# The Legality of Self Defence In Canada



## Fusaki

Could an LEO or someone else in the know offer advice on what is a legal and practical form of self-defence in Canada?

I'm asking this because of the current situation my girlfriend is in:

She often works into the early morning in downtown Toronto and has to take public transit across town to get home.  Recently, she's come across a number of people - often drunk or high, but sometimes just crazy - that she's felt unsafe around.  Last night she actually had to get off a bus and call a cab out of fear for her personal safety.

Right now we're being as smart as we can about this:  She calls me when she's leaving work and whenever she's in a situation where she's feeling unsafe.  We live together so I know if she's arriving home on time.

What I'm worried about is the people who are unstable and because of that they wouldn't be dissuaded by seeing her being on the phone with me.  I'm also worried about when she's on the subway and doesn't have cellphone reception.

I understand that given the laws as they are, the concealed carry of firearms, OC Spray, asp batons, etc are not an option.  My girlfriend isn't physically very big and I'm not convinced that she'd be able to defend herself unarmed without a considerable amount of training.  It would be quite easy for an assailant to have a 50lb advantage on her, not to mention the difference in upper body muscle.

So what options does she have?

One option I've been looking at is this:

http://www.hideawayknife.com/main.php

Looks like it would be pretty simple to use without too much training, easy to draw, easy to retain.  As much as I don't like the idea of her slashing some junkie and getting covered in hepatitis, I think this knife is something practical that would give her enough time to take off running.

If she did have to stab someone, and that person suffered serious injury or died, what kind of legal trouble would she have to deal with?  I've been looking at the laws regarding self defence:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-2.html#anchorbo-ga:s_3_1-gb:s_34

From here, it seems like she'd be in the clear, provided that she felt her life was in danger and did everything she could to avoid the situation.  But does the fact that she's carrying a weapon cause other laws to apply?

Any help is greatly appreciated!


----------



## George Wallace

Whoa!  I am not a LEO, but I would hesitate to give her a weapon.  One:  What if she is disarmed and the weapon turned on her?  Two:  If she cuts someone with HIV, she will be covered in their blood.  Three:  The use of a weapon could land her up in more serious trouble with the LAW in the courts than the criminal.


----------



## Fusaki

Thanks, George.

I see those concerns and have noted them in my post above.  I should have been clearer with my question:

If not this, than what is the next best alternative?


----------



## George Wallace

Get her one of those Air Horns that come in a can.........I am sure she'd rather face a "Noise Violation" than __________

 >


----------



## Stoker

Unfortunately in Canada if you defend yourself and use too much force which is very easy to do, you have a good chance in getting arrested by the police or being sued by the perp. DO NOT give her a knife or similar weapon that could be turned against her. That being said a rape whistle or something to that effect would help. Check out and get her on a self defense course. I would also talk to a cop and ask. There is a police website called blueline or something to that effect. I believe there is a public forum that you could post your concerns and see what they say.


----------



## Container

Wonderbread- she is entitled to use as much force as required to repel her attacker. But she is not entitled to carry a weapon that would give her the ability to do so. Its a sore spot in the law right now, and rightly so. But you are not allowed to carry a weapon for self defence. You can carry a knife- for utility purposes, but not as a weapon. 

As an aside- knife fighting is complicated. Its more of an issue of her having it used against her. A self defence class is a good idea. I understand your frustration though. I used to be in a similar situation.

The air horn is really not a bad idea at all. That would be way better than a rape whistle in my personal opinion. Do what you can to increase her "street smarts". No bear spray, no knives, no kubaton key chain. I am fan of Krav Maga lots of "weapon of opportunity" training. 

Sorry its not the answer you are looking for.


----------



## HavokFour

Unfortunately there are not many weapons of self defense you can legally carry in Canada. My best advice would be to get her a rape alarm, I've seen them sold in many places now, even Home Depot.


----------



## GAP

Obviously you guys have explored the ideas of changing hours/jobs/transportation methods.....maybe it's time to give it a rethink.....


----------



## Fusaki

Thanks guys, I'll look into those ideas.

As a slight tangent, 

Assuming that the situation fit all other criteria for legitimate self defence, what if a warehouse worker were to kill a mugger with a box cutter?  Would the courts be likely to interpret the box cutter as work tool he used to defend himself or the weapon of choice for terrorist hijackers?



> Obviously you guys have explored the ideas of changing hours/jobs/transportation methods.....maybe it's time to give it a rethink.....



Heh... I wish.  I'm about as happy with her travelling alone late at night as she is with having to put her graduate degree to use working shitty hours for minimal pay in the service industry.  But the economy being as it is...


----------



## Container

As long as the weapon used was present because its usually present for non-weapon reasons and it was required to overcome the person trying to kill the guy in the warehouse, as in he had a reasonable apprehension of death or GBH, than yeah he would be in the clear. 

But the mugging wouldnt be enough. He could resist the mugging and then if it escalated and he feared death he could graduate to that level. He could expect to be scrutinized for not just handing over his stuff. As dumb as that sounds.


----------



## GAP

one remote option might be to cab part of the way, to get through the worst part....sometimes that's an option...


----------



## cn

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I understand that given the laws as they are, the concealed carry of firearms, *OC Spray*, asp batons, etc are not an option.  My girlfriend isn't physically very big and I'm not convinced that she'd be able to defend herself unarmed without a considerable amount of training.  It would be quite easy for an assailant to have a 50lb advantage on her, not to mention the difference in upper body muscle.



I know the stigma with using wikipedia, but for quick reference sake:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OC_spray#North_America



> Canada
> In Canada all products with a label containing the words pepper spray, mace, etc, or otherwise originally produced for use on humans are classified as a prohibited weapon.[30] Only law enforcement officers and individuals with special government authorization may legally carry or possess pepper spray. Any similar canister with the labels reading "dog spray" and/or "bear spray" is regulated under the Pest Control Products Act - while legal to be carried by anyone, it is against the law if its use causes 'a risk of imminent death or serious bodily harm to another person' or harming the environment and carries a penalty up to a fine of $500,000 and jail time of maximum 3 years.[31] Of course, the legality of using spray intended for animal deterrent on a person would be determined in court on a case-by-case basis.



I had similar concerns for my loved ones...

I purchased "Bear-Spray" canisters for my mother, sister and girlfriend and insist that they carry it with them at all times on their keys (it even comes with a leather case with clip, and one of them even came with a whistle).  

You can get them from most camping /surplus stores for under $20.

The person at the camping store I bought them from told me it was fine (as outlined above) because it's primary intended use is not for humans; and that as long as it is used under a reasonable threat, the use can be justified.


----------



## Stoker

Too bad we can't legally CCW in Canada like in the US. Its situations like this when it could come in handy.


----------



## Fusaki

cn said:
			
		

> I purchased "Bear-Spray" canisters for my mother, sister and girlfriend and insist that they carry it with them at all times on their keys (it even comes with a leather case with clip, and one of them even came with a whistle).



I'm intrigued, but also suspicious.

A quick google of  <using bear spray on a person> reveals an interesting anecdote from yahoo answers:


> There is a measuring item called SHU's (Scoville Heat Units) that is used to gauge the intensity of different items/products. It is the reaction of the item to the skin that is being measured here.
> 
> A Jalapeno pepper is rated at 7,500 SHU. Def Tech's O.C. Pepper spray is rated at 25,000 SHU. Phase IV O.C. Pepper spray ( which is the bear repellant you are speaking of) is rated at 2,000,000 SHU ( that is two million).
> 
> We tested Phase IV about 4 years ago for our department to see if it would be better than the Def Tech at 25,000 SHU. One of our SWAT men volunteered ( he was the guy that walks around with the big red "S" on his chest all day). I gave him a one half second spray on the side of the face only for a simple test. The skin immediately blistered and he had to be taken to the hospital.
> 
> Our legal department took about 3.7 nanoseconds to decide that we would NOT replace our present OC pepper with the Phase IV


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081129230617AAtKEvQ

If the above story is true, than using bear spray on a human would be illegal under the pest control act:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/P-9.01/bo-ga:s_68//en#anchorbo-ga:s_68

Also, given containers comments above, I'm not sure my girlfriend would be able to claim in court that she was worried about running into bears in downtown Toronto and just happened to have bear spray in her purse...

I wonder what dog spray has an SHU rating of...


----------



## Cdnleaf

I like the horn/whistle idea, easy to use etc. Please do not consider an edge weapon, for reasons mentioned above. You can buy bear spray at MEC and the active ingredient (capsaicin) is the same in police OC Spray (not sure if it produces +/-  Scoville Heat Units (SHUs)). I don't recommend this, not necessarily for the legality aspect in an attack; however unless practiced it's hard to deploy especially when she would be all physiologically jacked-up.  You could make a weak argument that she has it for aggressive dogs in your neighborhood etc. Police Officers are smarter than that. The risk with carrying anything intended as a weapon in self defense is, as mentioned, the real possibility it can be used against her. Time to consider new transportation options, talk with the Transit Security or Police Community Services Div. All the best, Dan.


----------



## Container

cn said:
			
		

> I know the stigma with using wikipedia, but for quick reference sake:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OC_spray#North_America
> 
> I had similar concerns for my loved ones...
> 
> I purchased "Bear-Spray" canisters for my mother, sister and girlfriend and insist that they carry it with them at all times on their keys (it even comes with a leather case with clip, and one of them even came with a whistle).
> 
> You can get them from most camping /surplus stores for under $20.
> 
> The person at the camping store I bought them from told me it was fine (as outlined above) because it's primary intended use is not for humans; and that as long as it is used under a reasonable threat, the use can be justified.



You will get hammered for carrying a weapon if you use that and it turns out you were carrying for self defence against people. Ive charged lots of people for bear spray assaults.

Further to this pepper spray is of limited use against people "jacked up" on street drugs. It would more than likely wind up used on her. Further to this- if she used the spray, which has dye in it, and the guy she uses it on says he's just an aggressive pan handler she could wind up in court having to explain herself.

The airhorn is a good idea. Animal sprays for the transit system is a poor idea..


----------



## cn

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I'm intrigued, but also suspicious.
> 
> A quick google of  <using bear spray on a person> reveals an interesting anecdote from yahoo answers:http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081129230617AAtKEvQ
> 
> If the above story is true, than using bear spray on a human would be illegal under the pest control act:
> http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/P-9.01/bo-ga:s_68//en#anchorbo-ga:s_68
> 
> Also, given containers comments above, I'm not sure my girlfriend would be able to claim in court that she was worried about running into bears in downtown Toronto and just happened to have bear spray in her purse...
> 
> I wonder what dog spray has an SHU rating of...



Sorry, I neglected to mention: the owner of the camping store said if they were questioned about carrying it to say: "There are vicious dogs where I live and I carry it as protection against them."  And in the event that it had to be used on a human, it can be justified by saying it was originally carried for that purpose but was used in a self-defence situation.  

My family also lives and works in the Toronto, which is why I had the same concerns as you.  As much as I love Toronto, and it will always be my home, there are parts that are not the safest and certain levels of precaution are understandable.  Especially for some women who are smaller and would not do well fending off assailants.  

And just thinking of possible worse case scenarios, I'd rather her have an assult charge because she used bear spray on a would-be-attacker, and just hope and pray that the court sees it justified than to have that same situation play out otherwise.  

My  :2c:.


----------



## Container

Those sentences arent magic get out of jail cards. You would have to PROVE the reasonable apprehension that their are vicious dogs you are in danger of being bitten by. The camping store guy did you no favors. The court would more then likely unreceptive to this paper thin lie. They see this stuff a lot. I have observed a trend of the courts being really agressive with people that defend themselves or property- almost like its a personal thing. That is just opinion of course but Im shocked by the bad sentences handed out to real criminals, career criminals, and the disproportionate ones handed out to regular people. Could just be me though.

However, I too usually prescribe to "judged by 12 than be carried by 6". But I think there are better ways to manage risk. At least until Canada creates a CCW permit.


----------



## mariomike

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> She often works into the early morning in downtown Toronto and has to take public transit across town to get home.  Recently, she's come across a number of people - often drunk or high, but sometimes just crazy - that she's felt unsafe around.  Last night she actually had to get off a bus and call a cab out of fear for her personal safety.
> 
> Any help is greatly appreciated!



Wonderbread, I suppose you are familiar with this:
http://www3.ttc.ca/Riding_the_TTC/Safety_and_Security/index.jsp

"Transit Moments"tm ( Unofficial, from Toronto. May have some survival tips ):
http://www.youtube.com/user/ttctae


----------



## the 48th regulator

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Could an LEO or someone else in the know offer advice on what is a legal and practical form of self-defence in Canada?
> 
> I'm asking this because of the current situation my girlfriend is in:
> 
> She often works into the early morning in downtown Toronto and has to take public transit across town to get home.  Recently, she's come across a number of people - often drunk or high, but sometimes just crazy - that she's felt unsafe around.  Last night she actually had to get off a bus and call a cab out of fear for her personal safety.
> 
> Right now we're being as smart as we can about this:  She calls me when she's leaving work and whenever she's in a situation where she's feeling unsafe.  We live together so I know if she's arriving home on time.
> 
> What I'm worried about is the people who are unstable and because of that they wouldn't be dissuaded by seeing her being on the phone with me.  I'm also worried about when she's on the subway and doesn't have cellphone reception.
> 
> I understand that given the laws as they are, the concealed carry of firearms, OC Spray, asp batons, etc are not an option.  My girlfriend isn't physically very big and I'm not convinced that she'd be able to defend herself unarmed without a considerable amount of training.  It would be quite easy for an assailant to have a 50lb advantage on her, not to mention the difference in upper body muscle.
> 
> So what options does she have?
> 
> One option I've been looking at is this:
> 
> http://www.hideawayknife.com/main.php
> 
> Looks like it would be pretty simple to use without too much training, easy to draw, easy to retain.  As much as I don't like the idea of her slashing some junkie and getting covered in hepatitis, I think this knife is something practical that would give her enough time to take off running.
> 
> If she did have to stab someone, and that person suffered serious injury or died, what kind of legal trouble would she have to deal with?  I've been looking at the laws regarding self defence:
> 
> http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-2.html#anchorbo-ga:s_3_1-gb:s_34
> 
> From here, it seems like she'd be in the clear, provided that she felt her life was in danger and did everything she could to avoid the situation.  But does the fact that she's carrying a weapon cause other laws to apply?
> 
> Any help is greatly appreciated!




Brother,

I was born, raised, and live in the most evil parts of Toronto.

Born and raised in Jane and Woolner.  Lived in Markham and Lawrence.....Sherbourne and Gerard. Keele and Finch...Now reside in Malvern..... I only started driving 3 years ago, I took TTC all my life.

Pretty little knives, and knowing the law mean jack. 

Invest in a vehicle and get her the hell away from the Public Transit.  

That is my advice.

dileas

tess


----------



## Kat Stevens

I have two daughters that live in Edmonton, well away from daddy's protective arms.  I taught them basic boxing combos and vulnerable spots on the human bod.  They both carry a kubotan and know how to use it.  if accosted by 5-O and questioned, they are told that it's just a cool key thingy that their daddy gave them.  In the end, I'd rather pay for their lawyer than their funeral director.


----------



## mariomike

NOT suggesting this, but this topic reminds reminds me of how the late ( great ) Charles Bronson handled a "transit moment":
( Warning, mature content )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of-57Ivfwz8


----------



## ballz

I'm going to try and chime in here as a small fish in a big-*** ocean when it comes to martial arts.

My instructor, who is a pretty big fish in the pond told me one thing that will always stand out in my mind as truth. "Self-defense is 90% common sense, and 10% knowing how to fight. There is no "defending" involved."

One thing I have not seen mentioned is the possibility of having her do her commutes with somebody else, preferably a male (bouncer?). From what I know of the downtown scenes, it's usually a small enough community that, if she can't find somebody she works with that lives close to her, somebody she works with knows somebody else that works downtown that lives close to her. I recommend she starts asking. Having one other person with you makes a huge difference, especially if there's a male. Avoiding these situations is 90% of it, and this is a huge deterance if the other things discussed (change of transportation methods, change of routes, etc) aren't available.

Second, when it comes to "a self-defence course," don't buy into that bs... Fancy "courses" are a huge rip-off. You can't "learn" a few tricks and expect to be able to use them when it really matters. While these courses can do a decent job at teaching a person to use their common sense to avoid situations, they're garbage for the physical aspect.

If you or her want to learn the physical aspect of it, find a real academy and learn a martial art (or more). Don't take a course. People spend their entire lives "practicing" martial arts for a reason. You can't learn what you need over a weekend. 

As to which martial arts I'd recommend, a hard style that focuses on actual smash and break fighting. I'd definitely look for a place with a competitive fighting team (actually competing for titles, not just point matches and etc.). If there's no sparring involved, don't waste your time or money.


Hard styles that should be easy to find would be Kenpo Karate, Traditional (ITF) Taekwondo (for god's sake don't go for the "WTF" or Sport TKD), and Muay thai or kickboxing (not aerobic or "lady" kickboxing... real kickboxing... Muay thai also uses elbows and knees which "kickboxing" doesn't because of the rules.) Boxing is also great. The key to remember about all these for applying them in a manner of defending yourself is that you are attacking and running, not beating the person up, or "defending" yourself.

Jiu jitsu (which is soft) is sort of in a world of its own but definitely has a huge place in martial arts especially for a woman as the focus is on leverage/technique, instead of speed/strength. I'd recommend it _in addition_ to one of the ones above if possible, but if not, it's not an acceptable substitution (for self-defense or fighting), despite what the Gracie's might try and tell you.

Sambo is a good mixture of hard and soft techniques, personally I'd love to practice it. You are in the right place to look for it, but it's pretty hard to find in North America.

This is something you two could both take up together too.

Good luck.


----------



## HavokFour

If worse comes to worse, you can always teach her how to make a millwall brick. It's saved my butt on several occasions.


----------



## Strike

ballz said:
			
		

> Second, when it comes to "a self-defence course," don't buy into that bs... Fancy "courses" are a huge rip-off. You can't "learn" a few tricks and expect to be able to use them when it really matters. While these courses can do a decent job at teaching a person to use their common sense to avoid situations, they're garbage for the physical aspect.
> 
> If you or her want to learn the physical aspect of it, find a real academy and learn a martial art (or more). Don't take a course. People spend their entire lives "practicing" martial arts for a reason. You can't learn what you need over a weekend.



I'm going to agree (somewhat) with ballz here.  A weekend self-defence course just won't cut it.  You have to build muscle memory and that takes time.

As for what type of martial arts to study, this is where we differ.  After 13 years studying TKD (mostly) and other martial arts, it really doesn't matter which one you choose, provided that you pick one that has an actual sparring content.  Really, it has nothing to do with whether or not what you learn can be put in to practice, but the self-confidence that you get from participating in a martial art.  That self-confidence transfers to how you walk, act and carry yourself and can be enough to deter an attacker.

I'm not a big woman, but I'll tell you, I've NEVER been threatened on the streets or in a bar.  Does this have anything to do with my martial arts training? (ballz-I compete at the National level at WTF TKD btw and was supposed to be on my way to Mexico next week for Pan-Am except that work got in the way)  Who knows?  I would like to think it does.

