect themselves and their property.   If you read through this entire thread, you'll see that general ambiguity as the root of the entire discussion.   The idea of a "Castle Doctrine" was introduced as one measure to reduce such ambiguity.
> 
> Thanks tips, I guess I should cash my B.A. in.   If you go back to the posts that got this debate going, you'll see how the Act of US Congress was introduced into this discussion.   More reading and less posting will save you from asking questions 3 pages after the fact.



What ambiguities? The law is quite clear you CAN use FORCE to keep people out of your house.  The law is not the problem it is overzealous police and crowns who resent ordinary citizens using to the laws to thier advantage, and percieve that as vigilantism.  Even with a so-called castle law up here (or down there), there will still be cases of the police charging people with assualt/manslaughter etc.


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> How can they assert their rights when ambiguities in the law have the potential to punish them?  For a third flipping time, despite what is written in the law books, there seems to be a general uncertainty about how a Canadian can lawfully protect themselves and their property.  If you read through this entire thread, you'll see that general ambiguity as the root of the entire discussion.  The idea of a "Castle Doctrine" was introduced as one measure to reduce such ambiguity.
> 
> Thanks tips, I guess I should cash my B.A. in.  If you go back to the posts that got this debate going, you'll see how the Act of US Congress was introduced into this discussion.  More reading and less posting will save you from asking questions 3 pages after the fact.



Wow, thanks for the condescension.

Please link to a situation where Canadian law comes into conflict with U.S. law.??


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Dec 2005)

Vigilantism can be deemed to exist only when the police and courts function effectively.

If the police or courts can not or will not execute the power and responsibilities which people have delegated in the manner which the people expect, the power to safeguard one's rights reverts to the person.

That may not align with some people's view, and it may not even align with law as written in some jurisdictions, but those conflicts would simply indicate incorrect belief or poorly written law.  Legitimate law is never an end unto itself.  Some people tend to forget that and lose themselves in the minutiae of a sterile and imaginary legal environment divorced from the world as it is.


----------



## TCBF (12 Dec 2005)

Wot?  "Call 9-1-1 and Die!" not good enough for you?

 ;D

No statistics are kept as to the efficacy of the 911 service in halting an ongoing crime or apprehending an impending crime.  None.

Tom


----------



## Old Ranger (13 Dec 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Vigilantism can be deemed to exist only when the police and courts function effectively.



Did you mean Ineffectively?

Just there is alot of "Street Justice" going around.

Ben


----------



## dutchie (13 Dec 2005)

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> Did you mean Ineffectively?
> 
> Just there is alot of "Street Justice" going around.
> 
> Ben



I try not to answer others questions, but as Brad is not online right now.....

I think what he meant was that when the police and courts function effectively, taking the law into your own hands is unnecessary and amounts to vigilantism. When the police and courts function ineffectively, that same act of defence is justified, and within that persons rights, as the delegated authority has reverted back to the person. This is not vigilantism.


----------



## Old Ranger (13 Dec 2005)

Well said!

Ben


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Dec 2005)

Caesar is correct.


----------



## midgetcop (13 Dec 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> I try not to answer others questions, but as Brad is not online right now.....
> 
> I think what he meant was that when the police and courts function effectively, taking the law into your own hands is unnecessary and amounts to vigilantism. When the police and courts function ineffectively, that same act of defence is justified, and within that persons rights, as the delegated authority has reverted back to the person. This is not vigilantism.



I agree morally. When your own system has failed you time and time again, you have to take the matter into your hands. 

But I doubt those governments would agree that it's justified. It would probably be those very incompetant government's that would nail your a$$ to the wall for taking the law into your own hands.


----------



## Old Ranger (13 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> It would probably be those very incompetant government's that would nail your a$$ to the wall for taking the law into your own hands.



Oh...those Canadians should be carefull EH!


----------



## R0B (14 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> The laws regarding self-defence are not that ambiguous.  Force can be used as long as it is reasonable under the circumstances. It would be impossible to list every convievable scenario that might arise and the setting out what level of force you can use.  Thats why the police (in ontario at least) have the use of force wheel (there is a graphic of it here on this site)



Yes they are. Who decides what "reasonable" means? Not you, not the intruder, and in fact, "reasonableness" isn't decided until after the incident. What is and what is not reasonable has not been laid out as I believe it should.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Again you scenario is too vague.  Is this woman bigger than you, armed with a weapon, high on drugs?  There are a number of factors that are taken into account, not just geneder.
> Do you have any specific instances to back up your claims?  Have you taken any kind of use of force training?  Taken any classes on the laws regarding use of force?  Spoken with any police officers about what you can and can not do legally to defend yourself?   Once again YOUR statement is the one that is being vague and amibigous, was this unarmed intruder larger than you physically, high on drugs and impervious to pain inflicted through empty hand techniques?



