Self Defence and Protecting Canadians

[Michael Dorosh]

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

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

Defendant: "Yes, it is."

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

Defendant: "Yes, it's true.'

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

Defendant: "Yes, that is also true."

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

Defendant: "Yes."

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

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

Judge: "Works for me, case dismissed."

 

[midgetcop]

;D

 

[The_Falcon]

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

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

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

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

 

[dutchie]

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

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

I have had a complete reversal on this issue:

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

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

Sound good?

 

[R0B]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[midgetcop]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Infanteer]

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

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

 

[The_Falcon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[midgetcop]

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

Er, we don't have congress in Canada.

 

[Slim]

Er, we don't have congress in Canada.

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

 

[Infanteer]

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

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

Er, we don't have congress in Canada.

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

 

[The_Falcon]

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

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

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

 

[midgetcop]

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

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

Wow, thanks for the condescension.

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

 

[Brad Sallows]

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

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

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

 

[TCBF]

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

;D

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

Tom

 

[Old Ranger]

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

Did you mean Ineffectively?

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

Ben

 

[dutchie]

Did you mean Ineffectively?

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

Ben

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

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

 

[Old Ranger]

Well said!

Ben

 

[Brad Sallows]

Caesar is correct.

 

[midgetcop]

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

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

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

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