Self Defence and Protecting Canadians

[TCBF]

Try some of the legal case law websites.

Tom

 

[Infanteer]

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

----

Lawmakers In Fla. Back Public Use of Deadly Force

Reuters
Wednesday, April 6, 2005; Page A05

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Foxhound]

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

 

[RCA]

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

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

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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

 

[Brad Sallows]

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

 

[TCBF]

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

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

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

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

Tom

 

[RCA]

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

 

[Brad Sallows]

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

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

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

 

[Infanteer]

I thought most Floridians were Canadian?

 

[Brad Sallows]

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

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

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

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

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

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

 

[TCBF]

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

The force must be "Reasonable under the circumstances."

Tom

 

[KevinB]

21ft.
  The Golden rule for Edge weapon assailants.

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

 

[TCBF]

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

Tom

 

[Slim]

Gents.

Two points:

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

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

Slim

 

[rw4th]

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

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

 

[rw4th]

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

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

(a) he uses the force

(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.

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

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

 

[Infanteer]

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

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

 

[TCBF]

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

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

A different case from straight self-defence.

See Irwin Cotler's letter in a previous post.

Tom