Self Defence and Protecting Canadians

[TCBF]

"The question is always going to be: what is reasonable restitution for the wrong committed?"  That isn't the question the judge will ask.  He will ask if the level of force used was reasonable under the circumstances.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Morality and legality are not always consonant.

 

[TCBF]

Tru dat.

 

[Sailing Instructor]

Now it is the words 'victim' and 'perp' that are getting us confused.  They are perhaps a poor choice as they imply the act (which donned the roles of 'vic' & 'perp' to certain persons) was wrongful.  We would consent to the theft being wrongful but not, perhaps, to the assault of the theif afterwards (i.e. he deserved the assault).  Still, using the poor terms of 'vic' & 'perp' we say that the theif was the 'vic' of the assault.  End of story.  We can call 'vic' & 'perp' 'x' & 'y' if it helps take away the semantic baggage.  (Damn you, evolving language, why can't you just stay static?)

All this distintion does is takes away the foolish notion that vics (x's) have some inalienable right to beat on the perps (y's) for perpetuety.  Not simply the old 'get over it' argument, though.

PS.  Not that I used the term moral, but when I do, I use it to mean a tradition, manner, practice, or common rule.  Thus, not all morals are ethical (which I take to be 'right'). 

Thus, whether or not it is moral to box the ears of a thief (what the devil does that expression mean anyway?) in your home depends on whether or not your community has a history of boxing theives' ears.  Then you've a right to it.  (Thanks to Edmund Burke for presenting a clear & proper idea of rights.)

 

[TCBF]

Community does not give you rights, it only takes them away. 

 

[Slim]

What do we think of the new rule inFlorida, where its now completely legal to use deadly force in self defense (so long as you can justify it)

I know that in Canada it says "Up to and including deadly force to protect yourself," I just wouldn't want to be the guy to test that one in court here in this country...

Slim

 

[TCBF]

"I know that in Canada it says "Up to and including deadly force to protect yourself," I just wouldn't want to be the guy to test that one in court here in this country"

Slim,we put this one to bed a few pages back.  You definitely CAN use up to and including deadly force to protect yourself in Canada.  Read the thread!

 

[Slim]

"I know that in Canada it says "Up to and including deadly force to protect yourself," I just wouldn't want to be the guy to test that one in court here in this country"

Slim,we put this one to bed a few pages back.   You definitely CAN use up to and including deadly force to protect yourself in Canada.   Read the thread!

I know it was discussed...However I have been dealing with the legal system here in Ontqario for a few years now. I don't care if the Governor General   of Canada gives you a get-out-of-jail-free-cookie with your name in orange i still wouldn't want to be the guy trying to protect myself from the provincial/federal prosecutors as they go after you with the taste of your flesh in their mouths!

 

[TCBF]

Well, that's natural selection for you.

Point being, deadly force implies you are killing to save a life - usually your own - where failing to do so would lead a reasonable person under the same circumstances to think that they too would have feared for their own life before taking identical action. 

So, if you, yourself, would not do this because you would "rather be carried by eight than tried by twelve", fine, that is your decision.

Now, after killing you, if the perps go on to kill other innocents, you may consider youself morally culpable for not summing them up when you had the right to.  But, being already dead, you might not worry to much about that.

 

[Slim]

Well, that's natural selection for you.

Point being, deadly force implies you are killing to save a life - usually your own - where failing to do so would lead a reasonable person under the same circumstances to think that they too would have feared for their own life before taking identical action.  

TCBF

I know what you're saying...And you're absolutely right.

Look, one of the ways I make my living is teaching combat handgun shooting to various institutions who have a legal and proffesional obligation to carry a firearm during the course of thier duties while at work (I won't go into who as its pretty much irrelivant to this discussion)

One of theings we make sure every student goes through is the laws and how they are implimented by the powers-that-be. I'm telling you that unless you're a police officer in this country, you will bhe charged if you kill someone, whether in self-defense or not. (even police are going through this more and more now) And its like guilty until proven innocent!

The law very quickly turns the victim into the agressor and does not seem to have any sort of bearing on what actually happened to you that placed you in a situation where deadly force was used, justified or not.

I don't agree with it...And I know that, if it came down to it, I would kill someone rather than be worried about what a jury full of left-leaning citizens are going to think of my actions later on.

Society as a whole needs to recognize that someone committing a crime forfiets his/her rights to protection in certain regards if they are placing others in a position where those others could be hurt or killed due to the criminal's actions during the commision of that crime.

 

[TCBF]

Yep.

Case law backs up the self-defense issue - though the legal fees will bankrupt you.

The case law invariably used to teach people that self defence  is "murder" are cases where someone who was robbed/beaten/whatever follows the puke out of his store/house and shoots him in the back of the head.  Which is not self defence, it in fact IS murder.  Apples and oranges.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Let's make the civilian population with the werewithal the defend themselves even more defenceless?

You still don't have the "right" to use a firearm to defend your property, so what are you talking about?  I wish the firearms advocates would stop using this line of logic.

