Self Defence in Canada (split from Gun Control 2.0)

[Brad Sallows]

I wonder how many people assume "reasonable" is approximately equivalent to "equal". Someone defending himself should not be obligated to make it a "fair fight".

 

[Haggis]

I wonder how many people assume "reasonable" is approximately equivalent to "equal". Someone defending himself should not be obligated to make it a "fair fight".

Self defence is rarely, if ever, a fair fight. In order to defend yourself you must, in most cases, overcome the threat to you.

That is where the 34(2)(g) comes into play and why the requirement for proportionality became a factor, as Brihard pointed out earlier, and no longer a hard requirement following the changes in 2012.

 

[lenaitch]

Self defence is rarely, if ever, a fair fight. In order to defend yourself you must, in most cases, overcome the threat to you.

That is where the 34(2)(g) comes into play and why the requirement for proportionality became a factor, as Brihard pointed out earlier, and no longer a hard requirement following the changes in 2012.

A the public outcry from this case was the impetus for the 2012 change:

https://archive.ph/3racP

 

[Fishbone Jones]

As I recall, police did a no-knock warrant on a house with a family in it. Father thought it was a rival gang, told daughter to call 911 and then shot a undercover cop who burst into the room armed with a service pistol. Homeowner was charged with murder, but successfully argued self-defense, as he believed that they "rival gang" might murder him and his family. I think one of the key elements was that they called 911. This is all by memory, so I might have gotten some detail wrong.

IIRC, the cops also failed to identify themselves as police.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I wonder how many people assume "reasonable" is approximately equivalent to "equal". Someone defending himself should not be obligated to make it a "fair fight".

When you're doing life or death, there is no such thing as a fair fight. And properly, a threat is not neutralized until they are down and incapacitated.

 

[KevinB]

When you're doing life or death, there is no such thing as a fair fight. And properly, a threat is not neutralized until they are down and incapacitated.

A subject on the ground with arms out and palms up isn’t a current threat.

For self defense to apply, the subject must be an active threat, not a potential threat.

Using the words “neutralized”, and “down and incapacitated” for a civilian in a self defense situation is a recipe for disaster. Even down here it will open you up to a heck of a lot of legal issues, if not criminally, definitely in civil actions.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

A subject on the ground with arms out and palms up isn’t a current threat.

For self defense to apply, the subject must be an active threat, not a potential threat.

Using the words “neutralized”, and “down and incapacitated” for a civilian in a self defense situation is a recipe for disaster. Even down here it will open you up to a heck of a lot of legal issues, if not criminally, definitely in civil actions.

Not arguing your points Kev. I agree, in principal.

Arms out, palms up. Yup, unless the perp is high, drunk or having a mental health episode then compliance may take more than that. Not everyone is Bruce Lee. Nor is everyone going to follow your direction to assume that position.

The Myth Of The ‘21-foot’ Rule - Blue Line

Is it true that you “don’t bring a knife to a gunfight?” Have you ever practiced any “Tueller drills” or discussed the “21-foot rule” in firearms or use of force training for when people actually do bring knives?

www.blueline.ca

Military forum - military vernacular.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A subject on the ground with arms out and palms up isn’t a current threat.

For self defense to apply, the subject must be an active threat, not a potential threat.

Using the words “neutralized”, and “down and incapacitated” for a civilian in a self defense situation is a recipe for disaster. Even down here it will open you up to a heck of a lot of legal issues, if not criminally, definitely in civil actions.

For civilians the "Use of force wheel" does not apply, I have meet many police officers who cannot wrap their heads around that. For civilians it's a shoot/no shoot decision. At best it is; Challenge>brandish>shoot>retreat to safety>call police
"I shot till the threat stopped" is better terminology. Massad Ayoob advises that even in a "Successful brandishing without shots fired" that you call the police. Apparently bad guys have been known to call 911 after a potentiel victim pulls a gun on them when they attempt to rob/hurt them. Claiming the victim did it for no reason. Being the first to call police affects how they approach the scene and you.

They estimated that brandishing a firearm prevents roughly a million crimes a year in the US.

 

[Haggis]

A subject on the ground with arms out and palms up isn’t a current threat.

For self defense to apply, the subject must be an active threat, not a potential threat.

Using the words “neutralized”, and “down and incapacitated” for a civilian in a self defense situation is a recipe for disaster. Even down here it will open you up to a heck of a lot of legal issues, if not criminally, definitely in civil actions.

Thanks to the entertainment industry, when the good guy/gal wins, the next scene has everyone hoisting pints at the local watering hole. No investigation, no consequences.