Too vague? Like the Criminal Code of Canada? Allow me to clarify my scenario. She's a foot shorter than I am, and 40 lbs lighter, unarmed, climbing through a window, and maybe smoked a little crank. If I were to crack her skull open with my fist, I would probably be charged with aggravated assault.
The fact that you would even consider the gender, physical size and mental state of the intruder proves exactly what is wrong with the "reasonableness" standard. All that shouldn't matter. If they're breaking in to your house, they're breaking into your house. Do whatever you need to do to stop them.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> WTF, Occupants cannot be sure of the intentions of an intruder!?!  If someone is BREAKING into my house, it is not for tea and biscuits.  Only people who are involved in criminal activity would enter another persons home forcefully and illegally.  As well for the THIRD flippin time S. 40 and 41 say that I can use FORCE to prevent and/or remove people illegally inside my house.  I DO NOT need to know what there INTENT is.  If I did not invite them in they are not welcome.  It is because of weak-kneed statements like yours "to err on the side of caution" that we are in this mess in the first place.  If more and more people started asserting their rights, the prevailing tuck-tail and run attitudes in spite of what the law says we can do, will change.



Well, you can't be sure if their intention is just to steal stuff or to kill you.
But, the Criminal Code says you can use _reasonable_ force, and what is reasonable is not decided until after the incident. What is reasonable certainly doesn't include shooting an intruder, because for one, you're not supposed to have easy access to your firearms. But you don't know if the person is just breaking in to steal your TV, or if they're coming in with a stick of dynamite because a hollowed-out light bulb filled with meth told them you were Satan. Either way, in think in most indictable crimes, the victim is always right, and should be allowed to do whatever they need to do to stop that crime, so long as it doesn't involve crimes against individuals other than the attacker.



			
				midgetcop said:
			
		

> I agree morally. When your own system has failed you time and time again, you have to take the matter into your hands.
> 
> But I doubt those governments would agree that it's justified. It would probably be those very incompetant government's that would nail your a$$ to the wall for taking the law into your own hands.



Until the police can appear at the scene of a crime before it occurs, it will be necessary for people to take the law into their own hands. This can be done legally, if government would allow it.


----------



## TCBF (14 Dec 2005)

They do allow it.  As a citizen, you have the power of arrest.

Abuse it, and you are in trouble, but citizens often 'detain' criminals and wait for the police.

The authorities officially frown on this, as it breaks their rice bowl, but unofficially, moststreet cops appreciate it.

Tom


----------



## R0B (14 Dec 2005)

The citizen's power of arrest means very little without the threat of force a handgun offers.


----------



## The_Falcon (14 Dec 2005)

R0B said:
			
		

> Yes they are. Who decides what "reasonable" means? Not you, not the intruder, and in fact, "reasonableness" isn't decided until after the incident. What is and what is not reasonable has not been laid out as I believe it should.


NO it isn't.  Go pick up a copy of an annotated Criminal Code (you can find them in college/university bookstores), it provides explains the meanings of terms like "reasonableness" and provides case law to illustrate the law in action. Or seeing as how you are a student at U of T take some law classes.  As the use of force wheel used by police angencies in Ontario is certainly applicable to civillians (especially since most security companies use it and they are civillians)
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 If you follow this you will be fine.



> Too vague? Like the Criminal Code of Canada? Allow me to clarify my scenario. She's a foot shorter than I am, and 40 lbs lighter, unarmed, climbing through a window, and maybe smoked a little crank. If I were to crack her skull open with my fist, I would probably be charged with aggravated assault.
> The fact that you would even consider the gender, physical size and mental state of the intruder proves exactly what is wrong with the "reasonableness" standard. All that shouldn't matter. If they're breaking in to your house, they're breaking into your house. Do whatever you need to do to stop them.


  In this case yes you would be charged, and yeah I would agree with it.  If she is unarmed, and passive (ie not acting out wildly), then cracking her in the head right off the bat is excessive.  If other passive/less forceful means failed to get her to leave then you can crack her one.  There is no one size fits all response, and to try and make one will be fraught with many challenges both in criminal and CIVIL court.  You can do what you need to stop a person, but that does not mean always mean automatically jumping to highest level of response in the use of force.  Even the military must take into account multiple aspects of a situation before they use can deadly force.  And based on your premise that gender/size/mental state shouldn't matter then police can just beat people or shoot them at will. 



> Well, you can't be sure if their intention is just to steal stuff or to kill you.
> But, the Criminal Code says you can use _reasonable_ force, and what is reasonable is not decided until after the incident. What is reasonable certainly doesn't include shooting an intruder, because for one, you're not supposed to have easy access to your firearms. But you don't know if the person is just breaking in to steal your TV, or if they're coming in with a stick of dynamite because a hollowed-out light bulb filled with meth told them you were Satan. Either way, in think in most indictable crimes, the victim is always right, and should be allowed to do whatever they need to do to stop that crime, so long as it doesn't involve crimes against individuals other than the attacker.