Firstly, you have no private property due to our Charter of Rights which enshrines absolutely nothing in that regard (thank you Lieutenant (retd.) Trudeau).

Secondly, using a firearm to defend what you may think is your property may very well get you charged.  Check out the Wiebo case.  

 

[Infanteer]

Firstly, you have no private property due to our Charter of Rights which enshrines absolutely nothing in that regard (thank you Lieutenant (retd.) Trudeau).

I think this one covers it somewhat:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Would prohibition of unreasonable seizure count to protecting property rights?

As well, the Canadian Bill of Rights is still Federal Law, no?

1.(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

You are right though - we could use a more direct enshrinement of private property rights considering that it is the basis of a liberal democracy (so says Locke).

Secondly, using a firearm to defend what you may think is your property may very well get you charged.  Check out the Wiebo case.

Not necessarily.  Technically, I believe you are breaking the law by discharging a firearm in an unauthorized area but it is up to the authorities to lay those charges.  We had a elderly man shoot and kill a kid who broke into a secluded house with 3 of his buddies.  I don't blame the fellow; out in the sticks, you don't know who they are or what they are doing in your house.  He was charged because the kid was shot in the back.  His defence was that he didn't know what the kid was doing, only that 4 youths had broken into his house in the middle of the night.  The jury found him not guilty.

That's why we have Common Law and a trail by a jury of your peers.  Better to be tried by 12 than carried out by 6 I say.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Everything you point out, Infanteer, is up to the courts to interpret.  One judge might let you off for firing a shotgun in self-defence, another might throw the book at you for unsafe storage and attempted manslaughter.

What is "unreasonable"?

Well, if the law is passed that handguns are illegal, it is not "unreasonable" for the government to then seize handguns. 

Be nicer if protection against "unreasonable" legislation was enshrined instead.

 

[Slim]

This whole argument re: protecting yourself with firearms, while interesting, has nothing to with banning handguns. One does not need to justify the possesion of their own property to prevent seizure. In short, I can use my pistol to stir my soup if I wish. It's not the goverments business wtf I do with it, as long as I obey the law.

There is no mechanism in Canada for protecting yourself with a firearm. If you do so then you will go through the legal system in this country and have to get a lawyer and prove your innocence in a court of law.

That being said this handgun ban I believe has been in the works for some time now and the Libs have just been waiting for the right moment to unviel it to us the unwashed and easily awed masses.

The gangbangers may as well have been paid by the Libs as they're doing exactly what the govt wants in order to get rid of guns for good.

And yes it will not do jack to get gun-related crimes down. Its just another dirty tool to get a political party votes when they don't deserve them.

 

[Brad Sallows]

What mechanism is there in Canada for protecting yourself with anything?  AFAICT, if you injure or kill anyone - by whatever means - while protecting yourself or your property, you're going to take a trip through the legal system.  It might begin and end with the decision of the police to lay charges, but it's still there.  The tool is irrelevant.

 

[Slim]

What mechanism is there in Canada for protecting yourself with anything?   AFAICT, if you injure or kill anyone - by whatever means - while protecting yourself or your property, you're going to take a trip through the legal system.   It might begin and end with the decision of the police to lay charges, but it's still there.   The tool is irrelevant.

Very true Brad.

I was just putting it in the context of the proposed ban by the Libs

 

[The_Falcon]

The Conservatives don't support it (I don't have any quotes, just what I heard on the news), however they need to tread lightly so as not to be painted as assbackwards rednecks, but to highlight that this is a sham and will do zip to actually stop gun crime. 

On a side note If anyone actually bothered to read the criminal code, a person can use a firearm to defend themselves or there property provide the use of force is REASONABLY NECESSARY and JUSTIFIABLE.  Wiebo taking shots at teenagers walking across his land is neither reasonable force or justifiable.  A bunch of thugs trying to kick in your front door armed with baseball bats and machetes, have at er.  Criminal  Code of Canada S. 25(3), S. 34(2), S. 40, S. 41

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The Conservatives don't support it (I don't have any quotes, just what I heard on the news), however they need to tread lightly so as not to be painted as assbackwards rednecks, but to highlight that this is a sham and will do zip to actually stop gun crime. 

On a side note If anyone actually bothered to read the criminal code, a person can use a firearm to defend themselves or there property provide the use of force is REASONABLY NECESSARY and JUSTIFIABLE.  Wiebo taking shots at teenagers walking across his land is neither reasonable force or justifiable.  A bunch of thugs trying to kick in your front door armed with baseball bats and machetes, have at er.  Criminal  Code of Canada S. 25(3), S. 34(2), S. 40, S. 41

They weren't walking though, they were doing donuts in his driveway...like I said to Infanteer, it is up to a court of law to determine "reasonably necessary" or "justifiable" on an individual case-by-case basis.  You don't have carte blanche to defend yourself or "your" property.

 

[Slim]

personal defense is not a justified reason for owning a firearm in Canada..thats in the CC as well.