Whatever you choose, good luck and stick with it.


----------



## Ex-SHAD

This situation illustrates why Canada needs proper self-defense laws and CCDW.


----------



## bdave

ballz said:
			
		

> Jiu jitsu (which is soft) is sort of in a world of its own but definitely has a huge place in martial arts especially for a woman as the focus is on leverage/technique, instead of speed/strength. I'd recommend it _in addition_ to one of the ones above if possible, but if not, it's not an acceptable substitution (for self-defense or fighting), despite what the Gracie's might try and tell you.



I'm going to elaborate on this, because it's an important point - that most people misunderstand.
It works in MMA because the rules cater to it.

If you ever get in a fight with someone, there are several reasons why jiu jitsu would not be helpful:

-You are (maybe) fighting opponentS. Jiu Jitsu has a focus on one on one. Going to the ground with bad guy 1 is an invitation for bad guys 2, 3, 4 etc to kick your head in. You might have gotten in a fight with one person, but didn't catch his buddy behind you.

-Jiu Jitsu relies heavily on extremely close quarters and is the strongest on the floor. That someone might have a knife or other in his hand. You are *dead*.

-Jiu Jitsu training sparring works through a set of rules. Those rules  are a great way to defend yourself against someone extremely close to you. That is, if the person follows the same rules. Someone who trains a specific style will go through the motions via muscle memory, this includes all the cons of the style. Some times those cons are a lack of defense versus strikes. What's to stop your enemy from putting his finger in your eye, headbutting you or other?

-Concrete is hard. It is very painful to roll on. Doing a flying armbar on someone is a guarantee that your head will be hitting the concrete first. Moving around on concrete is very painful, especially the hips, knees and elbows. Trying to do some of those moves/techniques while on concrete may be impossible due to the pain.

-Anything on the floor. That rock, that broken glass,  that needle, etc. All are hazards. Are you gonna see them when the adrenaline is rushing through your veins and you're rolling on the floor?

-Escape. If shit hits the fan and you need to make a run for it, you're down. You have to disengage yourself, get up and run. Easier than it sounds versus a fighting opponent.

-Do you have what it takes? It takes ballz to break someone's arm and whatnot. When it comes to it, you might not have the testicular fortitude.

-The fact that your best defense is based on laying down on the floor. 

-Self defense is not only about neutralizing a threat, but also by getting away from it. Again, running away should be a priority. Much more difficult to do when you're focused on going to the ground.

-Boxing, judo, wrestling, and various forms of kickboxing (muay thai, etc) allow you to engage your opponent without being attached to them. When you are doine with one, you can focus on the other. You can still be effective without being attached to one person. 

If you're a woman, I'd stay away from Jiu Jitsu. Best advice I could give is work on your 100 meter sprint, and increase your kicking speed to the groin and knees.
A woman who is fighting her opponent who is probably trying to rape her will be at her weakest on the ground due to a difference in size, weight and strength. When it comes to the difference in strength, the biggest gap is that of upper body strength. Technique is important, but it is very easy/possible for a man to muscle through.
If it comes to that range of contact, I'd suggest she throw it all to the wind and start biting and scratching with the intent to kill.

They say that fighting is not about the style, but about the fighter. I would agree.
It's a mentality. 

I'd focus on kyokushin, muay thai, boxing, judo and/or wrestling:

-Kyokushin and muay thai because they give you a focus on kicks, knees and elbows. Kyokushin has a huge flaw is that it has zero focus on punches to the head. Can be remedied with some boxing. The advantage to kyokushin is that all the hits are done without protection. So those punches to the body, and kicks/knees to the head are the real deal.
I don't know enough about TKD to comment. As long as it isn't the sport/olympic version, you should be fine.

-Boxing because it allows you to learn to roll with the punches and properly protect the head. Most people don't know that boxers wear gloves to protect their hands, not their head. Punching someone's head, especially improperly, is a great way to break your hand and make it useless. The better of a boxer you are, the harder you are likely to hit, and the more likely you are to break your hand. Ironic. So just hit with an open palm.

-Judo has a focus on 'gi', which is basically clothing. Being able to throw/manipulate someone by their clothing is very useful. Being able to throw someone without going down with them yourself is great for self defense. Gives you time to focus on the next guy and/or run.

-Wrestling. Huge focus on not being taken down by the legs and other. Has some good throws. Take into account the 'lack of defense' concerning standup fighting.


I don't have many credentials.
For what it's worth: I've done fighting 'sports' for a number of years (over a decade) in a variety of styles and have competed in a number of tournaments. These are just my observations.
Sorry for the rant.
My  :2c:


----------



## ballz

bdave said:
			
		

> I'm going to elaborate on this, because it's an important point - that most people misunderstand.
> It works in MMA because the rules cater to it.
> 
> If you ever get in a fight with someone, there are several reasons why jiu jitsu would not be helpful:
> 
> -You are (maybe) fighting opponentS. Jiu Jitsu has a focus on one on one. Going to the ground with bad guy 1 is an invitation for bad guys 2, 3, 4 etc to kick your head in. You might have gotten in a fight with one person, but didn't catch his buddy behind you.
> 
> -Jiu Jitsu relies heavily on extremely close quarters and is the strongest on the floor. That someone might have a knife or other in his hand. You are *dead*.
> 
> -Jiu Jitsu training sparring works through a set of rules. Those rules  are a great way to defend yourself against someone extremely close to you. That is, if the person follows the same rules. Someone who trains a specific style will go through the motions via muscle memory, this includes all the cons of the style. Some times those cons are a lack of defense versus strikes. What's to stop your enemy from putting his finger in your eye, headbutting you or other?
> 
> -Concrete is hard. It is very painful to roll on. Doing a flying armbar on someone is a guarantee that your head will be hitting the concrete first. Moving around on concrete is very painful, especially the hips, knees and elbows. Trying to do some of those moves/techniques while on concrete may be impossible due to the pain.
> 
> -Anything on the floor. That rock, that broken glass,  that needle, etc. All are hazards. Are you gonna see them when the adrenaline is rushing through your veins and you're rolling on the floor?
> 
> -Escape. If crap hits the fan and you need to make a run for it, you're down. You have to disengage yourself, get up and run. Easier than it sounds versus a fighting opponent.
> 
> -Do you have what it takes? It takes ballz to break someone's arm and whatnot. When it comes to it, you might not have the testicular fortitude.
> 
> -The fact that your best defense is based on laying down on the floor.
> 
> -Self defense is not only about neutralizing a threat, but also by getting away from it. Again, running away should be a priority. Much more difficult to do when you're focused on going to the ground.
> 
> -Boxing, judo, wrestling, and various forms of kickboxing (muay thai, etc) allow you to engage your opponent without being attached to them. When you are doine with one, you can focus on the other. You can still be effective without being attached to one person.
> 
> If you're a woman, I'd stay away from Jiu Jitsu. Best advice I could give is work on your 100 meter sprint, and increase your kicking speed to the groin and knees.
> A woman who is fighting her opponent who is probably trying to rape her will be at her weakest on the ground due to a difference in size, weight and strength. When it comes to the difference in strength, the biggest gap is that of upper body strength. Technique is important, but it is very easy/possible for a man to muscle through.
> If it comes to that range of contact, I'd suggest she throw it all to the wind and start biting and scratching with the intent to kill.
> 
> They say that fighting is not about the style, but about the fighter. I would agree.
> It's a mentality.
> 
> I'd focus on kyokushin, muay thai, boxing, judo and/or wrestling:
> 
> -Kyokushin and muay thai because they give you a focus on kicks, knees and elbows. Kyokushin has a huge flaw is that it has zero focus on punches to the head. Can be remedied with some boxing. The advantage to kyokushin is that all the hits are done without protection. So those punches to the body, and kicks/knees to the head are the real deal.
> I don't know enough about TKD to comment. As long as it isn't the sport/olympic version, you should be fine.
> 
> -Boxing because it allows you to learn to roll with the punches and properly protect the head. Most people don't know that boxers wear gloves to protect their hands, not their head. Punching someone's head, especially improperly, is a great way to break your hand and make it useless. The better of a boxer you are, the harder you are likely to hit, and the more likely you are to break your hand. Ironic. So just hit with an open palm.
> 
> -Judo has a focus on 'gi', which is basically clothing. Being able to throw/manipulate someone by their clothing is very useful. Being able to throw someone without going down with them yourself is great for self defense. Gives you time to focus on the next guy and/or run.
> 
> -Wrestling. Huge focus on not being taken down by the legs and other. Has some good throws. Take into account the 'lack of defense' concerning standup fighting.
> 
> 
> I don't have many credentials.
> For what it's worth: I've done fighting 'sports' for a number of years (over a decade) in a variety of styles and have competed in a number of tournaments. These are just my observations.
> Sorry for the rant.
> My  :2c:




I'm going to guess you have never done much jiu jitsu. Jiu jitsu take downs are very similar to judo takedowns in the use of the gi and leverage, and now a lot of prominent jiu jitsu figures are actually training in judo and bringing it over to their art because they realize judo has a wider variety for takedowns that works perfectly with jiu jitsu's theory.

However, I did not say to take jiu jitsu for the reasons you say so. I didn't say wrestling or judo because they would encourage a person to get tangled up with a larger opponent. Guess what, you will be going down with that larger opponent, like it or not.

The reason I said jiu jitsu (and notice I emphasized "in addition to" and specifically said not to "substitute") is for the worst-case scenario that you end up on the ground (like I said.... attack and run), which is very realistic with a larger opponent. What it will allow you to do is escape from a dominated position (like full mount, half guard, side control, headlocks/crossbody, back control, etc) quite EASILY (it's white belt stuff) so that you are able to get up, and run.

Everything you have said about going to the ground, I pretty much agree with 100%... you misinterpreted my reasoning for saying jiu jitsu, which I suppose is mostly my fault since my post was getting long and I didn't want to elaborate.

I disagree that wrestling is desirable for a woman. There is a big speed/strength component to it. If a small woman tries to single-leg me (my favorite), she's immediately on the ground with me like it or not. I also don't like Judo for this reason. If she can tie up my clothes and throw me, I can wrap my arms around her slash grab her clothes and take 120 lbs of her down with me no problem.

A woman should always try and remain on the outside just long enough to get a jab in their face and kick / rip a testicle out, before running. Unfortunately that's not always possible and that's where jiu jitsu could make the difference.

EDIT: "A woman who is fighting her opponent who is probably trying to rape her will be at her weakest on the ground due to a difference in size, weight and strength."

This I have to disagree with. Again, not advocating anybody to take anything to the ground, because in the real world it IS the WORST-CASE SCENARIO. However, a man's weight and strength advantage does become LESS on the ground against a trained opponent. The largest person I've ever rolled with is at least 250 lbs.... The heaviest person I've ever rolled with was about 135 lbs. He had the stature of a woman but he felt like a gorilla on top of me.


----------



## bdave

ballz said:
			
		

> I'm going to guess you have never done much jiu jitsu. Jiu jitsu take downs are very similar to judo takedowns in the use of the gi and leverage, and now a lot of prominent jiu jitsu figures are actually training in judo and bringing it over to their art because they realize judo has a wider variety for takedowns that works perfectly with jiu jitsu's theory.
> 
> However, I did not say to take jiu jitsu for the reasons you say so. I didn't say wrestling or judo because they would encourage a person to get tangled up with a larger opponent. Guess what, you will be going down with that larger opponent, like it or not.
> 
> The reason I said jiu jitsu (and notice I emphasized "in addition to" and specifically said not to "substitute") is for the worst-case scenario that you end up on the ground (like I said.... attack and run), which is very realistic with a larger opponent. What it will allow you to do is escape from a dominated position (like full mount, half guard, side control, headlocks, etc) quite EASILY (it's white-belt stuff) so that you are able to get up, and run.
> 
> Everything you have said about going to the ground, I pretty much agree with 100%... you misinterpreted my reasoning for saying jiu jitsu, which I suppose is mostly my fault since my post was getting long and I didn't want to elaborate.
> 
> I disagree that wrestling is desirable for a woman. There is a big speed/strength component to it. If a small woman tries to single-leg me (my favorite), she's immediately on the ground with me like it or not. I also don't like Judo for this reason. If she can tie up my clothes and throw me, I can wrap my arms around her slash grab her clothes and take 120 lbs of her down with me no problem.
> 
> A woman should always try and remain on the outside just long enough to get a jab in their face and kick / rip a testicle out, before running. Unfortunately that's not always possible and that's where jiu jitsu could make the difference.



Seen. However, the wrestling/judo part had 'nothing' to do with the woman thing. For the women I recommended 100 meter sprints and kicks to the groin and knees. 
I should have made it more clear.

No, you are right, I have never done Jiu Jitsu. I did have one guy show me some Jiu Jitsu stuff. I found alot of the times, I could have pretty much dug my elbow in his face and whatnot. Maybe I'm biased.

I understand your stance on Jiu Jitsu, I just think that when you spend so much time and energy 'perfecting' one art, it shouldn't be in a position where it's your last resort because of all the inherent flaws (that I outlined).
I just think that since there are so many stages that can happen before you are taken to the ground, that it would be in someone's best interest to train at something that will prevent you from going to the ground.


----------



## ballz

bdave said:
			
		

> No, you are right, I have never done Jiu Jitsu. I did have one guy show me some Jiu Jitsu stuff. I found alot of the times, I could have pretty much dug my elbow in his face and whatnot. Maybe I'm biased.



Not bias, it's true. There is a lot of stuff geared towards competition (especially now that it's becoming increasingly popular and people want to compete) that is garbage (however this is with all martial arts). Perhaps Japanese jits would be better in this case than Brazilian jits. Funny you mention about digging an elbow in their face, as this is an extremely important part of jits (pressing an elbow/shoulder/hand/knee/etc into the jaw-bone to turn their head for some odd reason makes them almost powerless... unless you were talking about literally elbowing them in the face which makes them also unconscious which would also be desirable )



			
				bdave said:
			
		

> I understand your stance on Jiu Jitsu, I just think that when you spend so much time and energy 'perfecting' one art, it shouldn't be in a position where it's your last resort because of all the inherent flaws (that I outlined).
> I just think that since there are so many stages that can happen before you are taken to the ground, that it would be in someone's best interest to train at something that will prevent you from going to the ground.



I agree... striking is first and foremost. Like I said, if possible, make jits an addition, but the primary focus should be a hard-style striking martial art. Personally I do 3-4 Muay Thai classes a week and only 1-2 jits classes, and if I'm too busy, jits takes the backseat before the thai classes start getting dropped too.

Would like to add, jits takes an incredible long time to "perfect," 10 years to get a black belt if you are dedicated, which is unheard of in any martial arts I know about. However, as a mere white belt, I can say that the amount of knowledge and skill a blue belt (first promotion, after about 100-150, up to 200 hrs of jits classes) has is quite impressive compared to other martial arts.


----------



## 57Chevy

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Invest in a vehicle and get her the hell away from the Public Transit.
> That is my advice.



Hey Wonderbread
Best quick solution/advice I've read for your girlfriend so far. :nod:
Why ? 
It takes alot of time to learn the proper techniques of self defence.
Knives, spray and all the other stuff is really provocative to the agressor and could easily make things worse. :rage:


----------



## mariomike

There is even a website and forum now: "Trash talk the TTC":
http://www.trashtalkthettc.com/index.php

On the subject of cars vs TTC, one forum member had this to say, "have fun with insurance, car payments, gas, traffic jams and the possiblity of having to pay for a traffic accident..."
( And parking - if you can find it. Or injured in a car accident, I would add. ) 

Although TTC has had its bad days as well:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6078386056981269745#
Their worst day was August 11, 1995.

Whether you prefer to drive, or TTC ( Take The Car? ) there is no doubt that the roads and transit are congested. Mayor-elect Ford pointed this out during his election campaign:
“Right now we can’t even deal with the 2.5 million people in this city. I think it is more important to take care of people now before we start bringing in more people,” Mr. Ford said during the debate.
“There’s going to be a million more people, according to the official plan (which I did not support) over the next ten years coming into the city. We can’t even deal with the 2.5 million people. How are we going to welcome another million people in? It is going to be chaotic. We can’t even deal with the chaos we have now. I think we have to say enough’s enough.”:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/08/18/mayoral-candidate-rob-ford-defends-controversial-immigration-comments/

Some "bad seeds" on the road, as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suQAFSvQx4g

As far as personal safety is concerned, I have always felt safer on the subway than in my car.
( Although I always stand with my back against the wall until the train doors open. )


----------



## Greymatters

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Hey Wonderbread
> Best quick solution/advice I've read for your girlfriend so far. :nod:
> Why ?
> It takes alot of time to learn the proper techniques of self defence.
> Knives, spray and all the other stuff is really provocative to the agressor and could easily make things worse. :rage:



Thats pretty much the key to any debate - do you suggest they just act submissive?


----------



## 57Chevy

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Thats pretty much the key to any debate - do you suggest they just act submissive?


Absolutely not.
Staying clear of possible trouble makers is a key. Learning to recognize threats is very important.
Remember that using public transport with another person can be a hooligan deterrant.
But if you must travel alone, a good idea is to not follow the same path all the time.
Study the route, create an "in case of action plan" consisting of key locations where help can be obtained quickly.
That could be a coffee shop or restaurant that you frequent where the personnel have come to recognize you.
Most important........DON'T PANIC.

I admit that using a vehicle to get around town has many downsides, like traffic jams of which most people hate.
Parking is certainly not the greatest feature  and can be costly in the downtown core.
But my previous post concerns the "right now solution".

And don't forget the idea of alternating the public transport and private vehicle use.
And also being picked-up after work once in a while by the other partner helps quite a bit.
Hoping this helps.


----------



## mariomike

Good advice, 57 Chevy. Another safety concern on the TTC is crowds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGdsR027jcE
One billion customers are carried approximately every 30 months.
"Mind the doors!"


----------



## Greymatters

All of your suggestions, and even most of the suggestions, throughout the thread make sense - if you are a current or former serving member of the CF or LEO.  

Women, in general, dont think like this; its not just 20 year old girlfriends we're discussing, but also 30+ professional career women, 40+ housewives, >18 teenagers, and 60+ grandmothers. 

None of these ladies are likely to drop what they are doing and suddenly take up martial arts or become a mixed martial arts fighter.  Even if they did, very few of them are going to turn into a Jackie Chan and have the confidence to take on a 200+ pound male.

None of them are likely to want to carry a sharp pointy thing, nor do they believe they should have to.  Even if they did, its a rare woman who would think of using it unless pushed into an act of desperation. 

The feedback Ive gotten from the Missus on this question is that she shouldnt even be at risk while riding on public transit.  What was the driver doing?  What were the other passengers doing?  Why did no man stand up and say something?  (Which pointed out a lot of social and corporate security issues, but didnt really solve the problem or answer the question; still, that was her response).