It doesn't matter if they are going to steal from you or kill you, if the intruder makes you fear for your life, AND they have the means to take your life you can use deadly force.  BOTH must be present. As for the firearms, please point out in the Firearms Act or the Criminal Code where it says you can't have easy access to your firearms.  You can have easy access and still follow the law (safes with biometric locks come to mind).  Some people for various reasons go way beyond what is required of them. 




			
				R0B said:
			
		

> The citizen's power of arrest means very little without the threat of force a handgun offers.



Really? Have any real world experience to back up that absurd claim of yours? I have arrested plenty of people under the citizens arrest provision, and nevery once did I have a handgun.


----------



## R0B (14 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> NO it isn't.   Go pick up a copy of an annotated Criminal Code (you can find them in college/university bookstores), it provides explains the meanings of terms like "reasonableness" and provides case law to illustrate the law in action. Or seeing as how you are a student at U of T take some law classes.   As the use of force wheel used by police angencies in Ontario is certainly applicable to civillians (especially since most security companies use it and they are civillians)



If "reasonable" has been defined, then why not go ahead and define it here? The Criminal Code has been widely criticized for its uncertainty, namely in using words like "reasonable," "obscene," indecent" etc... and not sticking by any one particular definition. Your "force wheel" might apply to the police, but I'm not a peace officer. If I were to shoot someone with a handgun even if they were in my home, threatening grievous bodily harm or death with a firearm, I would almost certainly be charged. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that I would in fact be charged. I might be able to get off on a plea of necessity, but that's about it.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> In this case yes you would be charged, and yeah I would agree with it.   If she is unarmed, and passive (ie not acting out wildly), then cracking her in the head right off the bat is excessive.   If other passive/less forceful means failed to get her to leave then you can crack her one.   There is no one size fits all response, and to try and make one will be fraught with many challenges both in criminal and CIVIL court.   You can do what you need to stop a person, but that does not mean always mean automatically jumping to highest level of response in the use of force.   Even the military must take into account multiple aspects of a situation before they use can deadly force.   And based on your premise that gender/size/mental state shouldn't matter then police can just beat people or shoot them at will.



I'm not talking about the police, so don't prejudice this argument with your police studies education, I'm talking about civilians. If someone is breaking into my house, their physical and mental characteristics should not matter. What should matter, on the other hand, is that fact that someone is forcibly intruding into my residence, and thus my life, the lives of the other occupants, and the sanctity of my private property are all in jeopardy. I haven't been training in using a minimal amount of force to subjugate a perpetrator, so it should only be reasonable that I, or anyone else in my position, be allowed to use any amount of force felt to be necessary.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter if they are going to steal from you or kill you, if the intruder makes you fear for your life, AND they have the means to take your life you can use deadly force.   BOTH must be present. As for the firearms, please point out in the Firearms Act or the Criminal Code where it says you can't have easy access to your firearms.   You can have easy access and still follow the law (safes with biometric locks come to mind).   Some people for various reasons go way beyond what is required of them.



Fear for your life isn't enough, it needs to be "reasonable," and your reasonableness is not decided until the trial.

Firearms storage isn't mentioned in the criminal code. However, take a look at section 5.(1 c) of the Firearms Act. It reads as follows:

_An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into._

And of course, that's a non-restricted firearm; it only gets worse for restricted and prohibited weapons. The CFO of Ontario suggested the reasoning for this was that individuals could not reach their firearms in the heat of passion.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Really? Have any real world experience to back up that absurd claim of yours? I have arrested plenty of people under the citizens arrest provision, and nevery once did I have a handgun.



Why do you think people obey the police? People obey the police because they fear them. Try your citizen's arrest in Jane/Finch and see how that goes. Unless your victim is physically subdued, good luck with a citizen's arrest.


----------



## 48Highlander (14 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Really? Have any real world experience to back up that absurd claim of yours? I have arrested plenty of people under the citizens arrest provision, and nevery once did I have a handgun.



Ditto.

More applicably, every security guard in our country uses the exact same powers every time they arrest anyone, and very few have guns.  The ones with guns in fact usualy don't carry out arrests, they're only there to protect money.


----------



## TCBF (15 Dec 2005)

" As the use of force wheel used by police angencies "

CAUTION: The use of force wheel is necessitated by various provincial Police Acts.  These are notorious pieces of legislation which largely hobble the police in many of their responses.  You, as a citizen in your home, do NOT have your hands tied by the police act.  The Magna Carta (a mam's home is his castle) and 1500 years of common law back you up.