The majority of folks talk a good game without having taken any training or wargamed any self-defence scenarios in their heads beforehand. They are blissfully unaware of their surroundings and what would constitute good cover, even in their own homes or businesses.

Probably 90%+ of the North American population have never even held a home fire drill, which would also teach them primary and alternate egress routes in any other emergency. That idea may piss off the "stand your ground" crowd, but the only thing in my house worth dying for sleeps beside me, and she's knows how to operate a fire extinguisher and is pretty good in a fight. Everything else is insured.

But when a story like this breaks, everyone becomes John Wick/Chuck Norris on social media. But as soon as they are confronted with real danger they either go completely over the top or fold up like Ikea furniture ending them up in court or the morgue.

 

[Haggis]

For civilians the "Use of force wheel" does not apply, I have meet many police officers who cannot wrap their heads around that.

That's because the armed civilian generally has less intervention options available to them. No OC spray, baton or TASER. Assuming the victim has access to a firearm, escalation goes from verbal to lethal force with nothing in between.

For civilians it's a shoot/no shoot decision. At best it is; Challenge>brandish>shoot>retreat to safety>call police
"I shot till the threat stopped" is better terminology. Massad Ayoob advises that even in a "Successful brandishing without shots fired" that you call the police. Apparently bad guys have been known to call 911 after a potentiel victim pulls a gun on them when they attempt to rob/hurt them. Claiming the victim did it for no reason. Being the first to call police affects how they approach the scene and you.

They estimated that brandishing a firearm prevents roughly a million crimes a year in the US.

Self defence doesn't always involve a firearm. The recent Lindsay case is an example of that. In Canada, self defence with a firearm are the cases that make the news mostly because of their rarity.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Thanks to the entertainment industry, when the good guy/gal wins, the next scene has everyone hoisting pints at the local watering hole. No investigation, no consequences.

The majority of folks talk a good game without having taken any training or wargamed any self-defence scenarios in their heads beforehand. They are blissfully unaware of their surroundings and what would constitute good cover, even in their own homes or businesses.

Probably 90%+ of the North American population have never even held a home fire drill, which would also teach them primary and alternate egress routes in any other emergency. That idea may piss off the "stand your ground" crowd, but the only thing in my house worth dying for sleeps beside me, and she's knows how to operate a fire extinguisher and is pretty good in a fight. Everything else is insured.

But when a story like this breaks, everyone becomes John Wick/Chuck Norris on social media. But as soon as they are confronted with real danger they either go completely over the top or fold up like Ikea furniture ending them up in court or the morgue.

Part of the problem in living in a higher crime area, is not one event, but generally a multitudes of event, with their severity escalating. Not everyone has the option of moving to a nicer area and being an easy target increases your risk of a violent event eventually happening. Fences, lights, cameras, good doors and locks, all go a long way.

If you have kids, they may be sleep in different parts of the house, do you stay put in your bedroom with your wife or do you go to retrieve your kids?

If you have been robbed enough that insurance declines your claims and you are losing valuable items and peace of mind, enjoyment of your house and property, does that not have any value? A significant loss of property might be something an older couple cannot replace. Money = time, time for us is irreplaceable. These are all factors that weigh heavily upon many of us.

 

[KevinB]

Not arguing your points Kev. I agree, in principal.

Arms out, palms up. Yup, unless the perp is high, drunk or having a mental health episode then compliance may take more than that. Not everyone is Bruce Lee. Nor is everyone going to follow your direction to assume that position.

The Myth Of The ‘21-foot’ Rule - Blue Line

Is it true that you “don’t bring a knife to a gunfight?” Have you ever practiced any “Tueller drills” or discussed the “21-foot rule” in firearms or use of force training for when people actually do bring knives?

www.blueline.ca

Military forum - military vernacular.

21ft rule is terrible. Most LE from a L3 holster cannot get off shots on an average physical ability attacker at 30ft - that is in training where the LEO knows they are going to be attacked.

For civilians the "Use of force wheel" does not apply, I have meet many police officers who cannot wrap their heads around that. For civilians it's a shoot/no shoot decision. At best it is; Challenge>brandish>shoot>retreat to safety>call police

That mentality will get you in jail, or at least a civil suit against you.

There are a lot of force options for civilians before lethal force. Especially in Canada since you don’t have lawful concealed carry, other than the few and very very far between permits that are issued, self defense with a firearm means one’s dwelling we’re the firearm is stored.

Most LEA’s have dumped the UOF Continuum, and allow for escalation and deescalation as needed by the situation. Every civilian needs treat it the same way - as guess who the UoF SME’s are to testify: LEO’s or former LEO’s so you need to fit that reasonability model.

Dial 911
Verbal Challenges
Physical present
Physical challenge
Appropriate Force for the situation.