I think the best answer for this guy's girlfriend is finding out, what is she comfortable doing?  Does she want to carry and use dog spray?  Does she want to carry and use an airhorn?  Is she willing to start screaming and drawing attention to herself when she gets verbally abused or threatened?  Better figure out the scope of the problem before seeking a solution.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Greymatters said:
			
		

> All of your suggestions, and even most of the suggestions, throughout the thread make sense - if you are a current or former serving member of the CF or LEO.
> 
> Women, in general, dont think like this; its not just 20 year old girlfriends we're discussing, but also 30+ professional career women, 40+ housewives, >18 teenagers, and 60+ grandmothers.
> 
> None of these ladies are likely to drop what they are doing and suddenly take up martial arts or become a mixed martial arts fighter.  Even if they did, very few of them are going to turn into a Jackie Chan and have the confidence to take on a 200+ pound male.
> 
> None of them are likely to want to carry a sharp pointy thing, nor do they believe they should have to.  Even if they did, its a rare woman who would think of using it unless pushed into an act of desperation.
> 
> The feedback Ive gotten from the Missus on this question is that she shouldnt even be at risk while riding on public transit.  What was the driver doing?  What were the other passengers doing?  Why did no man stand up and say something?  (Which pointed out a lot of social and corporate security issues, but didnt really solve the problem or answer the question; still, that was her response).
> 
> I think the best answer for this guy's girlfriend is finding out, what is she comfortable doing?  Does she want to carry and use dog spray?  Does she want to carry and use an airhorn?  Is she willing to start screaming and drawing attention to herself when she gets verbally abused or threatened?  Better figure out the scope of the problem before seeking a solution.






			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Invest in a vehicle and get her the hell away from the Public Transit.
> That is my advice.






			
				57Chevy said:
			
		

> Hey Wonderbread
> Best quick solution/advice I've read for your girlfriend so far. :nod:
> Why ?
> It takes alot of time to learn the proper techniques of self defence.
> Knives, spray and all the other stuff is really provocative to the agressor and could easily make things worse. :rage:



Need I say more??

diles

tees


----------



## Fusaki

Thanks for the input guys,

Re: Getting a car

I have a car, it's paid off, and it was awesome when I was making CPL4 and living in the shacks.  But these days I just can't afford to keep it on the road.  Car insurance, gas, parking, and maintenance add up fast.  Driving just isn't an option while I'm paying my way through school and she's up to her neck in student debt - working for pennies as she desperately tries to find a career in her field.

Re: Routes, helpful bystanders/TTC employees, travelling with friends

Unfortunately, I don't think we can depend on any of these things.  I'm not sure that the risks of getting lost or spending more time in the city outweigh the risks of taking the same route every night.  The IED threat in downtown TO is nil, but you're likely to find crazies regardless of what route you take.  On the assumption that most attacks on women in TO are against random passersby and not targeted individuals, I think the best option for her is to come straight home.

I'm also not willing to depend solely on the kindness of strangers or friends that may or may not be around in a time of crisis.  While I think it's important to recognize the value in travelling with friends, knowing the TTC safety programs, and staying in well lit areas, no one can guarantee that this kind of help will be available all the time.  An argument can be made that these initiatives don't necessarily diminish the overall risk, but instead just focus them to the dark places you can't avoid and toward the women who have no choice but to travel alone.  I'm looking for an option that is available and effective every time, all the time.

Greymatters raises a good point,

I don't think she'd be able to defend herself unarmed without a lot of training time that she just doesn't have.  I'm highly suspicious of any fighting system that tries to sell you skills that can be learned overnight and used against likely attackers.  Most women would have to put in some long and hard hours to develop the ability to fend off a man with a +50lb advantage.  Even if we had the money to put her into that kind of training, I don't think she'd have the time to commit between working and career applications.  Realistically, "putting her in a self defense course" just won't cut it.

To be fair, I mentioned carrying a knife in my first post in this thread because, legality aside, I think it would be something that would be good for _me_.  Especially given the specific knife I linked to (if you havn't checked it out, you should) and characteristics that make it quick to deploy and easy to retain, I'm pretty sure that I could use it effectively to extract myself from most situations.  What Greymatters has drawn attention to though, is that I've been thinking about what would make sense for me - a guy with 7 years in the infantry and combat experience; _not_ what would make sense for my girlfriend, who's never been in a fight in her life.

I've been thinking about this all wrong.

So far, I think the horn is the best idea: it's something that's legal and something she'd potentially have the skill and the will to use.  That said, I see a few problems with the horn idea:

In the event of an attack, would she have the fine motor skills to pull the horn from her purse and push the button to make it work?

Is a loud noise really likely to deter an attacker?  What if he's drunk or high?

What if no one is around to hear the noise?


----------



## Kat Stevens

one of these  http://www.surefire.com/E2DL , or a knockoff, is pretty handy, easy to use, and hurts like a bastard.


----------



## J.J

The knife(s) you have interest in are illegal in Canada to posses or import. Even if your girlfriend doesn't have to use the knife she could be arrested.

http://www.hideawayknife.com/main.php

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/SOR-98-462/FullText.html
_



			8. The device known as the “Constant Companion”, being a belt containing a blade capable of being withdrawn from the belt, with the buckle of the belt forming a handle for the blade, and any similar device.
9. Any knife commonly known as a “push-dagger” that is designed in such a fashion that the handle is placed perpendicular to the main cutting edge of the blade and any other similar device other than the aboriginal “ulu” knife.
10. Any device having a length of less than 30 cm and resembling an innocuous object but designed to conceal a knife or blade, including the device commonly known as the “knife-comb”, being a comb with the handle of the comb forming a handle for the knife, and any similar device.
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## JB 11 11

Personally, I think in the short term, dropping some cash and going the private vehicle route is the safest alternative if you are really worried about it. That said, I also know what its like to own a vehicle in T.O. being a native (of Toronto  ) myself and that it may not be a realistic alternative at the moment.

But, I do think that if your situation is going to be the same for the foreseeable future, then definitely get her into some self defence classes. I personally have taken most of the top 5 "Martial Arts" to proficiency, and some beyond. From this experience and that of also living and working in some of Downtown T.O.'s shittier neighbourhoods, most notably, the Regent Park area and Parkdale (back in the mid-late 90's before it became a trendy, Hipster hood) I would say the following:

Avoid The Japanese Arts such as Karate, Jujitsu and Aikido, as on their own, they're pretty useless for most people in a personal safety situation. Combined its a different story, but it takes years and years for this to be the case. And most schools don't teach you what is most important in an Urban environment, namely, situational awareness.

Yeah, yeah... its a fancy catch phrase, but call it what ever you want to... the bottom line is that knowing how to read the situation is the best thing one can do. Therefor, for this reason, among many others I would personally recommend checking out a Krav Maga school. There are some in T.O.
This is one of the best systems out there for "everyone". It was developed by the Israelis, and I have seen first hand what even tiny folk can do with this system. 
It was developed with "real" situations in mind. The kind IDF soldiers might face in the streets of Jerusalem or Gaza, in or out of uniform. My buddy Chris has been taking it for about 3 years now. He's a skinny Asian guy, about 5ft nothing and rather effeminate shall we say ;D
I've spared with the guy a couple of times, the first time I took it easy as I didnt want to kill the guy ( I had about 60-70 lbs on the guy and a lot more experience). Let me tell you, he got my full attention real quick!! I also spared with a couple of ladies that go to the same school.... its a good system, lets just leave it at that :nod:

Anyway, look it up at least. Its not just for "self Defence" its a wikkid work out as well. 

In terms of carrying something to defend yourself with? This works on the same principle as any martial art. *You need to know what you are doing*, never mind the legal aspects of it all. I mean, these days people are being sued by burglars that got mauled by the family dog or caught a baseball bat to the kneecap when they were breaking into their homes! 

In the end common sense prevails, get her some training if for no other reason than for peace of mind. Hope this helps.


----------



## Strike

I still believe that, in the end, it doesn't matter what type of martial art/self-defence one takes.  All of them improve self-confidence and that translates to how you carry yourself.  They also teach you how to be aware of your surroundings and reading people.

A weekend course at the YMCA won't suffice.  It's something that needs to be practiced over the long period.

Remember, this is coming from a WTF taekwondo snob.   ;D


----------



## JB 11 11

Strike said:
			
		

> Remember, this is coming from a WTF taekwondo snob.   ;D



Need we say more :blotto: Just bustin' yer chops. I took Taekwondo for about 6-7 years. Not what I would call awesome in the street, but your comment about carrying yourself is very valid


----------



## Strike

JB 11 11 said:
			
		

> Need we say more :blotto: Just bustin' yer chops. I took Taekwondo for about 6-7 years. Not what I would call awesome in the street, but your comment about carrying yourself is very valid



Well, it all depends which tkd school you go to now doesn't it?

I've gone to some that are all about tkd and nothing but.  Then there are others that also focus on self-defence, some of which include disarming and ground work.  The current school I train at does a lot of work base around how to defend yourself from someone who is wielding a knife or stick/baton.


----------



## JB 11 11

Do You go to a school on base somewhere? I've found that most classes on bases tend to mix it up a bit. One of the better Martial Arts schools I've been to was the one at Uplands years ago. Can't recall the name of the guy who ran it, as I was only dropping in with another buddy of mine every once in a while, but he was pretty awesome. Used to blend a lot of different forms, like Kempo, Aikido and jujitsu/judo. Got my ass handed to me regularly  8)

I've always thought Taekwondo could be so much better than it is.... then I found out about Hapkido.... now THATS a martial art. Very pleasing to the eye and bat shit crazy!


----------



## bdave

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Thanks for the input guys,
> 
> Re: Getting a car
> 
> I have a car, it's paid off, and it was awesome when I was making CPL4 and living in the shacks.  But these days I just can't afford to keep it on the road.  Car insurance, gas, parking, and maintenance add up fast.  Driving just isn't an option while I'm paying my way through school and she's up to her neck in student debt - working for pennies as she desperately tries to find a career in her field.
> 
> Re: Routes, helpful bystanders/TTC employees, travelling with friends
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't think we can depend on any of these things.  I'm not sure that the risks of getting lost or spending more time in the city outweigh the risks of taking the same route every night.  The IED threat in downtown TO is nil, but you're likely to find crazies regardless of what route you take.  On the assumption that most attacks on women in TO are against random passersby and not targeted individuals, I think the best option for her is to come straight home.
> 
> I'm also not willing to depend solely on the kindness of strangers or friends that may or may not be around in a time of crisis.  While I think it's important to recognize the value in travelling with friends, knowing the TTC safety programs, and staying in well lit areas, no one can guarantee that this kind of help will be available all the time.  An argument can be made that these initiatives don't necessarily diminish the overall risk, but instead just focus them to the dark places you can't avoid and toward the women who have no choice but to travel alone.  I'm looking for an option that is available and effective every time, all the time.
> 
> Greymatters raises a good point,
> 
> I don't think she'd be able to defend herself unarmed without a lot of training time that she just doesn't have.  I'm highly suspicious of any fighting system that tries to sell you skills that can be learned overnight and used against likely attackers.  Most women would have to put in some long and hard hours to develop the ability to fend off a man with a +50lb advantage.  Even if we had the money to put her into that kind of training, I don't think she'd have the time to commit between working and career applications.  Realistically, "putting her in a self defense course" just won't cut it.
> 
> To be fair, I mentioned carrying a knife in my first post in this thread because, legality aside, I think it would be something that would be good for _me_.  Especially given the specific knife I linked to (if you havn't checked it out, you should) and characteristics that make it quick to deploy and easy to retain, I'm pretty sure that I could use it effectively to extract myself from most situations.  What Greymatters has drawn attention to though, is that I've been thinking about what would make sense for me - a guy with 7 years in the infantry and combat experience; _not_ what would make sense for my girlfriend, who's never been in a fight in her life.
> 
> I've been thinking about this all wrong.
> 
> So far, I think the horn is the best idea: it's something that's legal and something she'd potentially have the skill and the will to use.  That said, I see a few problems with the horn idea:
> 
> In the event of an attack, would she have the fine motor skills to pull the horn from her purse and push the button to make it work?
> 
> Is a loud noise really likely to deter an attacker?  What if he's drunk or high?
> 
> What if no one is around to hear the noise?



The best defense, bar none, is situational awareness. Be aware of your surroundings and be aware of the consequences of your actions. Going down this back alley, as opposed to down this crow street, etc.

Noise can deter an attack, but if no one comes to help, then it simply solidifies the concept in the attacker's mind that he'll get away with it.

I have heard that someone yelling 'help me' or 'I'm being attacked/raped!' is less likely to be helped than someone shouting 'fire'. Fear of personal harm might be the reason.

A great concept you can use is classic misdirection.
If you're cornered and you don't know what to do, looking behind the person and saying something like 'Hey! Help me!', will usually cause the person to turn around and look. You could use this opportunity to do some pre-emptive striking and kick him in the nuts. You could run away, but a kick in the nuts is always a good idea.
If he's drunk or high, then do misdirection or a pre emptive strike.
A small, quick, powerful movement like a knee to the groin, elbow to the face or kick to the nuts is what you want. 
As for kicking someone in the nuts, your average person makes the mistake of hitting the groinal area with their foot, or the tip of their toes.
When you do this, your foot bends, meaning some of the energy is lost.
You want to hit the groinal area with the lower part of your leg; your lower tibia. Bone on bone.


----------



## captloadie

Take this as a naive question from someone who has never lived in Toronto: How often are young single women attacked on the TTC late at night? Yes, if its was your girlfriend, one would be too many. But have we just used 4 pages to discuss a hypothetical which in reality is statistically insignificant? 

As far as CCW permits, aren't there enough shootings happening in TO already without finding another loophole to make it legal.


----------



## Container

The bangers killing each other in Toronto wouldnt be eligible for a CCW. Even this "never going to happen" hypothetical one.


----------



## JB 11 11

As much as I enjoy shooting, CCW's are the worst idea ever. Full Stop.

 Call me jaded, but there are enough dicks out there already and we want to issue more CCW permits to these people?!?!  :rofl:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

JB 11 11 said:
			
		

> As much as I enjoy shooting, CCW's are the worst idea ever. Full Stop.
> 
> Call me jaded, but there are enough dicks out there already and we want to issue more CCW permits to these people?!?!  :rofl:



So you're saying that if someone agrees or wants CCW they are a dick that can't be trusted? 

You don't even know what your talking about, but that's your opinion.

I think that people that make uninformed statements, foist their personal values on others and resort to ad hominem attacks to bolster their ignorant outlook are arrogant pompous assholes that should be pitied for their narrowmindedness. That's my opinion.


_edit to add smiley_
Oh, forgot this:  :rofl:


----------



## Oh No a Canadian

recceguy said:
			
		

> So you're saying that if someone agrees or wants CCW they are a dick that can't be trusted?


I think he is saying that their are a lot of dicks in this world and he would rather no one gets a CCW than any one.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Oh No a Canadian said:
			
		

> I think he is saying that their are a lot of dicks in this world and he would rather no one gets a CCW than any one.



You can think anything you want. It doesn't change my opinion.


----------



## Container

Obviously this isnt as a cop but as a private citizen.

If you cant differentiate between well screened upstanding citizens being able to carry a piece and gang bangers who victimize this is a moot point.

But I know lots of non-cops who I would be fine with carrying. In fact- Ive received firearms training from ordinary people that shoot a million times better than I and are excellent people. You would probably be better off with them at a scene where things go sideways and me to investgate after. And thats high praise cause Im pretty great (lol).

But seriously- people that are afraid of good people willing to take on the responsibility dont make alot of sense to me. Scrotes and dickheads dont get permits. And so far they havent needed them to do wrong.

Buuuuuut....CCW is pretty far off in Canada. And by far off I mean its not happening. We still dont even want all our LEO's armed and are uncomfortable with soldiers doing ruck marches near neighbourhoods- (some of us anyways).


----------



## mariomike

captloadie said:
			
		

> Take this as a naive question from someone who has never lived in Toronto: How often are young single women attacked on the TTC late at night? Yes, if its was your girlfriend, one would be too many. But have we just used 4 pages to discuss a hypothetical which in reality is statistically insignificant?



I responded to 9-1-1 calls on TTC vehicles and property for just shy of 37 years. Attacks on young, single women requiring transport to hospital were rare. Extremely rare. 
On the other hand, a lot of broken and bloody drivers have to be extricated from their cars and transported to hospital.
More people are coming to Toronto every day. More riders = more crime on the TTC. If they decide to drive, it means more accidents on the roads. 
As far as security goes, women still have to walk to and from their cars. What if it does not start? Or has a flat tire? Or breaks down on the way home? Or has a fender bender that turns violent? 
I am not saying TTC is always the better way. But, when it comes to safety and security, these are things to consider.

Incidentally, if she ever panics on the subway, tell her to use the Passenger Assistance Alarm PAA. Never use  the Emergency Stop Device. Sometimes people do that, but it is a mistake. Unless you are on the station platform. Otherwise, you will stop the train in a tunnel.


----------



## GAP

This may be true on the actuall TTC system itself, but I think we're talking about the whole gamit...stations, streets, isolated areas.....I can see where there would be concern...


----------



## Container

mariomike said:
			
		

> I responded to 9-1-1 calls on TTC vehicles and property for just shy of 37 years. Attacks on young, single women requiring transport to hospital were rare. Extremely rare.
> On the other hand, a lot of broken and bloody drivers have to be extricated from their cars and transported to hospital.
> More people are coming to Toronto every day. More riders = more crime on the TTC. If they decide to drive, it means more accidents on the roads.
> As far as security goes, women still have to walk to and from their cars. What if it does not start? Or has a flat tire? Or breaks down on the way home? Or has a fender bender that turns violent?
> I am not saying TTC is always the better way. But, when it comes to safety and security, these are things to consider.
> 
> Incidentally, if she ever panics on the subway, tell her to use the Passenger Assistance Alarm PAA. Never use  the Emergency Stop Device. Sometimes people do that, but it is a mistake. Unless you are on the station platform. Otherwise, you will stop the train in a tunnel.



Very true MM,

The wrecks are the calls that stay with you.


----------



## mariomike

Container said:
			
		

> Very true MM,
> 
> The wrecks are the calls that stay with you.



I was thinking of our discussion about the young man who was beheaded on the Greyhound bus out west, Container. It generated a significant amount of concern about safety on Canadian bus lines. 
But, I wonder how many people are killed, or seriously injured, in wrecks on those highways?
I understand these are two different transit systems, but I still consider the bus a ( relatively ) safe way to travel. ( Although, after reading about that, I would try to keep one eye open when resting. )


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Gents,

Please watch the tangents. This thread is not about vehicle accidents or EMS servicing them.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Sig_Des

captloadie said:
			
		

> As far as CCW permits, aren't there enough shootings happening in TO already without finding another loophole to make it legal.



CCW as commonly known, in Canada it's actually called Authorization to Carry (ATC) is incredibly hard to get in Canada.

For Self-defense you have to meet to following requirements:

1) a threat assessment by a police agency clearly shows that the life of the individual(s) is in imminent danger from one or more individuals; 

2) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances; 

3) the applicant has successfully completed training that is acceptable to the CFO in handgun proficiency and the use of force;

4) the possession of a restricted or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual(s) from death or grievously bodily harm; 

5) the CFO determines that the particular restricted or prohibited handgun is appropriate in those circumstances or for that purpose;

6) the applicant must be a holder of an appropriate firearms license; and 

7) the applicant has paid the appropriate fee. 