Most police will tell you about restrictions based on their realities - not yours.  They operate under the odious Police Act - you don't.

As suggested above - read the case law.  

Tom


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Dec 2005)

R0B said:
			
		

> If "reasonable" has been defined, then why not go ahead and define it here? The Criminal Code has been widely criticized for its uncertainty, namely in using words like "reasonable," "obscene," indecent" etc... and not sticking by any one particular definition. Your "force wheel" might apply to the police, but I'm not a peace officer. If I were to shoot someone with a handgun even if they were in my home, threatening grievous bodily harm or death with a firearm, I would almost certainly be charged. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that I would in fact be charged. I might be able to get off on a plea of necessity, but that's about it.



I will concede that reasonable is hard to define as it is a subjective term.   However that is more likely than not a good thing, as rigid defintions when used in the context of what is/is not excessive force would provide people little recourse if they found themselves at the short end of the stick.   Basically it boils down to common sense (which judging by you seems to be in short supply).   Was it designed by the police, yes it was but that does not preclude ordinary civillians from using it determine what is "reasonable" force in any given situation.   In fact most if not all private security firms use it for thier employees (who are civilians by the way, not peace officers).   Until you actually shoot someone in self-defence, how do you know for sure the police will charge you?   They may well in fact decide what you did was reasonable and justifiable and say good job.   As oft been said in this thread better Tried by 12 then carried by 6.   



> I'm not talking about the police, so don't prejudice this argument with your police studies education, I'm talking about civilians. If someone is breaking into my house, their physical and mental characteristics should not matter. What should matter, on the other hand, is that fact that someone is forcibly intruding into my residence, and thus my life, the lives of the other occupants, and the sanctity of my private property are all in jeopardy. I haven't been training in using a minimal amount of force to subjugate a perpetrator, so it should only be reasonable that I, or anyone else in my position, be allowed to use any amount of force felt to be necessary.



Ever heard the saying the police are the public and the public are the police?   Any discussion about the police and use of force is absolutely relevant to discussions as it relates to civilians.   They are subject to the same laws as us when it comes to using force/excessive force, the only difference is they get to use force in few more situations than civillians.   And as they use force in a multitude of situations on a daily basis anything they come up with to help decide what is reasonable force (like the use of force wheel) is absolutely useful to civillians as well.   Knowledge is power.   But it would seem you do not want seek knowledge that will save your butt in a situation like the ones posed. Whether you like it or not the physical and mental characteristics of a perpatrator factor into whether the force used to subdue them was justifiable.   Quit your gripping and deal with it.   If you really don't like it write your MP and petition them to change the law instead of bitchin how much you think the law should conform to your views.   



> Fear for your life isn't enough, it needs to be "reasonable," and your reasonableness is not decided until the trial.



I already said fear of you life isn't enough, read more thoroughly.   And once again if the police decide your actions were reasonable given the circumstances you won't be proceeding to trail.   They make the first decision.



> Firearms storage isn't mentioned in the criminal code. However, take a look at section 5.(1 c) of the Firearms Act. It reads as follows:
> 
> _An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into._
> 
> And of course, that's a non-restricted firearm; it only gets worse for restricted and prohibited weapons. The CFO of Ontario suggested the reasoning for this was that individuals could not reach their firearms in the heat of passion.


I am aware of the firearms regs, and nowhere does it say the you can't get access to your weapons quickly.   You just have to make sure no else can get to them quickly and easily.   A gun safe with a biometric lock does exactly that.   The guns and ammo are not readily accessible to others because they are in a safe (which is in location that only I know of that no one else would see), with a lock that can't be picked (easily) unless you have my thumb.



> Why do you think people obey the police? People obey the police because they fear them. Try your citizen's arrest in Jane/Finch and see how that goes. Unless your victim is physically subdued, good luck with a citizen's arrest.


   People obey because they have been taught from childhood to obey, they obey because most people know bad things will happen if they don't.   They obey because they understand they are only doing there job.   It is not necessarily because they fear them.   As for the second part, I have, as well as in Regent Park, Parkdale, Moss Park, Cabbagetown, Scarborough.   Not everyone in these areas is a gun toting banger, and even they comply on occasion without the threat of force.   Anymore smartas s comments?


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> " As the use of force wheel used by police angencies "
> 
> CAUTION: The use of force wheel is necessitated by various provincial Police Acts.   These are notorious pieces of legislation which largely hobble the police in many of their responses.   You, as a citizen in your home, do NOT have your hands tied by the police act.   The Magna Carta (a mam's home is his castle) and 1500 years of common law back you up.
> 
> ...


