Self Defence and Protecting Canadians

[R0B]

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

 

[TCBF]

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

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

Tom

 

[Spr.Earl]

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

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

Tom

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

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

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

 

[Brad Sallows]

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