So unless someone has documented records of being attacked and proving a constant threat, as well as proving that Police protection is not sufficient, which the PD would never admit to, it's basically administratively impossible to get approved for an ATC for self-defense


----------



## Greymatters

captloadie said:
			
		

> Take this as a naive question from someone who has never lived in Toronto: How often are young single women attacked on the TTC late at night? Yes, if its was your girlfriend, one would be too many. But have we just used 4 pages to discuss a hypothetical which in reality is statistically insignificant?



If all women were as mentally and physically strong as ArmyVern (or as she is reputed to be anyway, Ive never met her and cant confirm it), this wouldnt be a significant problem, but unfortunately they arent. 

Attacks on single women travelling alone at night have always been a problem, going back throughout human history.  

Many of us, including myself, think of attacks as a physical assault, or an attempt to isolate and phsycially assault a person.

Not so for many women.  To many of the women Ive known, an assault is anyone (90% of the time male) who makes lewd suggestions, gestures or body behaviours.  It includes any unwanted attention or comments, not just stalking and intimidation.  It includes sexual harassment, workplace violence, and humiliation in the workplace (all of which are alive and well despite laws and training programs).  Physical and verbal attack and all its aspects is one of their greatest fears, and it seems like most of them live in a constant state of bird-like panic that someone bigger or male will intimidate them.  Other examples include being threatened or intimidated by other drivers, or spoken to rudely in the street or in parking lots.  These kinds of events happen to women anytime they travel from one place to another.    

I would point out that Im a big believer in equality and women being able to do most any job a man can do, which sounds completely opposite to my comments on this subvject.  But even the most direct, outgoing, self-confident and successful businesswomen have these same concerns.


----------



## Stoker

JB 11 11 said:
			
		

> As much as I enjoy shooting, CCW's are the worst idea ever. Full Stop.
> 
> Call me jaded, but there are enough dicks out there already and we want to issue more CCW permits to these people?!?!  :rofl:



I currently hold several CCW permits for the US that allow me to legally carry in most States. I jumped through all the hoops and did the training, no big deal. I really believe _IF_ CCW was allowed in Canada and was highly regulated crime in cities as Toronto would drop somewhat. That being I doubt if we'll ever see it in Canada in my lifetime. Its pretty bad when a foreign country will trust me to carry a firearm when my own country will not.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> CCW as commonly known, in Canada it's actually called Authorization to Carry (ATC) is incredibly hard to get in Canada.
> 
> For Self-defense you have to meet to following requirements:
> 
> 1) a threat assessment by a police agency clearly shows that the life of the individual(s) is in imminent danger from one or more individuals;
> 
> 2) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances;
> 
> 3) the applicant has successfully completed training that is acceptable to the CFO in handgun proficiency and the use of force;
> 
> 4) the possession of a restricted or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual(s) from death or grievously bodily harm;
> 
> 5) the CFO determines that the particular restricted or prohibited handgun is appropriate in those circumstances or for that purpose;
> 
> 6) the applicant must be a holder of an appropriate firearms license; and
> 
> 7) the applicant has paid the appropriate fee.
> 
> So unless someone has documented records of being attacked and proving a constant threat, as well as proving that Police protection is not sufficient, which the PD would never admit to, it's basically administratively impossible to get approved for an ATC for self-defense



And the last figure I heard was something like 7 in all of Canada. Judges and lawyers mostly. Ironically, the Quebec CFO, saw fit to issue one to Mom Bouchard of the Hells Angels :


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Stoker said:
			
		

> I currently hold several CCW permits for the US that allow me to legally carry in most States. I jumped through all the hoops and did the training, no big deal. I really believe _IF_ CCW was allowed in Canada and was highly regulated crime in cities as Toronto would drop somewhat. That being I doubt if we'll ever see it in Canada in my lifetime. Its pretty bad when a foreign country will trust me to carry a firearm when my own country will not.



There are more than a few of us with foriegn CCW, and you're right Stoker, it is a shame our own country doesn't trust us with it.


----------



## Redeye

Container said:
			
		

> Buuuuuut....CCW is pretty far off in Canada. And by far off I mean its not happening. We still dont even want all our LEO's armed and are uncomfortable with soldiers doing ruck marches near neighbourhoods- (some of us anyways).


 
I'll second this - it's not a mater of it being some eventuality in Canada.  It simply isn't ever going to happen, I'm fairly confident in saying, and I suspect that to be a good thing.  I've seen no particularly convincing evidence that allowing CCW actually substantially changes crime rates.  In reality too I doubt there'd be much of a queue for permits were they available.  It seems like Canadians generally don't see the need for it, as compared for example to many Americans I know.  There's sort of a vicious circle at work there - they want to be armed to protect themselves from violent crime that seems largely to have been fueled by the proliferation of firearms there... In fact, I find it particularly rich that there's a lot of screaming there by right wingers about Mexican drug cartel violence and the concern it'll spill over the border, when those cartels are largely armed with weapons that were available to them because of such ineffective efforts to control them in America... which of course is a policy defended by... well, you get the idea.

The reality is that I have no objection to a woman (or anyone, for that matter) carrying non-lethal self-defence equipment, so long as they're properly instructed on the use of such things, because I can see disastrous results of escalations being a more likely outcome.


----------



## Stoker

Redeye, a person say in Toronto is going to rape or rob a victim either male or female. Is that person less likely to rape or rob that person knowing that there is a possibility that their victim is carrying a concealed weapon and has the training and will to use it? I think in some cases yes. Simple presentation of the firearm is enough to deter a would be attacker in most cases, in the small percentage of cases where it wouldn't it may end bad for the attacker. Of course there will be times when it won't work, I would rather have my loved one have the possibility to defend themselves effectively rather than the certainty of raped or robbed.
If for some reason CCW was allowed, I think a lot of people would apply in places where the police have effectively lost control. Some of our big cities are getting just as bad as any American ones. Non lethal defense is fine, however when things such as pepper spray or mace is outlawed what are you really going to rely on? The hope that the perp is going to leave you alive or not assault you so much?


----------



## time expired

What a society we live in,where we cannot even guarantee  the safety of our citizens on PUBLIC transport

and even deny said citizen the right to defend themselves out of ridicules  concerns about the human rights

of the perpetrators.But in most of Europe`s socialist countries the same situation exists.

                                                                      Regards


----------



## wildman0101

Wonderbread,
Inregard's to your friend's situation:
Under Canadian Law
You are allowed to use any reasonable
means to protect your self.
Having said that carrying a concealed 
weopen of any kind under the Criminal 
code of Canada is a chargeable offense.
Be it knife (blade restriction-under 3 inch
apply's). Over 3 inch is a weopon and you 
can be charged just for carrying.
go with 48th's reccomendation's.
Also under Candadian Law certain Martial
Art's including Judo, Juijitsu,Karate, and 
other's after year's of training are awarded
said belt's awarded. After so many years of 
said training/awards depending on your 
choice of Martial including Boxing your hand's
feet, leg's, head are classified as weopen's
under Canadian Law...
Capt KittyKat as a wtf taekwondo snob did 
you forget this?????????
57's post33 ring's true,,, stay clear of trouble 
if you can.
Just my 2 cent's....
MEOW..... BaaaaHaaaaha haaaaa...
Scoty B


----------



## PuckChaser

Classifying your hands/legs/feet as weapons after Martial Arts training is a myth.

What the courts will do, however, is hold you at a higher standard of knowledge on what specific actions will do to a human. By applying a technique and causing grievous bodily harm, you cannot pull the "I didn't know what it would do card". They will pull people far more trained than you to explain exactly how you were taught things, and why you should have known not to do it.


----------



## wildman0101

As puck stated..
I stand corrected.
My apologie's...
Scoty B


----------



## Kat Stevens

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Classifying your hands/legs/feet as weapons after Martial Arts training is a myth.
> 
> What the courts will do, however, is hold you at a higher standard of knowledge on what specific actions will do to a human. By applying a technique and causing grievous bodily harm, you cannot pull the "I didn't know what it would do card". They will pull people far more trained than you to explain exactly how you were taught things, and why you should have known not to do it.



So, better to just lie back and think of England, then?  Bullshit.  If you know how to fuck someone up in order to stop them from fucking you up, swing away.


----------



## mariomike

time expired said:
			
		

> What a society we live in,where we cannot even guarantee  the safety of our citizens on PUBLIC transport
> 
> and even deny said citizen the right to defend themselves out of ridicules  concerns about the human rights
> 
> of the perpetrators.But in most of Europe`s socialist countries the same situation exists.
> 
> Regards



We cannot even guarantee safety in their own homes. Which is where much of the violence against women takes place.


----------



## captloadie

Going back to the original OP, and why I asked the question about how often attacks happen. We aren't talking about about non physical harassment here. You A young women probably wouldn't pull a knife or gun, or karate chop someone because someone is making rude gestures to you, or using profane language. That isn't self defense in the sense the OP was asking about. If the attacks in and around TTC stations are rare, maybe the best defense for the OP's girlfriend is, as others have said, self awareness and _*confidence*_. As we all know, it is usually the meek and scared who are targeted, regardless of their size or sex. 

As for the CCW, my argument against it is this: I don't have a concealed weapon and thug asks for my wallet, I give it to him and he goes away. I do have a concealed weapon and thug asks for my wallet, I pull my weapon, he pulls his, and one or both of us probably doesn't walk away.


----------



## ballz

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> So, better to just lie back and think of England, then?  Bullshit.  If you know how to frig someone up in order to stop them from ******* you up, swing away.



No, what he's referring to is if you were to use excessive force in "defending" yourself, to the point that it was no longer just defending yourself.

For (a very hypothetical example, not an actual legal case) example, somebody with much jiu jitsu training is going to know some pretty sweet tricks for tearing a person's arm out of their shoulder, choking them out, and winding a person's elbow like a clock, etc.

When it comes to defending yourself, your only allowed to use the necessary force to do so. If you were to put somebody in a heel hook, and rip the tendons and ligaments in the persons foot clean off the bones/muscles, you have probably done all that is necessary to get away from the situation as the attacker will no longer be chasing you.

If you instead decided to rip his shoulder out too, cause hey, the f**ker deserves it.... well, you could be in some legal trouble, more than an untrained individual that ripped out the person's shoulder the same way, because "you knew better."

But, just because you are trained and "your hands are a weapon," you wouldn't be in legal trouble for using training to heel hook the person to neutralize the threat so that you could run away, the same as an untrained individual wouldn't be.


----------



## bdave

captloadie said:
			
		

> Going back to the original OP, and why I asked the question about how often attacks happen. We aren't talking about about non physical harassment here. You A young women probably wouldn't pull a knife or gun, or karate chop someone because someone is making rude gestures to you, or using profane language. That isn't self defense in the sense the OP was asking about. If the attacks in and around TTC stations are rare, maybe the best defense for the OP's girlfriend is, as others have said, self awareness and _*confidence*_. As we all know, it is usually the meek and scared who are targeted, regardless of their size or sex.
> 
> As for the CCW, my argument against it is this: I don't have a concealed weapon and thug asks for my wallet, I give it to him and he goes away. I do have a concealed weapon and thug asks for my wallet, I pull my weapon, he pulls his, and one or both of us probably doesn't walk away.



How do you know that if you give him your wallet that he'll go away?
If you're in your house with your wife, how do you know he won't take advantage of the situation? 
Why wouldn't he, when he's holding the cards?
A crook isn't governed by law. He might have a weapon on him.
Whether he has one or not isn't the point. Wouldn't you rather have one, regardless?


----------



## captloadie

bdave said:
			
		

> How do you know that if you give him your wallet that he'll go away?
> If you're in your house with your wife, how do you know he won't take advantage of the situation?
> Why wouldn't he, when he's holding the cards?
> A crook isn't governed by law. He might have a weapon on him.
> Whether he has one or not isn't the point. Wouldn't you rather have one, regardless?



What are you talking about? Try reading the posts and understanding what people are saying before blabbering nonsense. How does me in my home relate to the CCW argument.


----------



## Kat Stevens

ballz said:
			
		

> No, what he's referring to is if you were to use excessive force in "defending" yourself, to the point that it was no longer just defending yourself.
> 
> For (a very hypothetical example, not an actual legal case) example, somebody with much jiu jitsu training is going to know some pretty sweet tricks for tearing a person's arm out of their shoulder, choking them out, and winding a person's elbow like a clock, etc.
> 
> When it comes to defending yourself, your only allowed to use the necessary force to do so. If you were to put somebody in a heel hook, and rip the tendons and ligaments in the persons foot clean off the bones/muscles, you have probably done all that is necessary to get away from the situation as the attacker will no longer be chasing you.
> 
> If you instead decided to rip his shoulder out too, cause hey, the f**ker deserves it.... well, you could be in some legal trouble, more than an untrained individual that ripped out the person's shoulder the same way, because "you knew better."
> 
> But, just because you are trained and "your hands are a weapon," you wouldn't be in legal trouble for using training to heel hook the person to neutralize the threat so that you could run away, the same as an untrained individual wouldn't be.




I understand necessary force rules, but clearly, you don't have teenaged daughters.  My girls have been instructed that, if possible, keep kicking the fucker in the head, balls, and guts till he stops moving... Then one more just for luck.


----------



## ballz

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I understand necessary force rules, but clearly, you don't have teenaged daughters.  My girls have been instructed that, if possible, keep kicking the ****** in the head, balls, and guts till he stops moving... Then one more just for luck.



Haha you are right I don't have daugthers and I appreciate that point as I may feel the same way as you if I did. 

But the thread is about the LEGALITY, which is what we were addressing, and if your daugthers did manage to neutralize the guy and instead of running away, decided to stomp on his head until he stopped moving, then they could be in serious legal trouble.

Taking the legal aspect of self-defense out it altogther, I'll still argue with you that the longer they stay beating up the guy, the better chance he has of recovering from the surprise/pain of the initial blows that may have stopped him initially, and getting a second wind to finish what he originally intended, perhaps with even more malice.


----------



## Kat Stevens

I suppose all that's true, unfortunately.  What this country needs is a good, solid "sumbitch needed killing" line of legally admissable defence.


----------



## ballz

I see you are retired? Perhaps your calling in life is politics. I think I speak for most of army.ca when I say you'd have my vote with those kind of policies ;D


----------



## bdave

captloadie said:
			
		

> What are you talking about? Try reading the posts and understanding what people are saying before blabbering nonsense. How does me in my home relate to the CCW argument.


I need to separate my sentences better.

The point is that you don't know what the crook will do, even if you give him your wallet.
Why would/should protecting yourself on the street be any different than protecting yourself at home?
So it would be better to be armed, than not.


----------



## Stoker

captloadie said:
			
		

> As for the CCW, my argument against it is this: I don't have a concealed weapon and thug asks for my wallet, I give it to him and he goes away. I do have a concealed weapon and thug asks for my wallet, I pull my weapon, he pulls his, and one or both of us probably doesn't walk away.



You hope he goes away. If you want to be a victim that's up to you, but all that does is emboldens the perp to keep doing it time and time again. I know if I was allowed to CCW in Canada I would have no problem defending myself or my loved ones. The problem with Canadian society is that we are taught that its OK to be the victim and not fight back and the police will be to help us. In many places the police are overwhelmed and cannot be counted upon to act in a timely manner.


----------



## mariomike

I hope this adds to the discussion in a positive way. It concerns the story of a man who used a firearm on the subway in New York. It's American justice, but may have some relevance to this topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz


----------



## PuckChaser

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> So, better to just lie back and think of England, then?  Bullshit.  If you know how to frig someone up in order to stop them from ******* you up, swing away.



I wasn't advocating that at all. If someone attacks you and goes for your throat, they have now escalated to deadly force and you can do whatever you need to do to stop them. If they sucker punch you in the stomach, you can't drop kick them to the head, or throw on an armbar that breaks their arm in 5 places. This also means if you knock someone unconscious, you can't just start booting them in the head because you feel wronged by being attacked. You've stopped the assault, disarmed the individual if required, you move away to a safe place.


----------



## ballz

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If they sucker punch you in the stomach, you can't drop kick them to the head, or throw on an armbar that breaks their arm in 5 places.



To my understanding, this is incorrect. Self-defense and "proper escalation of force" are two different things. Self-defense is about doing what is necessary to defend yourself and not going past that, where as escalation of force is more of a military/police procedure.

If somebody is assaulting you in the civilian world, "escalation of force" isn't a factor. Civilians don't have a variety of weapons available to "escalate" force with. Just because they are only using their fists in your stomach doesn't mean you can't escalate it as far as you need to for your own safety. I am pretty sure if somebody started wailing on your stomach and wouldn't stop you are perfectly justified in breaking their arm to make them stop and running away, as you did what you had to do to stop the assault and then got out of there (without turning the act of self-defense into your own assault).


----------



## Sapplicant

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I suppose all that's true, unfortunately.  What this country needs is a good, solid "sumbitch needed killing" line of legally admissable defence.




Or, we could be more like Kennesaw, Georgia. I'd even go so far as to say make it mandatory for every law-abiding, stable-minded, SOBER person to maintain a visible side-arm when in public. None of this CCW crap.

Bet criminals would think *REAL* hard before trying to pull any stunts if that were the case.

One more for good measure.


----------



## PuckChaser

ballz said:
			
		

> If somebody is assaulting you in the civilian world, "escalation of force" isn't a factor. Civilians don't have a variety of weapons available to "escalate" force with. Just because they are only using their fists in your stomach doesn't mean you can't escalate it as far as you need to for your own safety. I am pretty sure if somebody started wailing on your stomach and wouldn't stop you are perfectly justified in breaking their arm to make them stop and running away, as you did what you had to do to stop the assault and then got out of there (without turning the act of self-defense into your own assault).



You'd have to justify the broken arm as the only way to stop the attack. Easily done if the individual is larger than you, and you're backed in a corner. I think my example might have been a little off in how I was trying to explain it, in that I was trying to describe was the difference between someone being simply Assaultive (level 4) and using Deadily Force/Grievous Bodily Harm (Level 5). I agree with you that the force necessary to stop an attack may be a level up, but can't turn into its own assault.


----------



## KevinB

Minimal Amount of Force by a reasonable person is still key.

Also most areas have disparity of force rules (small woman versus large man can go to gun early... as well as armed man can go to gun when confronted by a large amount of smaller individuals).

Also armed civilians (done here where we take life and liberty seriously) have the right to protect themselves with lethal force, as an attack on them can give the attacker a firearm.

  In Canada while you may have a right to self defence you don't always have the means...


----------



## wildman0101

Dear Strike,
I would like to take this moment to apologise
for my DumbA** comment's and I sincerely 
hope that you can forgive me. I was out of 
line and got carried away with the teasing.
I don't blame you one bit for being pissed. I 
have no doubt in my mind that you are every-
thing you say you are regard's your Martial Skill's
. I wish you the best and hope you take that title.
Sincerely Your's.
Scoty B
P.S. Boot upside my own head.