  But the police also have large and power Associations to back up their members.  I put up the use of force wheel, as it illustrates what is appropriate force in different situations, as the police are still subjects to the same laws as civillians regarding excessive force.  It is a reference guide only not a hard and fast way of doing things.  If more civillians followed this model (not just private security) they would be less likely to find themselves being charged with assault etc. while they were rightfully defending themselves/home/others.


----------



## TCBF (15 Dec 2005)

"If more civillians followed this model (not just private security) they would be less likely to find themselves being charged with assault etc. while they were rightfully defending themselves/home/others."

More likely to find themselves dead.  Police acts assume well trained and equiped police with lethal force at their hip and back-up.  Individuals cannot carry, and so the initial physical contact must be enough by itself to stop the offence and prevent it's continuation.  Escallation of force for police assumes access to deadly force - a gun - if needed, so they can afford to take risks - you can't.

Tom


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "If more civillians followed this model (not just private security) they would be less likely to find themselves being charged with assault etc. while they were rightfully defending themselves/home/others."
> 
> More likely to find themselves dead.   Police acts assume well trained and equiped police with lethal force at their hip and back-up.   Individuals cannot carry, and so the initial physical contact must be enough by itself to stop the offence and prevent it's continuation.   Escallation of force for police assumes access to deadly force - a gun - if needed, so they can afford to take risks - you can't.
> 
> Tom



? This is not part of the police services act (in Ontario).   Civillians use this wheel (the National use of Force wheel is located here http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/issues/102004/PDFS/page132_fig3.pdf it does not say firearm, merely lethal force)all the time, they are called security guards.   It does not assume anything, it is merely a guideline on how best to respond with force.   A gun is not the only means of inlicting deadly force, baseball bats, knives, fists and feet can all be used to inflict lethal force.   How would a civy find themselves dead?   Someone bust into your house, they have knife, they are now presenting you with the option to use deadly force.   So you grap a bat/chair/axe/etc (if you don't have a gun) and you beat their brains in.   These are the guidelines the police know and use, and they are what the police will use to judge your actions.   If you don't like that lobby your MPs.


----------



## TCBF (15 Dec 2005)

"? This is not part of the police services act (in Ontario). ¦nbsp; Civillians use this wheel (the National use of Force wheel is located here http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/issues/102004/PDFS/page132_fig3.pdf it does not say firearm, merely lethal force)all the time, they.."

It clearly states " The National Use of Force Framework For Police Officers in Canada"  Ya gotta read your own refs now and then.  Unless you are suggesting the police designed that wheel for us to follow.  Nice of them.  Call 9-1-1 and die...

NEXT!

MY use of force wheel sees an old lady - all 88 pounds of her - shooting a puke in her house with her dead huusbands unregistered Luger.  I see no need for her to consult a wheel and wrestle with her 237 pound meth-head attacker.

Go ahead, lock her up...

NEXT!

Tom


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "? This is not part of the police services act (in Ontario). ¦nbsp; Civillians use this wheel (the National use of Force wheel is located here http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/issues/102004/PDFS/page132_fig3.pdf it does not say firearm, merely lethal force)all the time, they.."
> 
> It clearly states " The National Use of Force Framework For Police Officers in Canada"   Ya gotta read your own refs now and then.   Unless you are suggesting the police designed that wheel for us to follow.   Nice of them.   Call 9-1-1 and die...


 No they designed these so they don't get charged with excessive force, and open themselves up to civil litigation.  There is nothing that prevents civys from using these models for the same reasons, as the Criminal Code provisions for using excessive force are the SAME!! Regardless of whether you wear a badge or not.  As I have said civillians (private security) already use these to keep their asses out of a sling.  It is also useful because officers will judge whether YOU used excessive force based on THIER training and knowledge (which includes these wheels).  I am not saying it is right, but that is what will happen, so better that you as a civy know how you are going to be judged.



> MY use of force wheel sees an old lady - all 88 pounds of her - shooting a puke in her house with her dead huusbands unregistered Luger.   I see no need for her to consult a wheel and wrestle with her 237 pound meth-head attacker.
> 
> Go ahead, lock her up...
> 
> Tom



And so does mine, and so do the ones I provided.  How about you go back and read ALL of my posts.  You will see that the situation you described above is exactly what I had in mind in justifing deadly force!! The reason for posting these wheels, is to give an illustration of what is "reasonable" force under the criminal code. NEXT!!!


----------



## TCBF (15 Dec 2005)

Good heavens, that was loud...

 ;D

OK, 

"No they designed these so they don't get charged with excessive force, and open themselves up to civil litigation.  There is nothing that prevents civys from using these models for the same reasons, as the Criminal Code provisions for using excessive force are the SAME!! Regardless of whether you wear a badge or not.  As I have said civillians (private security) already use these to keep their asses out of a sling.  It is also useful because officers will judge whether YOU used excessive force based on THIER training and knowledge (which includes these wheels).  I am not saying it is right, but that is what will happen, so better that you as a civy know how you are going to be judged."