Having been though more than one OIS, and been to a few civilian shootings, everything hinges on the moment in time, and if the actions were reasonable and the appropriate level applied.

"I shot till the threat stopped" is better terminology. Massad Ayoob advises that even in a "Successful brandishing without shots fired" that you call the police. Apparently bad guys have been known to call 911 after a potentiel victim pulls a gun on them when they attempt to rob/hurt them.

That guy is a bit of a wingnut, and offers some good advice at times, but also has offered a lot of advice that is contrary to the law.

Claiming the victim did it for no reason. Being the first to call police affects how they approach the scene and you.

110%

They estimated that brandishing a firearm prevents roughly a million crimes a year in the US.

I’ll take that with a grain of salt. In nearly all states brandishing is a crime, and you would have to be pretty articulate to explain how SD fit into that, as often that comes in as ‘man with a gun’, and having been on the receiving end of one of those calls (while getting out of a POLICE vehicle, carrying a rifle, and in uniform…)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In these instances 'Brandishing" means pulling out your gun, but not firing as the threat left/retreated on the sight of the person being armed.

AI says:

Self-defense exception:
In many states, brandishing is not a crime if the action is taken in lawful self-defense.
What counts as brandishing
Shaking or waving a weapon in an aggressive or threatening manner.
Displaying a weapon or making its presence known in a way that causes fear of injury or death.
Unlawfully using a weapon during a fight or quarrel.

 

[daftandbarmy]

That's because the armed civilian generally has less intervention options available to them. No OC spray, baton or TASER. Assuming the victim has access to a firearm, escalation goes from verbal to lethal force with nothing in between.

Self defence doesn't always involve a firearm. The recent Lindsay case is an example of that. In Canada, self defence with a firearm are the cases that make the news mostly because of their rarity.

FWIW, the SOPs in my house are 'if a bad guy gets into our house, get out as fast as possible and call the police'.

There's nothing in here worth dying for that can't be claimed on house insurance.

Except for the cats, of course, and good luck to any burglar dumb enough to piss them off

 

[Haggis]

Except for the cats, of course, and good luck to any burglar dumb enough to piss them off

Put the LASER pointer dot on the burglar's chest and let the cats do the rest.

 

[Genetk44]

And just to up the ante…click on the MSN just beneath to open the story

MSN

 

[KevinB]

In these instances 'Brandishing" means pulling out your gun, but not firing as the threat left/retreated on the sight of the person being armed.

AI says:

Self-defense exception:
In many states, brandishing is not a crime if the action is taken in lawful self-defense.
What counts as brandishing
Shaking or waving a weapon in an aggressive or threatening manner.
Displaying a weapon or making its presence known in a way that causes fear of injury or death.
Unlawfully using a weapon during a fight or quarrel.

Trust in AI for me is fairly low.

SD is an affirmative defense, so the onus is on you to prove. The unfortunate yet realistic aspect is that someone else may see it and react as if you are the threatening one - as they may not see the entire situation.

For the most part, outside of my home, I’m not planning on showing I’m armed to anyone. Unless there is a direct need for me to intervene armed, I’m going to be a good witness or withdraw. Now at my home, I have lights, cameras, dogs etc.

But ‘brandishing’ is an overt display of the fact you are armed, so general one will have wanted to dial 911, verbally warned the threat to stay away (or whatever) and you are going for physical challenges type of escalation management.
Outside of one’s residential dwelling, if you have time for that, you aren’t under immediate threat, and probably should have withdrawn. Inside one’s domicile, you are probably going to be sending some rounds following that unless the threat(s) withdrawal or adopt the prone position, to me, it’s more of a dotting the i, and crossing the t at that point.

I have a Taser, a Baton, and a Less Lethal Launcher - but quite frankly as I don’t carry a badge anymore, I’m rarely with those, and at my house, anyone who broke inside it is going to have 2 options, immediate compliance, or immediate gunfire. Less Lethal is reserved for folks on my land unlawfully, but not yet inside.
Due to the fact my mother in law lives in the basement while the rest live on the second floor, there is a zero retreat option for my home.

 

[KevinB]

And just to up the ante…click on the MSN just beneath to open the story

MSN

I got a kick out of:
Detective Kyle Stringer urged residents to know the signs of legitimate police presence.
He explained that real police officers do not wear ski masks.

Well to be fair, ICE aren’t Police

 

[Haggis]

Well to be fair, ICE aren’t Police

If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it probably thinks it's a duck.

 

[RangerRay]

And just to up the ante…click on the MSN just beneath to open the story

MSN

He explained that real police officers do not wear ski masks.

Umm…