----------



## Privateer

This may be of interest with respect to the question of legality.  Here is a recent decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal dealing with a civil (not criminal) case in which self-defence was pleaded in response to an action for assault.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/10/02/2010BCCA0277.htm


----------



## JB 11 11

recceguy said:
			
		

> So you're saying that if someone agrees or wants CCW they are a dick that can't be trusted?
> 
> You don't even know what your talking about, but that's your opinion.
> 
> I think that people that make uninformed statements, foist their personal values on others and resort to ad hominem attacks to bolster their ignorant outlook are arrogant pompous assholes that should be pitied for their narrowmindedness. That's my opinion.
> 
> 
> _edit to add smiley_
> Oh, forgot this:  :rofl:



Easy Tiger!..... Im not bloody advocating taking away the right to carry or to own. Im not in favour of restrictions. So Im not sure why you felt the need for that type of response?
 What I AM in favour of is not allowing the average citizen the right to carry a loaded Sig in his/her waist band on a packed TTC train. I simply DONT trust the average person that far. Granted, the average person wouldn't pass the screenings, and thats good. I guess what I'm getting at is that I am not in favour of making it any easier for someone to carry a weapon (firearm) concealed or otherwise. 

Thats MY personal opinion.... whether I know what Im talking about or not.


----------



## IrishCanuck

Get her a tactical pen.

No, that's not a joke.


----------



## PuckChaser

IrishCanuck said:
			
		

> Get her a tactical pen.
> 
> No, that's not a joke.



Think Geek has one! http://www.thinkgeek.com/interests/giftsunder20/dd7c/ It says you can kick ass, AND take names with it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My wife was a lawyer in Malaysia and had to defend some real scumbags. She is under no illusions about how the criminal class views the rest of society. She wishes I could get CCW/ATC to protect her and the kids. She never goes out at night without a can of bearspray. Now we live in North Van and bears out at night are fairly common, so it would be hard for a cop to argue there is no need. Also the cops out here are quite selective about who they hassle for carrying such stuff. 
I am not a martial arts type and although I do carry knives, I see the knife as last resort defense when all else has failed. Seen first hand what knives can do and you can win a knife fight and still die. My preference is anything that can increase the distance between you and the threat, which is why I am a fan of sprays. I have used a fire extinguisher as well, which can be quite effective, plus you have a decent club when it runs out. 
I also advocate awareness, which seems to be the biggest issue today. I stopped counting the number of times I have seen a girl walking down an alley with her earphone on and engrossed in texting a message. Spotting the threat and taking action early resolves a lot of potential situations, just making eye contact and looking at them, tells them that you are on to them and that the target is not easy prey.
As for people opposed to CCW, few have bothered to crunch the numbers. In the US the FBI estimates that armed citizens thwart approx. 2 million crimes a year and that firearm related indictment rates for CCW permits holders hovers at about 1% and half of those is for dumb stuff like carrying into a federal building. The US estimates that something like 4-5 million new guns were sold in 2009 and over 12 BILLION rds of ammunition sold to civilian and law enforcement in North America in the same year. Meanwhile their homicide rate is plummeting about 4 times faster than ours.


----------



## Sig_Des

Colin P said:
			
		

> Meanwhile their homicide rate is plummeting about 4 times faster than ours.



Not to mention, something like the the 6 states with the highest gun-murder rates also happen to be some of the states with the toughest anti-gun laws.


----------



## JB 11 11

With a population of 380 mil + vs. our 34 (ish) mil,  they still have long way to go I would think. Unless your talking on a per capita rate.

As for CCW and all of that.... meh. Its Canada. Say what you want, its still a "safe" place to live. I've lived in a lot of S&@% holes and it makes me very happry to be able to Canada my home.


All that aside, I think this is very much the way the OP's girlfriend should go:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/fight-science/3049/Overview

The episode on self defence has some great and very simple advice on this. features the likes of Chris Caracci (Former Seal instructor) and Bas Rutten to name but two, as well as currently serving Police officers. Good stuff, well worth a look.


----------



## Thompson_JM

IrishCanuck said:
			
		

> Get her a tactical pen.
> 
> No, that's not a joke.



I just googled this... snazzy!


----------



## Fusaki

This one's for recceguy  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2REG3-Wb5gM


----------



## Retired AF Guy

IrishCanuck said:
			
		

> Get her a tactical pen.
> 
> No, that's not a joke.



Speaking of which... does anyone know if tactical pens are legal or not in Canada? 

IrishCanuck

Legalities aside, I don't think using a tactical pen (or similar device) is a good idea. If you're close enough to strike the bad guy, then they are close enough to strike you. The idea is to stay away from the bad guy as much as possible. Plus, striking them with something like a tactical pen will only p*** the bad guy off which is the last thing you want to do.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

That tactical pen is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen.  If helping with your own crime scene seems like a good idea, let Darwinism take its course.

The best thing anyone, male or female, can do is be aware and not present themselves as a victim.  Don't ignore your instincts and react when you know something is going down.  As for the original scenario, the TTC subways have those strips on the walls.  Any of those creates an immediate response.  

I don't recall the study, but I do remember hearing that many women who were victims of violent crime allowed their attackers to get the drop on them because they were worried about seeming impolite and did not want to draw attention and be embarrassed.  Change the victim attitude and the whole game changes.  Weapons and training are a last resort.  Chose not to be in the situation.  I'm pretty sure nobody is going to be able to come up with a real life situation where a woman was sexually assaulted on the subway and people watched and did nothing.  Not saying it hasn't happened somewhere, just not in Toronto.  That city sucks, but not THAT badly _yet_.  

And I tell all the women in my life to carry bear spray.  Spray to the face, kick to the pills, run like hell.  Follow up with a cinder block to the head if you are feeling feisty.  I would never charge someone with a weapons offence if they were protecting themselves from a genuine attack.  They would probably get some help articulating their use of force and their perception of the threat presented in their statement too


----------



## mariomike

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure nobody is going to be able to come up with a real life situation where a woman was sexually assaulted on the subway and people watched and did nothing.  Not saying it hasn't happened somewhere, just not in Toronto.  That city sucks, but not THAT badly _yet_.



Not that I am aware of, either.
Two months ago, Maclean's ranked Canada’s most dangerous cities for sexual assault.
The Canadian rate is 62 assaults per 100,000 population. Of the 38 large areas that scored above that national average, none have populations of more than one million:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/14/sexual-assault/


----------



## Container

I know YOU wouldnt charge a victim, and netiher would I Zipperhead.

But Im not sure if you've met the NCO's in the RCMP- they do it all the time. There is a big stink going on about victims being the only ones charged on files going on on the east coast right now.

Somepeople in the Queens Cowboys love stats above all other things....


----------



## Greymatters

It would be pretty easy to do - after all, the victim wants to tell their story, doesnt have to be coerced, isnt concerned about having a lawyer present, and thinks that the police will do what is best for them.


----------



## Old Sweat

Greymatters said:
			
		

> It would be pretty easy to do - after all, the victim wants to tell their story, doesnt have to be coerced, isnt concerned about having a lawyer present, and thinks that the police will do what is best for them.



Can someone explain a point of law here then, svp? Is a statement taken from someone who is later charged admissable if the individual was not advised that the statement could be used as the basis of a charge? At some point the officer taking the statement must have realized that the witness was implicating himself, or at least was under suspicion of having committed an offence.


----------



## stukirkpatrick

Exactly.  Once the interviewing officer believes that the victim may be the suspect in the commission of an offence, they would have to stop and caution the victim about providing evidence for that offence before any other questioning.  

Otherwise it wouldn't be admissable in court unless it was an out-of-the-blue exclamation by the victim.


----------



## Container

Im not really able to get too far into this. There is a current trend of victims being charged in various instances. I dont want to get in to a public thing but basically the file is forwarded after being completed through a supervisor who sends it back down and wants the victim charged with various things. I would tell that supervisor to go and do his own paperwork if he feels so badly about it but not everyone feels that way.

I can think of four recent examples myself. Not where Ive charged a victim but where a junior cop has been given direction. In fact its made the news a few times on the east coast. You dont need a witness statement to charge someone and a spontaneous admission would be admissable without a caution. 

The point being there is a real possibility of winding up in court AND being the only person to be there.

Right or wrong you can't carry weapons for elf defence in Canada without running a risk. Unless your a federal inmate.....but thats another story.


----------



## Thompson_JM

Container said:
			
		

> ...Right or wrong you can't carry weapons for self defence in Canada without running a risk...



And that IMHO is the real Crux of the argument right there.... 

Why don't we have a Charter right to carry something to defend ourselves from those who wish to do us harm?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

You have the right to defend yourself and use as much force as is reasonably necessary.  It's the "reasonable" part that provided the wild, subjective latitude.  

1. Small woman attacked by strange male and pulled towards bushes in sexual assault attempt.  Woman grabs bottle, smashes attacker.  Justified.

2.  5 kids breaking into man's car, man goes out with baseball bat to confront.  Kids swarm him, kids get smacked with bat.  Borderline justifiable.

3.  Intruder caught inside persons home, home owner confronts and shoots them while they try to flee.  Not justified.

In all of those, the bad guy(s) pretty much deserve to get some sort of pain delivery.  But how it came about and why it is used is very broad.  Ultimately, it comes down to articulation of use of force and the belief in a persons mind versus the damage done and the need for it to happen.  
(I'm going to suggest that endless debate on the above three scenarios is not needed.  They were just for illustration purpose and DO  NOT constitute anything official or supported by the judiciary)

Container, it saddens me that the RCMP have gotten to this point.  I heard a suggestion a while back that they should abandon all contract policing and push the responsibility back to the province.  Then they could just concentrate on high level investigations ala the FBI.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Container, it saddens me that the RCMP have gotten to this point.  I heard a suggestion a while back that they should abandon all contract policing and push the responsibility back to the province.  Then they could just concentrate on high level investigations ala the FBI.



You'd get little complaint from the majority of Canada's firearms owners on that one.


----------



## Brutus

I've heard of the concept of 'weapon of opportunity', meaning you can grab something to defend yourself, as long as it was not there specifically for that purpose. IE - your golf clubs are sitting in your enterance way of your home after a round of golf earlier in the day. That night, someone breaks into your home, you grab what's available (a 9-iron) and defend yourself. I have also heard that firearms are never justified as a weapon of opportunity.

Does anyone know anything about this?


----------



## Dissident

Brutus said:
			
		

> I have also heard that firearms are never justified as a weapon of opportunity.



They _could_ be justified. I think a couple of cases lately had people defending themselves with firearms and being found not guilty or charges stayed.

Anyone got links on these? Don't have them handy.

Chances are if you shoot someone, no matter how obviously justified you were, the police would charge you and let the court decides.


----------



## Container

recceguy said:
			
		

> You'd get little complaint from the majority of Canada's firearms owners on that one.



 :'( 

Its true...and Zipperhead is on the money. Sometimes it appears that we may be suffering from from micro-analyzing the actions of people who find themselves in fearful situations. Which is what we, police, accuse the courts of doing when a police officer uses force and defence starts doing the "shouldn't you have done this". Spending hours studying a decision that took less than a second. 

Unofficially, I subscribe to the train of thought that if bonehead pushes the young lady to the point where she feels like she needs to stab him with a pen to avoid bodily harm. The person responsible is bonehead.....

Im not sure if the RCMP woes currently splashing through the media would go away if we removed contract policing. The unreasonable amongst one organization would just be shuffled to another. All it would do is change the name of the force with the weird issues.

Im not sure if you are following the Ottawa police management and front line guys spat at all but its interesting that the chief used to be a mountie.


----------



## Sapplicant

Question.

When does 'self defence' turn into 'aggrivated assault'?

Background to question:

Some bum threw a rock at me, and I confronted him about it, asked him why, told him it was rude, and not to do it again. He gets up and asks me if I ever foung in world war 2, got in my face, and took a few swings at me. I went back into the pub where my friends were, and though nothing of it until I looked out the window and saw a cop motioning for me. Apparently someone called the cops, and they wanted to know if I wanted to press charges. I told them 'he's got enough problems, and I don't have the time. Just get him out of here, please, so we can go on with our night'. Then, as the cab they loaded him into is going off, he leans out the window, points at me, and says "See you real soon, you rat-asshole!". I work at a bar in downtown Ottawa, and there's a VERY good chance he's going to confront me again (assuming he wasn't too smashed off listerine to remember).

When this happens, what's a lad to do?


----------



## frank1515

Call the cops and let them deal with it. Don't be a hero. Last thing you need is to get stabbed in the arm with an HIV infested needle, IMO.


----------



## Container

getting called a rat asshole makes you want to maim him? I would just suggest you avoid him- you can use as much force as is reasonably required to stop his assault. Aggravated assault it assault that causes an injury that will never be healed or causes them to lose the use of part of their body. Assault > Assault Causing Bodily Harm> Aggravated Assault

So if drunky mcdrunkarton take a pop at you and you shove him on his ass and he cant get up thats all your allowed to do. If you yell at him "come at me bro" your in a consent fist fight and you'll probably both get picked up for causing a disturbance. If he comes at you and you pop him in the lip and it causes him to stop his vicious drunk guy assault you'll probably be fine. If he drops dead though you'll be in crap- which can happen and does. You never know when these guys are going to die.

The style of bum you described wont remember you to fight you later. He'll fight someone but it wont be because he remembers them.


----------



## Sapplicant

Container said:
			
		

> getting called a rat ******* makes you want to maim him?



No, not really. What would make me want to main him is if he comes after me for being a 'rat a-hole' after I could've had him tossed in jail. Also, this is good information to know if another bum were to try the same sort of thing. It seems that in the past month there's a lot of them popping up who think they're 'above the law' ever since that Hugo what's-his-job took a blade to the chest.

It's a messy situation, and, for anyone familiar with Ottawa, the bar I work at is the Honest Lawyer. Not exactly easy to aviod these wastes of human potential at that place, what with the mission across waller, and the Sally-ann right next door.



			
				Container said:
			
		

> If he comes at you and you pop him in the lip and it causes him to stop his vicious drunk guy assault you'll probably be fine. If he drops dead though you'll be in crap- which can happen and does. You never know when these guys are going to die.



Which exactly why I asked. Suppose I only throw one punch, after already being swung at, and the guy falls, cracks his head off the ground, and dies. He came at me swinging, and I tried to tried to defend myself, and now he's dead. It's not like I'm looking to beat seven shades of shyte out of someone, just get some drunk, homeless, jobless, hopeless, worthless POS to stop their attack. When the incident in question happened, this is what went through my mind, and I had an easy way to get away from him. What if I'm in a situation where I don't have a quick exit available?


----------



## frank1515

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> It's not like I'm looking to beat seven shades of shyte out of someone, just get some drunk, homeless, jobless, hopeless, worthless POS to stop their attack.



The Justice System doesn't much care if someone is drunk, homeless, jobless, hopeless, worthless POS or any combination of those adjectives. A person is still a person, and they are protected under the same Charter and Constitution that you are. 

Just walk away man, it's not worth it.


----------



## Container

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> No, not really. What would make me want to main him is if he comes after me for being a 'rat a-hole' after I could've had him tossed in jail. Also, this is good information to know if another bum were to try the same sort of thing. It seems that in the past month there's a lot of them popping up who think they're 'above the law' ever since that Hugo what's-his-job took a blade to the chest.
> 
> It's a messy situation, and, for anyone familiar with Ottawa, the bar I work at is the Honest Lawyer. Not exactly easy to aviod these wastes of human potential at that place, what with the mission across waller, and the Sally-ann right next door.
> 
> Which exactly why I asked. Suppose I only throw one punch, after already being swung at, and the guy falls, cracks his head off the ground, and dies. He came at me swinging, and I tried to tried to defend myself, and now he's dead. It's not like I'm looking to beat seven shades of shyte out of someone, just get some drunk, homeless, jobless, hopeless, worthless POS to stop their attack. When the incident in question happened, this is what went through my mind, and I had an easy way to get away from him. What if I'm in a situation where I don't have a quick exit available?



There is pretty much a legal expectation that if there was a way to avoid it you would take it. If you dont and he dies you'd be liable. You need to be careful. While they seem to be invincible and cant even drink themselves to death they will drop dead the moment somebody hits them in self defence. And Id probably get the file with my luck. You need to be careful.

Honest lawyer is chuckie cheese for adults.


----------



## Sapplicant

Container said:
			
		

> Honest lawyer is chuckie cheese for adults.



They're only adults by age, my friend. Everything else screams 16 year-old girl.


I will be very careful and, hopefully, as you said, One-eye'd-Willie isn't going to remember me. It's just so damn frustrating to deal with that shit. The worst is seing that they're so willing to abuse every right they possibly can, while shirking every possible responsibility, every time the opportunity presents itself. Work Gloves and Wheelbarrows, anybody?


----------



## Dissident

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-12.html#h-9

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.


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.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Container said:
			
		

> Those sentences arent magic get out of jail cards. You would have to PROVE the reasonable apprehension that their are vicious dogs you are in danger of being bitten by. The camping store guy did you no favors. The court would more then likely unreceptive to this paper thin lie. They see this stuff a lot. I have observed a trend of the courts being really agressive with people that defend themselves or property- almost like its a personal thing. That is just opinion of course but Im shocked by the bad sentences handed out to real criminals, career criminals, and the disproportionate ones handed out to regular people. Could just be me though.
> 
> However, I too usually prescribe to "judged by 12 than be carried by 6". But I think there are better ways to manage risk. At least until Canada creates a CCW permit.



I carry dog spray always, and bearspray when with the kids. Despite living in a Urban environment, bears. cougars and coyotes encounters are a very real possibility. As for dog bites, it would take less than 2 hours to gather the number of dog bites complaints in your area to present to court to justify your decision to carry. The key is to refrain from justifying to the officer why you were carrying it. Stick to your stated reason and say as little as possible beyond describing the actual encounter. It does pay to be accurate in relating the encounter. 

Why I like spray is that it gives you time to put distance between you and the attacker. A knife is a last ditch defense and you can win a knife fight and still die. Spray along with awareness, common sense is the best we can do until ATC's are given out more freely. Another problem for me is having kids, it's my job to engage/distract the attacker (human or otherwise) in order to give time for my wife to escape with the kids or for the kids to be able to run away. If the crown prosecutor wishes to go after me for protecting my kids with spray, they can try, but as recent events show, the court of public opinion will come down hard on them and the government has clued in that the public is sick of people being charged for proper self-defense.


----------



## ballz

Container said:
			
		

> If he comes at you and you pop him in the lip and it causes him to stop his vicious drunk guy assault you'll probably be fine. If he drops dead though you'll be in crap- which can happen and does. You never know when these guys are going to die.



This depends on circumstance of course, but the way you have described it here you are incorrect. If he "comes at you" leaving you no choice but to pop him in the lip, if he dies, he dies. That's it that's all in a perfect world. Unfortunately, you might get charged with manslaughter anyway in the real world, but you wouldn't get convicted. Unfortunately, the charge alone makes you a victim. 

As you said in a different post (paraphrasing) "if you can get away then you're expected to," but if he just "comes at you" while you're working the door of a club, there's really nowhere to run without endangering yourself.