But the judge looks differently at police charged under the criminal code exercising their authority than a homeowner in his house fighting for his life.

The more training - the more liability.

The catch is, the police are ALSO liable under the Police Act, we are not.  Private security firms follow those at WORK, where they can often disengage.  Lethal force by a citizen - to be called self defence - often results from a situation where the person must use lethal force because they truly fear for their life or the lives of their family.

By all means, other people may paint themselves into a corner if they wish, but they should not force their personal artificial restraints on others.

" The reason for posting these wheels, is to give an illustration of what is "reasonable" force under the criminal code. "

....regarding police and SGs at WORK, not Larry Lunchbox and Suzy Sewingkit at HOME.  

"How about you go back and read ALL of my posts."

- I am guilty as charged.

 ;D

Tom


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> By all means, other people may paint themselves into a corner if they wish, but they should not force their personal artificial restraints on others.
> 
> " The reason for posting these wheels, is to give an illustration of what is "reasonable" force under the criminal code. "
> 
> ....regarding police and SGs at WORK, not Larry Lunchbox and Suzy Sewingkit at HOME.



Sec 26. Criminal Code 





> Every one who is authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.


 and Section 27 



> 27.* Every one * is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary
> 
> (a) to prevent the commission of an offence
> 
> ...


These Sections make no distinction between Officer Bob at work, or Grandma Betty at home.  Sec 25 below also says 



> (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
> 
> (a) as a *private* person,
> 
> ...



There are ADDITIONAL provisions that apply strictly to law enforcement, but it is these provisions above that apply to EVERYONE.  The reason I put up/mention the use of force wheels is because they help to illustrate (even to lay civillians) what is appropriate force, given that the term "reasonable force" is not clearly defined in the criminal code (its definintion is found in case law), and if civies use it as a "reference guide"  (which is how the police use it, it is not intended to be used in strict application), then the chances of being charge by the police lessens.  As I have said the police are the FIRST ones who get a crack at deciding your fate and whether your force was justified.  And they will determine justification based on THEIR knowledge and THIER training.  The closer civies stick to what cops know, the better off they will be.  It is only after the police in consultation with the crown charging you, that a judge with/without a jury get to decide your fate.  I don't know if I can explain/clarify this any better, first the police decide whether your force was justified (based on THIER knowledge/training/experience), and only IF they decide your force is NOT justified do the courts get their turn.  

Knowing how the police think, and how they are trained will help you jusitify your actions to them, because you will know what kind of questions to expect, and how best to answer them.


----------



## R0B (15 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I will concede that reasonable is hard to define as it is a subjective term.  However that is more likely than not a good thing, as rigid defintions when used in the context of what is/is not excessive force would provide people little recourse if they found themselves at the short end of the stick.  Basically it boils down to common sense (which judging by you seems to be in short supply).  Was it designed by the police, yes it was but that does not preclude ordinary civillians from using it determine what is "reasonable" force in any given situation.  In fact most if not all private security firms use it for thier employees (who are civilians by the way, not peace officers).  Until you actually shoot someone in self-defence, how do you know for sure the police will charge you?  They may well in fact decide what you did was reasonable and justifiable and say good job.  As oft been said in this thread better Tried by 12 then carried by 6.



The police might exercise discretion if they pull someone over for speeding, but shoot someone and you will be charged.
The force wheel might be good for a police officer, who carries a gun, whose job it is to uphold the law and be civil about it. You can't expect someone waken in the middle of the night by the sound of a window breaking to draw from non-existent law enforcement training and work experience to be perfectly reasonable in dealing with an intruder, particularly when too little force might lead to dire consequences. 



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Ever heard the saying the police are the public and the public are the police?  Any discussion about the police and use of force is absolutely relevant to discussions as it relates to civilians.  They are subject to the same laws as us when it comes to using force/excessive force, the only difference is they get to use force in few more situations than civillians.  And as they use force in a multitude of situations on a daily basis anything they come up with to help decide what is reasonable force (like the use of force wheel) is absolutely useful to civillians as well.  Knowledge is power.  But it would seem you do not want seek knowledge that will save your butt in a situation like the ones posed. Whether you like it or not the physical and mental characteristics of a perpatrator factor into whether the force used to subdue them was justifiable.  Quit your gripping and deal with it.  If you really don't like it write your MP and petition them to change the law instead of bitchin how much you think the law should conform to your views.



The police may theoretically be subject to the same laws, but in practice, they are not.
I don't think the mental and physical characteristics should matter, because the occupant should be allowed to attack with lethal force before making such considerations. I'm not a peace officer, I'm not looking to subdue any perpetrators. If someone broke into my house, I would only be interested in guaranteeing the safety of myself, my family and my property, at any cost, which would involve, in a perfect world, instant lethal force.
Writing my MP would be useless; she's among the most ignorant in parliament. 