----------



## Container

I can assure you he would be charged and go through a lengthy trial. I can guarantee it and have seen it several times over. Much like you said.

I didnt say you'd be convicted but the ordeal of the trial and the year of being on conditions and other consequences of being charged with manslaughter count in my eyes as being in crap (like you said). That is what I meant Im sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

He also wouldnt be the first guy convicted of manslaughter in this case when the court determined that the little drunk guy posed no real threat. It is certainly not a position to be shrugged off.


----------



## ballz

Container said:
			
		

> I can assure you he would be charged and go through a lengthy trial. I can guarantee it and have seen it several times over. Much like you said.
> 
> I didnt say you'd be convicted but the ordeal of the trial and the year of being on conditions and other consequences of being charged with manslaughter count in my eyes as being in crap (like you said). That is what I meant Im sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
> 
> He also wouldnt be the first guy convicted of manslaughter in this case when the court determined that the little drunk guy posed no real threat. It is certainly not a position to be shrugged off.



Yes, same page now. The restrictions would be one thing, but the legal costs could screw you for years. It's too bad that, as a society full of sheep, you are likely to get a jury full of sheep as well. People who put the blinders on and think that "little drunk guy's" don't carry knives or HIV, and can't kick you in the nuts or gouge your eyes out.

One thing that really frustrates me is that if you have a really pissed off assailant, perhaps some dude who's girlfriend slept with you and now he's out for blood, in my opinion I'm not safe from harm until he's KO'd or has a broken limb. I mean if I knock him over and let him back up he's just going to continue his attack. 

However, if I go down to the ground after him and pulled his shoulder out of place with a nice Americana, making me safe to stand back up and leave, not only would it be deemed "more force than necessary" (wtf are you supposed to do? let him back up so he can continue to attack you? Eventually he's going to get lucky...), but I, being somewhat of a martial artist, would actually be held to a higher standard because I knew damn well that I was popping his shoulder out.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Container said:
			
		

> I can assure you he would be charged and go through a lengthy trial. I can guarantee it and have seen it several times over. Much like you said.
> 
> I didnt say you'd be convicted but the ordeal of the trial and the year of being on conditions and other consequences of being charged with manslaughter count in my eyes as being in crap (like you said). That is what I meant Im sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
> 
> He also wouldnt be the first guy convicted of manslaughter in this case when the court determined that the little drunk guy posed no real threat. It is certainly not a position to be shrugged off.



Thank you Container.

Hence the oft spoke advice we give here about taking what you read on the internet (and here), especially if it deals with legalities, with a grain of salt. There are authorities on this stuff and there are those that 'believe' they know the subject. Follow their counsel with caution and at your own risk.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## kstart

I'm a statistical anomally, because I've survived 2 major stranger assaults, one in my teens, and one as a young adult.  I probably didn't carry myself well in my teens, body language was shy/avoidant, had taken a lot of hits growing up and didn't fight back.  Last bus. . . followed off the bus, ambushed. . . some earlier interactions, and I asserted my boundaries, but he stalked.  Second assault, the perp was in the neighbourhood, turned out to be the same guy who chased my roommate through the park-- he followed me from work, across the park (5 minute walk, 6:00pm winter, so it just got dark).  Survived other threats to my safety, verbal with intent and the means. . . safety figures into my thinking, hopefully to never get caught off guard.

A new trick I spontaneously invented recently (there's a potential threat. . .what are my ways out, what to do if I get trapped. . .what's the safest route to safety, who else is around, what's lit up the best. . .), is use of my Water Bottle that I carry with me everywhere I'm walking, because I need to constantly re-hydrate.  It's an approximately one litre, steel water-bottle and the cap has a solid thick loop which fits secure around my index finger, and I always make sure the cap is screwed on tightly (so there's no water-leakage).  It gives extra reach to an extended arm (by almost foot) which can protect my perimetre.  When filled full with water, can add to momentum and force. . .

I didn't have to use it, but stayed alert and it just makes me feel better when I have planning, a what I can do if I percieve threat, to feel reasonably prepared to respond if I have to.

I also know from my experiences that I can actually trust my intuition.  In the cases of both attacks, my intuition picked up on the threat, long before close enough proximity to attack me.  My mistake was doubting it.  The second attack, I noticed hesitation with the guy as he was about to cross the street, then withdrew. . . he was waiting to see what I did (in retrospect I realize that), at the time, my spidey senses, inner voice told me "that guy is fkd up, watch yourself".  I crossed the street to the path across the school yard, judged by the time of 6pm, still people on the path, judged it to be 'safe enough'.   I noticed my inner voice (calm, not a schizy one  ), but judging, "oh good, there's people around".  Still not enough to assume direct threat. 

Mistake was that it only took seconds and perp looks for that interval of opportunity.  But I was already geared up, adrenaline, anticipating it.  I heard breathing behind me (yeah, creepy like a movie, surreal), he tried to put his hand across my mouth from behind, but I jumped on that before he got a locked hold, ripped and twisted his arm, and I yelled loudly, "F-OFF!"-- full adrenaline response.  Freaked him out, because he wasn't expecting that.  I think these perps build a fantasy up of how it's going to be untill they get a good shot of reality.  It stunned him, then he sort of slinked off away to the side-- super creepy.  Bad decision to walk the rest of the way home, cause intuitive voice warned me he could follow me home, and I just thought well, I'm half way through the park, half way back. . . long story of crap, but I think it's good to know how one's intuition operates, even if that sounds flakey.  Others have other senses, that can pick up on threat, how it's communicated to self, e.g. some people, can feel goosebumps, hair standing on end.  There can be innate self-protection senses.

I've toughened up a fair bit, but on days I don't feel as strong, sometimes I need to wear my steel-toed safety boots.  I worry about what I project, sometimes I can't find the 'warrior'-within, 'inner-protector' and it's hard for me to go out there (still got ptsd interference, long story. . . ). 

I've been aware that it's not lawful to carry weapons, and I've really struggled with that, often opting to avoid going out (and that's constrictive to my living). . . I have this souvenir mini-wooden baseball bat, that I've wanted to take out with me for self-protection, but I also have wired "law-abiding" in me, but I liked the idea, because that can create a perimeter, disable hands coming at me.


But in truth, I'm not able to fight, until I've been struck or grabbed and at that point it can be too late.  It would be unlikely I'd use the water-bottle defense until they struck first, so it's all about precious split-seconds of response.  And believe me, I consider proxemics and safety routes and all other things first-- key is to avoid the problem, keep as much distance from a potential threat.  

I also do have a personal alarm on me, and I can rehearse that using body and mind practice.  The alarm I have fits on belt loop, detach the part that can be thrown into the bushes, whatever, and it gives a piercing sound.  If I want to walk around the neighbour, I'll also borrow my neighbour's dog, because he's very good at being protective-- anyone who attempts to walk up behind me and this dog turns back, barks and gives them crap-- and it is good defense, because it can wake a sicko up out of their sick reality back into reality, to stop, re-think, the dog's stand, "don't even think about it".  Small things like this feel empowering, it's a relief to not be as strained thinking about my safety constantly, that a walk can be relaxing, it's a big relief.  I practice 'mindfulness', so I can be aware of both the pleasant and unpleasant of my surroundings, in-tuned hearing, slightest brustle of a leaf, twig, etc., awareness without panic, until a 'watch it, potential threat"-- and I don't panic, I do seek to take control of the situation, assess risks, routes, etc.

The first assault, yeah tipped off to threat long before it happened and I second guessed my intuition, told myself "i'm just being paranoid", well I wasn't.  I picked up on things, small behaviours, interactions.  Jerk was staring me down on the bus, and my bad habit was to avoid eye contact, and it felt intimidating.  I got off the bus, I slipped on the ice and the perp ran out to "help me up", and then wouldn't let go of my arm and seemed to be trying to lead me to a dark place across the parking lot, so I asserted, "that's okay really, I have to walk this way, thanks" (f-off, w/o saying it).  Intuitive voice, said, "what happens if he tries to meet me on the other side of the mall" and I discounted as 'paranoid', but it's exactly what the perp did.  I should have walked closer to the road, vs. the path.

He ran up behind me and I turned around to face him and he stopped in his tracks.  Again, it was surreal, because he started creeping towards, me and said "don't scream" and I'm like WTF, " what do you want, want my wallet, here [ready to thow it at him]".  This was the first assault, and I think I blanked out for a second or two.  He got me in a hold, and dragged me, and I was kicking, trying to get traction, pulled me behind a garbage dumpster.  He was a foot and more taller than me, couldn't head butt him.  I didn't feel that I had use of my arms and angled in a way that I couldn't kick. . .?  I think the problem was the horrified of the assault directions, my brain couldn't snap into how to fight that lock, I struggled the whole time trying to get out of the grip.  Puffy winter clothing was also difficult fight wise, but clothing barrier made it frustrating for him to try to continue, that and constant struggle.  

My sense of rage persists and the helpless aspects, is the chit of the trauma I wish would be gone.  The rage is good, because my self-protection is usually on, and accessible when needed, when under threat, it's a case of "not this time, f-you"  My thinking is systematic re: safety routes, long before anyone is close enough in proximics to harm me-- so I do feel in control with that, calm, no panic, what are the options, quickest route to safety (other people, well lit places, traffic), etc.; what do I have on hand to protect myself if trapped.

There's different kinds of threats, not just the stalking sexual predators.   There's the jonzing drug addicts, mugging risks.  There's the stupid gang stuff, dares, re: 'jack that person".  They're different dynamics.  I'm fairly confident in handling that stuff.  Gang people, it's group strength dynamics, one on one, they can be weak, and can use that psychology to one's advantage-- shame can work.  Again, they can have stupid pre-concieved ideas of how they think an attack will play out, and when you do something unpredictable, it can disarm their focus.  A kid tried this with me, I was crossing the parking lot, two dudes standing back watching, but they were together earlier, and kid ran up behind me, and I turned back to face them, and it freaked them out (just the change in direction, and retreat, etc. tips me off, irregular behaviours).  Confused lone-crackhead, I watch the actions closely, irregular crossing the street, and I'll test things by changing my direction and see how they respond, and get to well-lit, public space, close to traffic, stop and watch.  I carry some anger, some intensity, and 'bring it' (even if it is slightly delusional, I need that confidence-- and it possibly can be picked up on energetically, subtle level of experiencing).

I think being attentive to proxemics and safety routes.

TTC, I'm not that familiar with.  Have visited briefly, TO.  If there aren't good safety routes out of tunnel and into traffic, more people around, I don't think I'd want to travel that way (but, I'm ptsd-damaged-- despite my strengths, if I'm carrying other stressors, I don't feel as confident and I panic about that, don't want vulnerability to be detected and I don't like it if there aren't good escape routes, don't like to get into any trapped situations).  A purse with long straps and heavy weight inside can also be a self-protective weapon (keep your wallet, valuables separate--I carry a travel change purse, flat, worn under clothing-- the purse is a decoy, discardable).  

If can't afford a car, can't travel in a team, I'd consider moving closer to work.  I feel safer on bicycle, well lit up, don't stop anywhere, keep going.  Personally, I'd rather take my chances in traffic, vs. personal assault to my person (maybe that's insane in terms of probabilities, but somehow I've been a statistical anomaly, a freak magnet, whatever, I don't know why, maybe it's even less so now-- something I can't get my mind to resolve/ptsd-glitches, stuck).  Know the area really well, what's open, escape routes, etc.

Guns I can't see as being sensible to use, even if it were legal, because, underground tunnel ricochet and *You only know for sure you are under attack, when the attacker has closed in on you*-- in which case, it's not safe to pull some weapons out, because they can be apprehended and used against you.  Personally,  I wouldn't want to carry a lethal weapon.  You have only split-seconds to react.  I don't want to kill people, I just want to be able to protect myself, enough so that I can run, get away (and if I can get a satisfying momentary strike in, all the better. . . to run).  

I think my Water Bottle is useful, because of the small grip-ability, if it got out of my hands, it would still be hard to wield effectively by another person/attacker, being round, cylindrical, hard to grip firmly and utilize against me.  Better than a glass bottle, because re: transference of blood less likely, not a sharp object.  Knife, they can get cut, and you can get cut by the same blade-- high risks re: knife-fighting-- high HIV risk, if your attacker is carrying it. . . and if the attacker(s) are also IV-Drug-Users (or even crack-pipe, cuts in mouth, etc.), high risk they can be carrying HIV. Blood on blood contact, highest HIV transmission risks.  

If dealing with a group (vs. lone-attacker), decoy purse with solid concentrated weight in it, straps, maybe can swing it, protection. . . early detection of risk is better, and safety plans ahead of time, and prepared for scenarios.  Some people need to walk with walking sticks, cane for arthritis, earlier sports injuries, etc. in case stiffness develops, even on days when walking very strongly and unencumbered by it, some people need one to keep on hand for those off-days. . . but should learn how to use it properly to prevent injuries. . . . In the winter time, sometimes need added spike for traversing ice. . . 

(I'm not a cop btw, nor CF)

Steel toe boots, laces, pointed toe . . ditch the heels.  Inaccessible clothing.  Mini-skirt doesn't mean you are 'asking for it', it just means easier attack (mini-skirts safer if chaperoned, not travelling alone).  Belted slacks, can be a deterrant to prevent escalation of assault (as was in for me in one of the assaults--was bad, could have been a lot worse), something not imagined by or planned for by perpetrator.  Wear clothes you can run in, can move in. . . ?  Some people need to walk with walking sticks, cane for arthritis, earlier sports injuries, etc. in case stiffness develops, even on days when walking very strongly and unencumbered by it, some people need one to keep on hand for those off-days. . . but should learn how to use it properly to prevent injuries. . . . In the winter time, sometimes need added spike for traversing ice. . .   Some martial arts. . .  I play-scrap with one of my roommates, just for fun, joking around, it's pretty good for the reflexes-- I've noticed we've both gotten better with blocks and play-strikes-- problem with some kicks is other person grabbing the foot, and being thrown off balance. . . (Cato, and Clouseau, lol-- interchangeable  )

Bike locks, if cycling, the heavy-duty, U-bar ones. . . length, grip, can be apprehended though, but is it outside of the attackers imagination, heuristic of weapons, maybe surprise element. . .?

But what a person carries on them, even if it's not a 'weapon' can be apprehended and used against oneself by an attacker, so that's good to consider. . .?  Unpredictability vs. obvious can be an advantage. . .possibly. . . but better to have others with more experience weigh in on that.

Maybe the self-defense workshops aren't wholly bad, if they're discussing preventative measures, and thinking through scenarios, training re: safety routes, body language-- I think prevention is better than having to fight-- even if sort of being able to win a fight, from my female perspective, it hurts to have been singled out and in that situation.  Whereas prevention, less traumatic impacts to live with, while feeling in much more in control-- empowering that way. I think that alone can help 90% re: handling risks.  Having a TTC safety plan ahead of time is a good thing, knowing where alarms are, etc.  how far to travel to more peopled areas, e.g. if leave the tunnel to the street. . . knowing about that for a given time in the day. . . where staff are at, security. . .etc.  On the train, like buses, can sit close to the driver?  Don't stay in an isolated cabin. . .?  Find other women. . .?


----------



## ballz

The Tories have already slightly improved the situation for self defense in Canada and hopefully, according to this article, plan to address the issue more.



> Still to come
> Measures we can expect to see in the coming weeks:
> 
> Long-gun registry ended.
> 
> Revival of two anti-terrorism tools – preventive arrests and secret investigative hearings – that expired five years after they passed in the aftermath of 9/11.
> 
> *A citizen's arrest and self-defence act — to clarify the self-defence and defence of property rules under the Criminal Code.*
> 
> More power for police to conduct internet surveillance (known as "lawful access") — a controversial step that would compel Web service providers to hand over information even without a search warrant has been feared by internet experts. But the government said Wednesday it has no plans for such measures. "Outrageous claims like that one, that private communications will be intercepted without a warrant, is a complete fabrication," said Public Safety Minister Vic Toews Wednesday, responding to a question from the NDP.
> 
> Additional support for victims of crime: a doubling of the existing victim surcharge imposed on criminals by the courts and a change to make it mandatory; and enhanced EI benefits for parents of murdered, gravely ill or missing children.
> 
> New measures to keep drugs out of the prison system: new fines, mandatory annual testing for all federal inmates, and the denial of parole for those who fail drug tests.
> 
> A "national action plan to combat human trafficking," which may come together with a private member's bill expected this fall from Conservative MP Joy Smith about preventing human trafficking in the sex trade.
> 
> Mandatory jail time for repeat offences in trafficking contraband tobacco and a new RCMP anti-contraband force.
> 
> An end to sentencing "discounts" for time-served for individuals guilty of multiple child sex offences and child pornography charges.
> 
> Potentially tougher sentencing in cases of elder abuse, with amendments to the Criminal Code to add "vulnerability due to age" as a factor in sentencing.
> 
> More on youth crime to "help at risk youth avoid gangs and criminal activity" and "address the problem of violence against women and girls," promised in last June's throne speech.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/09/21/pol-crime-bill-in-out.html


----------



## kstart

ballz said:
			
		

> The Tories have already slightly improved the situation for self defense in Canada and hopefully, according to this article, plan to address the issue more.
> 
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/09/21/pol-crime-bill-in-out.html



The following, from: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=3966



> Amendments to the self-defence provisions would repeal the current complex self-defence provisions spread over four sections of the Criminal Code (s.34-37) and create one new self-defence provision. It would permit a person who reasonably believes themselves or others to be at risk of the threat of force, or of acts of force, to commit a reasonable act to protect themselves or others.





> Use of Deadly Force
> 
> The use of deadly force is only permitted in very exceptional circumstances — for example, where it is necessary to protect a person from death or grievous bodily harm. The courts have clearly stated that deadly force is never considered reasonable in defence of property alone. The legislative reforms currently being proposed do not make any change to the law relating to deadly force. Courts will therefore continue to make any necessary changes on a case-by-case basis, developing the common law if and where appropriate.



I thought being law-abiding enough by not carrying illegal weapons.  

There really should be accessbile training re: reasonable use of force and self-defense.  

I try to think of things as a continuum of possible self-defense measures.  All travel routes do have some blind spots along the way.  A mugger can get away with more people around, side of the road type of thing; sexual predators though, they look for that isolated patch along a pathway, or the opportunity when others aren't around.  Try to keep aware of surroundings and exits.  Proxemics, distance between self and others around.  Then there are observable behaviours that can tip alert to potential threat.  There can be opportunities to think escape routes and if there's not a good one, sometimes it is a question of what does one have on them to defend themselves, in case of getting trapped, cornered and it's not avoidable.  


Can carry personal alarm handy, if feeling closed in on, can pick up some dirt in lieu of bear/dog spray, to have handy to throw in their face. . . and that's for a case of if lunged at (split seconds).  If someone is walking too close behind me, I step aside, keeping safe distance to allow them to pass.  If I think I'm being followed, because noticing a person's irratic behaviours e.g. crossing the street back and forth, I might change direction and assess potential threat from a place of safety, well lit, near traffic, or from coffee shop.  This isn't an everyday thing for me,  but cities suck.