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I already said fear of you life isn't enough, read more thoroughly.  And once again if the police decide your actions were reasonable given the circumstances you won't be proceeding to trail.  They make the first decision.



This isn't a speeding ticket, police discretion doesn't apply here. Such a case would be left to the Crown's discretion, and they would almost certainly prosecute due to the policy implications of letting someone go for shooting another human being. 



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I am aware of the firearms regs, and nowhere does it say the you can't get access to your weapons quickly.  You just have to make sure no else can get to them quickly and easily.  A gun safe with a biometric lock does exactly that.  The guns and ammo are not readily accessible to others because they are in a safe (which is in location that only I know of that no one else would see), with a lock that can't be picked (easily) unless you have my thumb.



The fact that you would need to disengage a minimum of two locks and then load your gun pretty much means you don't have easy access. If you're sleeping, you don't have time to go and walk to your gun closet, unlock your gun (I've never heard of a biometric trigger lock,) unlock your bullets, take them out of their box, load your gun, chamber a round, and then go to confront the intruder. Easy access means having a loaded gun (not necessarily with a round chambered, but preferably) within arms reach.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> People obey because they have been taught from childhood to obey, they obey because most people know bad things will happen if they don't.  They obey because they understand they are only doing there job.  It is not necessarily because they fear them.  As for the second part, I have, as well as in Regent Park, Parkdale, Moss Park, Cabbagetown, Scarborough.  Not everyone in these areas is a gun toting banger, and even they comply on occasion without the threat of force.  Anymore smartas s comments?



People obey the law because they fear it. I don't know under what circumstances you've made your citizens arrests, I take it you did so as some sort of rent-a-cop, but whom did you arrest? Some kids for spitting on door handles or loitering? By your "not everyone in these areas in a gun toting banger" comment, I take you you've never placed some threatening criminal under your arrest. Well, to tie this into the original problem, the people you've been arresting aren't the kinds of people someone would really have to fear breaking into their homes. Do you think someone can just say "I place you under citizens arrest" to someone who breaks into their house? What if the person fights back? If you have a gun, you don't want to get close enough to restrain them, and if you let them run away, who knows what they're going to do. Maybe they'll tell their gun-hungry friends who will come back a few nights later to kill you for your gun. And another poster mentioned a little old lady with a luger - what the hell is she supposed to do?


----------



## TCBF (15 Dec 2005)

"Knowing how the police think, and how they are trained will help you jusitify your actions to them, because you will know what kind of questions to expect, and how best to answer them."

- Very nice, but you don't answer questions, youy lawyer does - that's what you pay him for.   You can always talk yourself into trouble, never out of it.

Oh, and read this, since we are in an RSC mood:

 Defence of Person

Self-defence against unprovoked assault 
 34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Extent of justification
 (2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).

Self-defence in case of aggression 
 35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if

(a) he uses the force

(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and

(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;

(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and

(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 35.

Provocation 
 36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 36.

Preventing assault 
 37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

Extent of justification
 (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 37.

 Defence of Property

Defence of personal property 
 38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified

(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or

(b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,

if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.

Assault by trespasser
 (2) Where a person who is in peaceable possession of personal property lays hands on it, a trespasser who persists in attempting to keep it or take it from him or from any one lawfully assisting him shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 38

- And the letter below sums   up other sections nicely:


To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 11:39 PM
Subject: Copy of Letter from Justice Minister.


 Self explanatory Ladies and Gentlemen


The Honourable / Lhonorable Irwin Cotler, PC., O.C., M.P./c.p., o.c.,
depute
 Ottawa, Canada K1A 0H8
 MAR 1 5 2005
 A.W. Parsons
 2307 - 85 Street
 Edmonton, Alberta T6K 3H1

 Dear A.W. Parsons:

 The office of my colleague the Honourable Anne McLellan, Deputy Prime   Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, has   forwarded to me a copy of your correspondence, addressed to the Honourable David Kilgour, enquiring whether a citizen is legally able to protect   himself in a home invasion type situation. I regret the delay in responding.   The criminal laws of Canada permit the use of force in defence of a   person's home. Section 40 of the Criminal Code provides that a person in   lawful possession of a dwelling house is justified in using reasonable   force to prevent someone from forcibly breaking in to the dwelling house.   Section 41, further, provides that such a person is justified in using   reasonable force to prevent someone from trespassing on that property, or   to remove someone who is already trespassing.

 In addition to wanting to defend the integrity of the house itself, the   person inside the house is likely to also fear for their safety and the physical integrity of others inside the house in a home invasion situation.
 In this regard, you may also be interested to know that section 34 of the   Criminal Code provides the basic defence of self-defence. Selfdefence   allows for the use of reasonable force to defend against an assault,
which   includes both actual force on a person against their will as well as an   attempt or threat to apply force.

 Both self-defence and defence of property clearly allow a person to respond   to force, actual or threatened, with force of their own. Where these   defences apply, they excuse behaviour that would otherwise be criminal,   such as assault or even homicide. It is, however, necessary that the force   used in response to the threat be reasonable. Factors such as whether or not the invader had a weapon, the threat posed by the invader, the vulnerability of the defender, and the defender's options for defending himself and his house would certainly be relevant considerations in determining whether the response of the homeowner was reasonable. The final determination of what is reasonable, however, will of necessity vary according to the specific circumstance of a given incident. Each case would therefore have to be considered on its own.

 I appreciate having had your concerns brought to my attention. Yours sincerely,
 A~~- ~ CVtQVA.
 Irwin Cotler


 « Last Edit: March 30, 2005, 23:25:17 by TCBF  »


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Dec 2005)

I am already aware of those sections as I already posted them a few pages ago.  What was happening was ROB was acting all pissy about what was considered "reasonable force".  Thats why I posted all that stuff about the force wheel as it illustrates reasonableness a little more clearly than words.  If you go back a few pages, you will see those other sections of law have already been discussed.  Which brought about the current discussion of what is considered reasonable force.


----------



## TCBF (16 Dec 2005)

I understand that.  We seem to be going around in circles.  I will assume responsibility for the confusion caused by me not stating my point clearly in the beginning.

So, 

My point:  'reasonable' is not solely based on the situation and the force used, but also on the dynamics of who and what the user and the recipient of the force are.  If you shoot a bad guy in your house, then hand the gun to your wife or teenage daughter, the definition of 'reasonable' will change from that if you had held on to the gun.  Unles of course you are confined to a wheel chair, and your wife/daughter is on the local police ERT etc..

Point is, a response wheel only suits a narrow slice of the pie - not all of us potential victims are equal, and that might be why the RSC is written the way it is, and why hundreds of years of common law are still important.

Tom


----------



## R0B (17 Dec 2005)

I hate the concept of "reasonable" in this case because it implies that occupants should use the minimum amout of nessecary force to discourage or subdue an attacker, thereby putting themselves at greater risk.


----------



## TCBF (17 Dec 2005)

"I hate the concept of "reasonable" in this case because it implies that occupants should use the minimum amout of nessecary force to discourage or subdue an attacker, thereby putting themselves at greater risk."

- But that would be unreasonable, no?  So, it would not meet the definition of reasonable force if it got you killed.  Hence the case law.  On the other hand "reasonable" to a lawsuit fearing EMPLOYER is a totally different breed of cat.  Hence the wheel.  Use the wheel at work and your gun at home.  Figuratively speaking, I mean.

Tom


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "I hate the concept of "reasonable" in this case because it implies that occupants should use the minimum amout of nessecary force to discourage or subdue an attacker, thereby putting themselves at greater risk."
> 
> - But that would be unreasonable, no?   So, it would not meet the definition of reasonable force if it got you killed.   Hence the case law.   On the other hand "reasonable" to a lawsuit fearing EMPLOYER is a totally different breed of cat.   Hence the wheel.   Use the wheel at work and your gun at home.   Figuratively speaking, I mean.
> 
> Tom



We all know our basic ROE's never mind our own morales.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (4 Jan 2006)

Reasonable force is situational.  It is not reasonable to place my wife and three primary school daughters at risk by facing potentially hostile intruders in my home on terms that allow the potential that they be left at the mercy of intruders whose aims may include assault, molestation or murder.  If an intruder flees in the face of my challenge, then his intent is escape, and I am not justified in striking him.  If an intruder chooses to initiate hostilities in the face of drawn steel, then his intent may be assumed to be hostile to my family, and I will stop him as swiftly as possible; there is the potential that swift response by EMS will save his life, but the risk is his.  I see no obligation in the law for me to play fair in my own home, I do not know if the intruder is armed, or high, or a skilled martial artist, or known to police as a dangerous and violent offender.  If forced to defend my home, I will do so in the most effective manner available, consitant with the ultimate aim of preserving the lives of my family, and the welfare of my neighbors.  The criminal has the option of flight at any time, and if he chooses to fight instead, it is his life to lose.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Jan 2006)

Further to that, I believe a useful working definition of "reasonable force" for the citizen is whatever level of force is required to sway the risk (probability) of any death or injury as closely as possible to 1.0 on the side of the person or persons which initiated the situation.  I can not entertain the notion that the innocent person should be expected to assume a portion of risk in pursuit of some sort of noble and misguided anti-violence ideal.


----------