But a physical grab, the split seconds of grabbed at before locked hold-- is it justifyable use of force to use my steel water bottle to strike with?  Problem with that is if swinging at  a person's head if perchance that arm is still free. . . I thought at the time (and I felt scared) okay that could disable so I could run. . . but what if that could cause more serious harm?  Kind of have to fight with everything you've got anyway-- like I don't think I'd throw away my steel water bottle because I'm anticipating a potential threat.

I can think about this now, at the time, I did feel threatened, and needed that safety plan, a last resort if cornered, no place to run (because person known to me, has threatened me, got their friends to threaten me, reasonable expectation they're weaponsized and possibility of more than one attacker).  It was okay.  Nothing happened.  But enough that I needed to be cautious, I think some steps ahead.  I kind of hate living like this.  Some of the new laws could add better protection at least for others to come.

I will say that I'm also glad for a lot of the new additions in the crime omni-bus bill, the following with details of ammendments in criminal code, this is the first bill, other stuff has been put aside for now:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/411/Government/C-10/C-10_1/C-10_1.PDF

I read through some of that  and I could see that some of the new changes will do a better job at protecting children and youth (both in the home, and exploitation of homeless youth) and I'm glad to see that.  Pot grown by organized crime is not victimless.  Medical use, controlled legalization is another issue (e.g. cancer/chemo; chronic pain, etc.).  There's a couple of other issues, that I'd hope there would be more clearer legal definitions to prevent abuse.  

I shoudl go back and resume the search for accessble self-defense training, because I'm not sure about lawful use fo force.  I've tried, there was an organization called WISE (Women's Initiation for Safer Envrionments), I've checked PD websites, and community news papers.

There's escalation of assault post-first strike/grab.  I've never tried the strike and run, but obviously it's crossed my mind as a defensive tactic.  Can think one method is safe enough, got security, but it's not really how things go, fights are dynamic.  Kicks are risky if you lose your balance and don't known how to get back up fast, because being pinned to the ground is something to avoid.  When it's a grab, and hold is secured, it's a matter of wrestling, it's harder to get a useful strike in. . . And it's being aware of what limbs are not restrained, have to be dynamic.  There's only a split second to do the knee in the groin too, before getting pinned down.  It's not that easy.  If it's a wrestling situation, can't get distance momentum for a good strike.  

Anyway, I'm not sure about legal use of force re: self protection.  I know that I am wired up a bit, and because of that, I'm careful, I think it's a wait (oterh options of escape are exhausted), the split second when physical strike or grab is attempted, then I'm justified to fight with everything I've got to defend myself physically.  I have to believe in my right to defend myself, without doubts, getting in the way, at a certain threashold it's justifyable.

The other way I carry my filled steel water bottle is in a 'tote-bag'-- not padded, straps carry over the shoulder.  The weight in that it's not unlike the pool-ball in the sock trick. . . some use if it's multiple attackers. 

If I had the means and the $, I'd live in the country.  I've had no trouble with face-toface-bear encounters, thus far, ones I've encountered wanted to avoid violence as well.


----------



## Angry56789

Container said:
			
		

> As long as the weapon used was present because its usually present for non-weapon reasons and it was required to overcome the person trying to kill the guy in the warehouse, as in he had a reasonable apprehension of death or GBH, than yeah he would be in the clear.
> 
> But the mugging wouldnt be enough. He could resist the mugging and then if it escalated and he feared death he could graduate to that level. He could expect to be scrutinized for not just handing over his stuff. As dumb as that sounds.



Im not in the mood to read 126 replies, I am sorry if this is a repeat comment. Where I am from (in Ontario) I was once told by a cop if my g.f (at that time) had oc spray and was in the situation where she deemed it necessary for her own personal safety, or the personal safety of someone else she can legitimately protect, that would be taken into consideration in court. There was a serial rapist in the area I lived in when I was going to college and working midnights.  It is sold as dog spray, and is legal to have to spray a dog. Obviously it is bad form to use it for someone who is giving cat calls across the street. Possibility of rape....well thats different. This particular cop told us without actually "telling us" that he would defend her use of the OC, and also that sometimes "bits of information" go missing **wink wink** If it was my wife and this happened, and she chose to spray the perp and knee thrust nose smash......I would sell one of my kidneys, flip over the biggest rock, and pick the slimiest, greasiest, lowlife defence lawyer I could get. This is something that I think should be updated in the Criminal Code.

On the flip side, if OC is used in the comission of a criminal offence, and it is brought up that it is for self defence in order to evade charges related to the use of the weapon.....they should be hung out to dry. I remember when I was on HLTA in Australia I made friends with a cop (neighbour of my friend) and down there they pretty well treat it as a firearm if its used in the comission of an criminal offence.

*****Apologies for the rant, I have a hard time stopping the momentum when I get going*****


----------



## Angry56789

In continuation, ***sorry, momentum has not stopped***

-For concealed carry in Bulgaria, you have to renew annually, to include a blood test and a background check....every year.
-You are allowed to have I think it is 30 rounds in your posession for home use, and must submit a report to the police why it was used and they investigate it hard. Very stiff charges there for illegal use. You must also give I believe it is 3 rounds of your ammunition to the police to hold in file for ballistic testing purposes. 
-Gunclubs allow you to buy more ammo to use strictly at the range, some smart people sneak some out for extra. But these ammo purchases are tracked by the government...similar to the ledger filled out when one purchases a firearm in Canada

(Dog handler overseas was Bulgarian, from Sofia)

Imagine if we had those laws in Canada and you had a hot wife that could shoot a golf ball size group oriended at the centre of the head (to sever the mendulla oblingata), or the CVM (obvious)


----------



## Container

The last advice you should ever follow is a wink wink nudge nudge from a police officer who says he'd help you break the law.

Im  a reasonable cop and I dont charge folks who are victims. But I dont tell them to break the law and Ill turn a blind eye. Thats disgusting.

If Im asked I say what the law is. When someone is a victim I go after the bad guys- but I dont wink wink nudge nudge with peoples lives and potential freedom.


----------



## KevinB

Castle Law and Shall issue CCW...

Just saying


----------



## Fishbone Jones

KevinB said:
			
		

> Castle Law and Shall issue CCW...
> 
> Just saying



No argument here Kev  8)

BTW, next time you're over by Cocoa and you stop at Kel-Tec, tell them I'm having a ball with my RFB and SU-16 ;D


----------



## dogger1936

If someone breaks into my house the first thing I would grab would be a gun. If said person didn't listen to commands and reached towards his pocket, scratched his testicles or made one step in my direction I would shoot him. When it all boils down my family's protection is more important than a future court case or my incarceration. Would I fire shots at a scared crack head running from my house? No. Would I blow his brains out if he took one step towards me? yes. Catch phrase "I felt threatened for my life because....."


----------



## ballz

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> If someone breaks into my house the first thing I would grab would be a gun.



Of course with our firearms laws, unless the dude stops into your kitchen to make himself a cup of tea, you would not have time to make use of it. But that is for the Great Gun Control Debate thread.

When it comes to Castle Law, I don't have family/kids, and I feel my house is a pretty safe to be anyway, because I'm not "into stuff" that gets your house broken into or has people paying you a visit at night. But with that said, I would obviously agree that you can't do enough from your own home to protect yourself / loved ones.

But I'm much more concerned about the legalities of self defence outside my house where I am much more likely to encounter a bad person (and if I had family / kids, that's where they would be more likely to run into a bad person as well). The bar, the short-cuts through alleys, the trails while I'm running / ruckmarching, etc. I have major sleep problems and so I am *really* bad for doing PT after 10pm, sometimes 2am-3am on a Friday or Saturday. I am certainly not doing myself justice in the "preventative measures" category, but just because I'm not doesn't mean I should have to worry about getting charged for manslaughter / some form of assault for throwing down against a drugged up bum that decided to interrupt my run and ruin my would-be best time of the season.

Unfortunately, I feel as if I was ever in this situation I would most definitely be charged and have to go through the process... Sure, it's better to be judged by 12, but it ain't f**king cheap...


----------



## dogger1936

ballz said:
			
		

> Of course with our firearms laws, unless the dude stops into your kitchen to make himself a cup of tea, you would not have time to make use of it. But that is for the Great Gun Control Debate thread.



I'm pretty certain my safe and gun rack combining their magical powers to make Mrs shooty (my gun) loaded and ready would only waste a few seconds. Punching in 6 digits on a LCD screen shouldnt take you half the night.

As for beating up bums if you have the ability to get away whats the point? Otherwise you ruin good clothing and what bum can run a 7 minute mile anyway. I feel certain in our society if no excessive force is used I.E dropping a mag into a 2 yr old trying to steal your candy; that the law will do the right thing. And if they don't as long as I can look at myself in the mirror everything will be alright.


----------



## ballz

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> As for beating up bums if you have the ability to get away whats the point? Otherwise you ruin good clothing and what bum can run a 7 minute mile anyway.



If I could get away I would obviously, but that's not always an option and that's what I'm talking about. I don't care about the clothing but the extra risk involved in a confrontation is quite high. But I run on a 2 ft wide trail, and I suspect I would probably have to make "getting away" an option before I could take it.

And I can't run a 7 minute mile either, chances are the bum could outsprint me ;D


----------



## dogger1936

ballz said:
			
		

> If I could get away I would. I don't care about the clothing but the extra risk involved in a confrontation is quite high. But I run on a 2 ft wide trail, and I suspect I would probably have to make "getting away" an option before I could take it.
> 
> And I can't run a 7 minute mile either, chances are the bum could outsprint me ;D



Pockets full of nickles may work. Throw in any direction and watch bum dissapear. Worse case scenerio...you watch another bum emerge and they shank each other for 70 cents tops. Entertainment and safety for a mere 70 cents.


----------



## ballz

Hahaha, and the extra weight provides for a better workout. Perhaps you are on to something!


----------



## dogger1936

I once gave a gypsie kid a quarter then watched 2 other kids kick his *** for said quarter. In essence I paid 25 cents to watch a 5 year old get beat by two teenagers.

See the army experience DOES roll over to civilian life!


----------



## Sig_Des

KevinB said:
			
		

> Castle Law and Shall issue CCW...
> 
> Just saying



Amen!


----------



## Jed

A short story wrt our Canadian Self Defence Laws.

To set the background, a small town in NE Saskatchewan. One night my wife and I hear a commotion out in our driveway and she tries to fire me up to get out there and do something about it. I ignore her and roll over and go back to sleep. The next day we get the news that some dudes came off the Res, ripped around town doing their thing. This was after they knocked on a local farmer's door, put a round in his brain and pretty much ruined him and his family's lives.

A few days later I was finishing up my run and I pass a guy and girl walking into town down the back road. I thought it was a bit strange that the guy had the butt of a rifle sticking out of his backpack. I got back to the house and was sipping on a cold water and I see this dude run across my front lawn with what looks like a M16. My front door bell rings, and out of curiosity I get up and answer the door. The girl is at the door with a sales pitch trying to sell me some magazines or something. I was thinking "Where the hell did the dude with the M16 go?"  and he jumps out from behind my juniper bush, points his rifle at me, his hand goes for the cocking lever and I hear click! click! I jumped to the side, slammed the door and spun the dead bolt. After a short pause to see if any rounds were coming through the front door, I ran down stairs grabbed my shotgun intending on going out the backdoor and go sort the situation out.

When I was downstairs looking for a box of 12 guage shells, my 4 year old boy grabs hold of my leg and won't let go. My wife was out in the backyard suntanning and didn't appreciiate my abrupt tone telling her to get in the house now. Lucky for me all this unexpected drama slowed me down enough to think logically and I decided to phone the local RCMP detachment.

They came around about 10-15 minutes later a picked up the guy and the girl. Apparently the M-16 was a realistic toy gun and this was some sort of sales gimmick they were employing. They gave them a ride to the edge of town and sent them on their merry way.

The RCMP that I gave my statement too said to me, (his house was over on the next cul de sac) "Damn good thing they didn't come to my house, I would have been out the back door and would have put my gun on him!".

When I gave my statement I figured the bit about me grabbing my shotgun wasn't very pertinent to the situation.

I'm sure glad I never put the Canadian Laws of Self Defence to the test.  ;D


----------



## kstart

http://www.bojuka.ca/self-defense-canadian-law.shtml



> SELF DEFENSE AND CANADIAN LAW
> When it comes to the issue of self defense and the use of intelligent and reasonable force it is important to understand the law as it applies to you and your situation. In this article we will touch on this subject and how it applies to Canadians.
> 
> 
> How much force is "reasonable force"?
> This is the most important and most difficult question to answer when it comes to your legal right to defend yourself and your loved ones. The definition of "reasonable force" can differ from one area to another so it is important that your are aware of your legal rights and obligations for where you live. The use of force also differs for civilians and law enforcement officers. The the purpose of this article we will be focussing on the use of force as it applies to civilians.
> 
> In general, reasonable force can be defined as the minimal force required to deter or prevent an assault from occuring or being repeated. This would include removing yourself from a potentially violent situation before an assault occurs, verbal de-escalation, posturing, and physically defending oneself. *When training in self defense it is important to practise scenarios that will allow you to assess the threat level and act accordingly. If you can leave safely without risking injury to yourself or another, then you must leave. If your are being assaulted or an assault is imminent then you can use only the amount of force necessary to stop the assault. You are not permitted to punish the assailant or seek revenge. You have to ask yourself the question "what would another reasonable person do in the same circumstances".*
> 
> By training this way you will be able to more appropriately respond to a violent altercation and protect yourself from physical harm and from prosecution by the law. Look at your self defense techniques and ask yourself if the amount of damage being inflicted on the assailant would be deemed reasonable for the type of assault. A smaller, weaker or more volnerable person for example, may reasonably inflict more damage than a larger or stronger person in the same situation. It is important to "injure to degree" according to the threat level.
> 
> 
> Self Defense and the Canadian Criminal Code:
> Below is how self defense is defined by the Canadian Criminal Code:
> 
> Defense of Person
> 
> Self-Defence Against Unprovoked Assault
> ... / Extent of justification.
> 
> 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.
> 
> (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. c.C-34, s.34.]
> 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
> ... / Extent of justification.
> 
> 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.
> 
> (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.]
> 
> 
> Reference: Departartment of Justice Canada: Criminal Code



Found this which looks like good training re: the woman fearful re: TTC travel by night, women's self-defense

http://info363.typepad.com/blog/

SAFE International covers

1. Awareness and Avoidance:



> Awareness and Avoidance strategies which are based on one's daily routines.
> We examine what an attacker looks for, what an attacker wants, and doesn't want in confrontation.
> One of the biggest topics we examine, is how most people are too polite, even when their intuition is telling them the complete opposite.
> We cover the most common distraction techniques an attacker will use to gain an advantage.



2.  When avoidance is no longer possible



> We then move on to verbal strategies in the event that avoidance is no longer possible.
> Rather than just teaching to yell at a potential attacker, we cover a few verbal strategies   *based on the aggressor and the scenario*.



3.  Physical Self-Defence



> The third step is addressing the physical aspect of self defense.  We begin with the advantages of adopting a passive stance rather than an aggressive stance.  We only teach gross motor strikes due to the adrenal rush one gets when they are in a highly stressful state such as an attack scenario.  We teach a philsophy of "Attack the Attacker" which reverses one from being the Prey, to that of being the Predator.




I think this looks to be arranged in a logical sequence, geared to risk escalation.  It looks to me to be the right way to be thinking about things, and preparation for each stage of threat, types of scenarios and attackers.

Otten there's a continuum between "percieved, potential threat" when aware, and time for planning, if prepared by training, go over options of avoidance, maintain awareness and physical prepardness to physically defend oneself.

I think over my travel routes, and I keep aware of when I need to attend more if I'm in a spot that is more isolated.

Understanding and distinguishing types of perpetrators is important as well in preparation.  I got caught off guard with first assault at 16, because although lots of things from intuition, I was in denial about it being a sexual predator-- and I was caught off guard.  I cognized creepy, and 'watch out' and all sorts of things from my intuition, which I minimized and disregarded, 'not possible'.  I blacked out, I can't remember how I was grabbed.  It came from denial, hoping it was just a mugging.  Second assault I was more prepared to respond, but looking back, and remembering my inutition, I could have run when I came into those moments where no-one else was around (6pm, peopel were on the path, but it was just moments when they weren't and I was islated-- that's what perps look for, opportunity.  Have inutition and knowing when to boot up fight/flight is useful and I think training helps.

I don't think my case is that exceptional and I don't know many women who've not had to cope with difficult situations.  

You can look at stats and say, well "unlikely" but there are mitgating factors which increase the risks for attack, such as finding oneself temporarily isolated, which can happen along any travel route-- training is being aware of those shifts and who's around and about planning ways if possible to avoid unsafe routes, or to try to avoid travelling alone (which often not that possible, as life goes).  Some attacks can be averted by verbal skills (drunks, bars, etc. not that hard to do-- Non-Violent Crisis Prevention is good training, e.g. aware of verbal aggression and it's escalation and how to diffuse, prevent physical altercations-- an dif one is in control of oneself while under the influence).

Guns and home defense, shoudl also be planning ahead of time, a Safety Plan and all family members on the same page, clarity of roles-- who stays with kids, secured room, barricade, phone 911; a code for trouble, so there's less questioning, doubt, denial, but "code red" get the kids and self to safety.  Prevention with alarm system, doors, windows; rules about answering the door to strangers, age appropriate instructions.

Type of invasion-- and for B&Es, kid after property for drug money or whatever-- know that it could likely be more than one person there-- containment is important-- don't want to shoot your 16 year old daughter by mistake.  Training and safety plan should be clear, not to deviate.  If you are focussed with the idea that only one intruder, you can gravely misjudge the situation.  Another partner might try to jack you wiht the gun, and the intruders can also be more sophisticated (e.g. if psychopathically motivated type of criminal).

Sexual predators, probably do more of the sneak up.  Have a dog is a good alarm system too, and being attentive, they know things, perceive things before we do.  Military training wasn't enough to keep Cpl. Cormier safe from Co. Williams.  It can also be a shock if the perpetrator is someone you know, can be stunned by that and be at a disadvantage.  If alone and isolated, extra percaution is important and don't worry about being polite.

Re: Homeless People

You want to think the homeless people are threats, stats wise, I wouldn't assume that much different than general population.  Years ago, and they're probably long-dead now, but there was an enlisted at one of the German bases that let a superior officer be alone with his daughter (child). . . perpetrator. . .  you don't let things like that happen in this day and age, regardless of status of a person-- we know better now.  You don't get drunk, pass out and let others drunks wander through the house when you've got children to protect.  It could be anyone, so 'status' doesn't say it.  Behaviours and opportunities say a lot more about risk.

It's not about who, as much as situation.  Don't get tricked by who, behaviours, situations of isolation are more important to attend to-- it's about opportunity-- prevent opportunities for abuse.

Streetwise, look out for people who are intoxicated showing, irratic behaviours or violent (verbal precedes physical violence-- Non-Violent Crisis Intervention is a useful skill for that, to de-escalate before it becomes violent); gangs with groupthink going on (whether a gang of jocks or a gang of criminal, drug dealing, etc. who have stupid things going on, gang-rape, swarming and stalking creep sexual predators.  Be aware of promixity and don't go starting fights.

A lot of the homeless people have been through more than you can imagine.  Stupid kids who go down to hang out when they don't have to are stupid, because it may seem like partying one moment and can become very dangerous and violent.  Predators.  These people don't have safe places to live, and a lot of stuff happens in that case.  Combat, you're going to know someone who didn't make it, or know a story about a horrible demise, or someone who got tortured, raped, went missing, murdered, survived forcible confinement, etc., walked in and found the suicide, or found someone just after the assault and hear the horror witnessed the trauma, wounds, scars; acts committed in front of their eyes and couldn't stop it. . . a combo of those things, or had gone through some of that directly. . . exploitive predators (whether gangs, pimps, and the other predators who prey on homeless people).  It's a hell-hole, masked by what others see as addiction, panhandling.  Abuses by authorities, as children, sold by their parents, brought up in unsafe homes-- it's absolutely ugly.  I won't go into details, too disturbing.  I did 10 years as a street outreach worker (with partner, trained-- never needed a gun or weapon, though many were around [partially aware of thatat times] but not drawn, never had problems with approach-- training was good).  But I stayed for way too long than what was healthy.

But picking on them for kicks-- that makes you a predator, one of many they've seen and it contributes to violence.  More can be done re: housing and treatment (and for crack/meth-- I'm not opposed to forced treatment-- choice jail or rehab, because some of them are killing themselves out there and need help and support to get out of it).

They don't have private health insurance either so no Homewood, no Bellwood for them (thoguh some with a very high amont of traumatic exposures which can creep back up them when trying to get clean, beyond survival mode).  Some don't have healthy intact families for support-- they were sick and dangerous to begin with. . . (some do and they're stupid, but if they can get away and off the street before more damage happens, they can recover better, with supports).

Majority are not violent.  There's a few "hero-bums" that never get reported to the media.  One I know stopped a rape against a female youth (story by him and I also heard it from the victim).  Another one, saved my brother from a wicked beating, using a smart verbal intervention that was calm and resonable.  (Brother spotted from the street, a POS beating on his woman on the balacony of this bar-- he ran up to stop it, angry.  Bouncer started beating on him-- 'the street bum' stopped it).

So, there are honourable and dishonourable in surprising places, along all walks of life, regardless of 'status'.


----------



## kstart

Apologies, some of these posts of mine, maybe a bit intense.  Humour is not a crime, I've just seen that the possibility among a group, there always potentially one person who does not discern very well, and take on an attitude and act from there. . . kind of why the precept of 'lead by example' is a good one.  

Also apologies re: list of types of exposures some of homeless people have been through and if that hits too close to home.  That one "hero-bum"-- he jumped two attackers, who were attempting to rape a young woman (had elevation, stairwell, knew martial arts, kicked them both down).  He didn't do the typical stand by and do nothing-- he took the risk upon himself to stop it (I listened, I heard both accounts-- pretending I knew nothing from either-- protect confidentiality)-- a true story, you won't hear in the press.  

With people in uniform, it's a given, the types of sacrifices they've made and we know to respect that (I'd be just as hard on others, if jerks were proposing to harrass people in uniform, throw fire crackers off and watch traumatized Veterans jump-- that's sick-- and at the core, there is room to have basic respect human beings, even regardless of status).  The Uniform, always deserves respect.

The example of "he who should not be named", I realize that's an emotional issue, and hits home.  Just the point, that perpetrators are not as easily recognizable as we'd like to think, and not realizing that, can be dangerous.  And when it comes to home protection, it's useful to be careful about who one lets in.  Majority of attacks and violence do come by people we actually think we 'know'.  And it's all walks of life, that's the point I was trying to make. I don't want to add salt to wounds, not my intention, just a wake-up call.  Bad apples, anywhere.

After I rambled, I noticed CBC ran with a story re: one of the Colonel's victims, and she's suing police for not taking her seriously.  Well, there could be a bias issue around that, denial of victims (maybe there are sickos who try to fake things), but over-denial is not wise, nor is minimizing the risks, when if mindful and with good training and awareness, one can protect oneself and others better.   And of course there's the normal of regardless of preparation, things go down the way they go down.  I have hindsight, and I remember my intuition, and I learn there's ways to maximize intuition, and actions by training and it's empowering to know this.  If nothing else, the learning, better prepared if there's ever a 'next time'.

I think the concepts in the Safe International are interesting, as guidance in safety planning and prepardness, and evaluative criterion to one's safety plans to whatever situation: street, home, parking lot, paths.  Being aware of what one can be aware of.  1. Avoidance/Prevention; 2) Situational Awareness; 3) Physical Self-Defence (prior two concepts are just as important, even if CCW was legal-- can have false confidence, if lacking awareness and preparation training, etc. and that's what I mean to point out).  Other's who've known me here also know, not a good experience re: guns in the house, but I can't go there right now-- too much, and it'll go further off topic.


Jeb's experience is interesting as well, re: gun-protection in the home, as an opportunity to reflect on one's safety plans, and protocols.  And it was handled well, no-one got hurt, and the bad guys caught (dealing with police ; ) ).  The intuition aspect is interesting as well, there's sharpness of awareness there.

Just one more thing to add, re: reporting.  Post-assault, even as handled effectively, don't forget to report to police so that they have it on their records and do that immediately (I messed up on that, re: second assault, because of adrenaline high-- and my roommate who was chased by same guy some months earlier, should have reported back then, so police would be aware-- it helps especially because those behaviours can escalate, re: a sick pathology-- it serves future, possible victims, and in giving police powers to do something about it. . . before per learns more lethal means.  Reported too late and wasn't taken seriously as a result, and that's unfortunate for others, unfortunately. . . it's an awful thought).

Anyway, not meant to be offensive to anyone.  Preparation and reflection can be a good thing, consolidate safety plans, per scenarios.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

kstart,

Will you please quit talking down to people here and stop treating everyone as a moron? This is a forum of mostly military people. You're preaching to the choir. While you've had some traumatic experiences, there are many here that have seen, and experienced, bad stuff too. Lots of it.

Please give your long winded prose a rest. I'm tired of fielding complaints.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Angry56789

Container said:
			
		

> The last advice you should ever follow is a wink wink nudge nudge from a police officer who says he'd help you break the law.
> 
> Im  a reasonable cop and I dont charge folks who are victims. But I dont tell them to break the law and Ill turn a blind eye. Thats disgusting.
> 
> If Im asked I say what the law is. When someone is a victim I go after the bad guys- but I dont wink wink nudge nudge with peoples lives and potential freedom.



Durham Regional Police Service my friend. 

I would gladly fight the law however if I was ever arrested for defending my life. Why should I go to jail if someone for instance tried to kill me or violently rob me? (I was victim of a home invasion robbery 10 years ago). If I had seriously injured one of the perps that night because I feared for my life....would you arrest me? (Assuming you are a cop based on your post) If I killed a man who came into my house with a gun, would you arrest me?......where is the justice in this country anymore? The criminals have more rights then we do.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Angry56789 said:
			
		

> The criminals have more rights then we do.



So now you've jumped from a hypothetical use of OC spray in self defence by a woman, to yourself using a gun in a home invasion scenario in support of support your "a cop told me information could get misplaced" point. Maybe if you stayed on one discussion scenario at a time, then your responses might make sense.


----------



## Scott

Angry56789 said:
			
		

> Durham Regional Police Service my friend.
> 
> I would gladly fight the law however if I was ever arrested for defending my life. Why should I go to jail if someone for instance tried to kill me or violently rob me? (I was victim of a home invasion robbery 10 years ago). If I had seriously injured one of the perps that night because I feared for my life....would you arrest me? (Assuming you are a cop based on your post) If I killed a man who came into my house with a gun, would you arrest me?......where is the justice in this country anymore? The criminals have more rights then we do.



And you want to be a cop?

I'm glad they have a great big battery of tests and interviews to root out the sort of stuff I have seen you posting.

Cheers


----------



## Container

If those hypotheticals happened. Where you killed a guy- I would make sure you talked to a good lawyer and I would cover all the bases in an investigation so that your story of self defence couldnt be twisted. 

You do realize that if someone dies there has to be an investigation right? No matter if I show up and think  "thank god the good guys won!", I have to make sure that hippies cant accuse of anything untoward. Thats for your protection, mine, and everyone elses.

You should probably stay in the military a little longer until your finish baking. You need to mellow and start being a critical thinker- if you are successful you'll be a hot head liability that people dont want to work with. No tactical unit, of any color, will touch you. I know your type- ERT/ TAC/ TRU / Contaiment/ EDU will be completely off limits to you until you learn to relax. Its all attitude. They dont care about your one sandbox tour if you cant stop being a ******* for 15 mins.

Also- I dont care what force the cop was with. There are dumb cops on every force. I dont take my cues from DRPS


----------



## Journeyman

Container said:
			
		

> You should probably stay in the military a little longer ......


Noooooo!!! Please let someone, _anyone_, more worthy take him.   :nod:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile back in the real world......


_OTTAWA — An Ontario man who is alleged to have stabbed an intruder to death after a home invasion in Arnprior earlier this month, will not be charged.


OPP investigators, in consultation with the Crown attorney's office, determined that no charges will be laid against the homeowners.


Police responded to a call of a break and enter in progress at a home in Arnprior, some 100 kilometres northwest of Ottawa, at 12:20 a.m. on Sept. 11.


When police arrived, they found Corey Blaskie, 41, unconscious. Blaskie was stabbed to death during an altercation with Nathan Woods and his son.


Meanwhile, neighbours of the Arnprior man said the former military officer involved in the altercation with Blaskie had had his home broken into several times last summer.


The man had installed an alarm system and lights on the side of his home and garage as a precaution, a neighbour said.


"I think he was pushed too far, you know? It wasn't going to happen again," said the neighbour, who didn't want to be identified. "That was somebody in their house or in their yard. That's the only reason this happened."


The night of his death, Blaskie had told Jennifer Prince, his girlfriend of two years, that he was heading out for a bike ride.


"It was nothing unusual for Corey to bike at nighttime," said Prince. "He enjoyed the tranquillity of being able to bike around the town for an hour when he couldn't sleep."


In cases of self-defence, particularly ones that happen inside the home, suspects initially may be charged, but they usually have a good chance of avoiding prosecution — particularly if they face a jury trial.


Lawrence Manzer of Burton, N.B., was charged in 2010 with firearms offences after confronting intruders on his neighbour's property with an unloaded shotgun, although the charges were later thrown out on a technicality.


In May, Joseph Singleton, 46, a farmer in Taber, Alta., had his charges — assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, after he used a hatchet to wound a man who had just burgled his house — referred to an alternative measures program.


In 2008, Albertan Dan Olineck fended off his Calgary-area farmhouse from two home invaders with a knife, killing one in the process. Crown prosecutors decided not to press charges against Olineck after determining he had acted in self-defence.


Ottawa Citizen


mhurley@ottawacitizen.com



Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/charges+fatal+stabbing+during+break+Ontario+police/5466164/story.html#ixzz1ZH0eeGqr_


----------



## kstart

recceguy said:
			
		

> kstart,
> 
> Will you please quit talking down to people here and stop treating everyone as a moron? This is a forum of mostly military people. You're preaching to the choir. While you've had some traumatic experiences, there are many here that have seen, and experienced, bad stuff too. Lots of it.
> 
> Please give your long winded prose a rest. I'm tired of fielding complaints.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



I know a 100% I’m not the only one to have suffered something ‘traumatic”.  I also know that chances are everyone here has either directly experienced something traumatic or knows someone close to them who has. Even regardless of combat military training, e.g.  http://www.kwantlen.ca/pscm/wenlido/wenstats.htm (Stats-Can quotes),

I’m in conflict with some of the ‘conventional wisdom” because some of it is way off the mark and it can serve to endanger more people’s lives, because of biases which can impede, derail and override both intuitive awareness and natural self-protection fight response (regardless of if it‘s bolstered by combat-defense training):

http://portal.citysoup.ca/NR/exeres/C4568C80-EBC9-4737-8390-E19AC0457712.htm
Location; “Appearance of Attacker”; confusion due to expectations re: “Roles”, abuse by authority, etc.


Military training alone may not be sufficient enough for ALL assault scenarios, e.g. domestic assaults or given, e.g.:
http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/military-sexual-trauma-general.asp

It ain't no choir (but it happens everywhere and anywhere).

Point taken about the length of posts.  I found better links which back up my views.  

There were other posts re: concern of military members for non-military-trained loved ones, e.g. the military member who was concerned for his GF's safety riding the TTC late at night and some of those issues might not be covered by standard martial-arts type courses.  Found a link that expresses some of my concerns related to that (if I found that earlier, I wouldn't have felt the need to personally disclose to try to warn.  It's bad out there, I've know too many people who've gone through it.  60% of assaults, weapon was involved-- I know people who've survived much worse then I did here in Canada): 

http://www.kwantlen.ca/pscm/wenlido/ReducetheRisk.pdf
Safety tips to limit/manage risk in some situations: prevention, awareness, intuition-- can help re: law abiding
Scenarios re: ON THE MOVE: When Walking; While Running; On Transit; Around Your Vehicle; Taxi; Riding with Others; When You Travel away from Home; Work, etc.   

From now on, I'll try to keep to smaller posts and follow advice just given by a recent poster to another re: one assault scenario at a time.
Not to derail home invasion issue.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Baby Jesus on a cracker  :facepalm:


----------



## Michael OLeary

kstart said:
			
		

> Point taken about the length of posts.  I found better links which back up my views.



kstart,

Take a break. If anyone wants to engage you they will identify specific points from your posts that they want to discuss and then you can beat those specific issues to death with them.

To put your posts in perspective, your 109 posts, to date, including quoted passages, total almost 75000 words. I know this because I copied and pasted them from your post record to confirm the count. (74,667 to be precise, including title and date lines.)

YOU HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN A NOVEL HERE.  Stop. If you have any fans they can contact you directly for the rest of the trilogy.

Alternatively, start a blog.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Angry56789

Scott said:
			
		

> And you want to be a cop?
> 
> I'm glad they have a great big battery of tests and interviews to root out the sort of stuff I have seen you posting.
> 
> Cheers



How does my belief in that sometimes it appears that criminals have more rights make me "not the right fit" to be a police officer? Yes I had a lapse in judgement on my very first post on here, I apologized openly for it....from there people can chose to judge me how they wish. My actions were not justified by any means, I wanted to set things straight as best as I can. Concerning the person who I attacked verbally on here; I tried my best to get my apology to him, he of course has the right to be mad at me or however he feels toward me. I said what I said, so now I get to accept whatever is directed back to me. I can't argue that because I

Feel free to talk to me once you experience being hogtied on your living room floor, watching a man with a pistol at the back of your fathers head, while his partner is pillaging your home....threatening to return to deal vengeance to the female members of the household should we call 911 after. I thank (whoever) that our neighbour at that time called the police because he heard them (we lived in a duplex) and both perps were captured. 6 years of counselling and I think I am not too bad off from that ordeal that I would not wish on anyone. I am sorry my belief toward our justice system offends you. 

You know nothing at all about me aside from what you can gather on here. You have no idea where I have been, what I have done, or what skills I have. You have no idea at all about my education, personal experiences, or anything else I can offer. I do not particularly care about your opinion or advice because I did not ask for it. 

.....no need to "cheers" me, we are not friends or acquaintances.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Angry56789 said:
			
		

> How does my belief in that sometimes it appears that criminals have more rights make me "not the right fit" to be a police officer? Yes I had a lapse in judgement on my very first post on here, I apologized openly for it....from there people can chose to judge me how they wish. My actions were not justified by any means, I wanted to set things straight as best as I can. Concerning the person who I attacked verbally on here; I tried my best to get my apology to him, he of course has the right to be mad at me or however he feels toward me. I said what I said, so now I get to accept whatever is directed back to me. I can't argue that because I
> 
> Feel free to talk to me once you experience being hogtied on your living room floor, watching a man with a pistol at the back of your fathers head, while his partner is pillaging your home....threatening to return to deal vengeance to the female members of the household should we call 911 after. I thank (whoever) that our neighbour at that time called the police because he heard them (we lived in a duplex) and both perps were captured. 6 years of counselling and I think I am not too bad off from that ordeal that I would not wish on anyone. I am sorry my belief toward our justice system offends you.
> 
> You know nothing at all about me aside from what you can gather on here. You have no idea where I have been, what I have done, or what skills I have. You have no idea at all about my education, personal experiences, or anything else I can offer. I do not particularly care about your opinion or advice because I did not ask for it.
> 
> .....no need to "cheers" me, we are not friends or acquaintances.




First impressions and all that. You made your bed, you gotta sleep in it. It's no one's fault here if they have a low impression of you. No one but your own, that is.

BTW, snarking back doesn't further your cause.

Just sayin'.


----------



## klink1983

Angry56789 said:
			
		

> How does my belief in that sometimes it appears that criminals have more rights make me "not the right fit" to be a police officer? Yes I had a lapse in judgement on my very first post on here, I apologized openly for it....from there people can chose to judge me how they wish. My actions were not justified by any means, I wanted to set things straight as best as I can. Concerning the person who I attacked verbally on here; I tried my best to get my apology to him, he of course has the right to be mad at me or however he feels toward me. I said what I said, so now I get to accept whatever is directed back to me. I can't argue that because I
> 
> Feel free to talk to me once you experience being hogtied on your living room floor, watching a man with a pistol at the back of your fathers head, while his partner is pillaging your home....threatening to return to deal vengeance to the female members of the household should we call 911 after. I thank (whoever) that our neighbour at that time called the police because he heard them (we lived in a duplex) and both perps were captured. 6 years of counselling and I think I am not too bad off from that ordeal that I would not wish on anyone. I am sorry my belief toward our justice system offends you.
> 
> You know nothing at all about me aside from what you can gather on here. You have no idea where I have been, what I have done, or what skills I have. You have no idea at all about my education, personal experiences, or anything else I can offer. I do not particularly care about your opinion or advice because I did not ask for it.
> 
> .....no need to "cheers" me, we are not friends or acquaintances.



Give the guy some slack, he stepped on his d***, and was at least man enough to say sorry. No need to judge further. Everyone in here has tasted their own boot polish before, I am no exception to this.

Angry, Having your reasons for hating the CF is one thing, verbally assaulting someone who actually didnt do anything to you is another. Its not wise to stand on the middle of a gas soaked rope bridge with a cigarette...know what I mean. Feel free to PM me, I'd love to give you the opportunity to bend my ear. I am disgruntled to sorts, and I know first hand it is hard sometimes to put your beliefs aside to do your job. I hate the CF for my own reasons and I want out, but I don't attack people who didn't do me wrong. I do not know Mr Seggie either, I bet if you approached him different, he would probably be more interested in offering you advice.


----------



## Scott

Angry56789 said:
			
		

> _Bla, bla, bla..._



Nah, not worth it. Good luck to you. I hope you can somehow pull your head out of your ass before too long...I have my doubts, though.

I won't even bother addressing any of the rest of that load of crap.

Cheers


----------

