Self Defence and Protecting Canadians

[The_Falcon]

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.

I never said you have carte blanche, but you can still use force to defend yourself and your property.

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

Where?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I never said you have carte blanche, but you can still use force to defend yourself and your property.

Only if a judge/jury finds your use of force to have been reasonable and/or justifiable, which is a fairly salient point.

 

[The_Falcon]

Only if a judge/jury finds your use of force to have been reasonable and/or justifiable, which is a fairly salient point.

You skipped a step Michael, If the police and the crown decide that your actions were reasonable and justifiable then you won't be going to trial in the first place.

 

[Old Ranger]

but you can still use force to defend yourself and your property.

The criminal has to be inside you house, with a weapon, and there must be evidence of a warning shot to show do diligence in trying to avoid grievous bodily harm or death.

When the warning shot was fired is dependant on your statement to the Police.

Ben

 

[Old Ranger]

You skipped a step Michael, If the police and the crown decide that your actions were reasonable and justifiable then you won't be going to trial in the first place.

We would hope!  Crown and Police not having to bend to political pressure.

Ben

 

[Michael Dorosh]

You skipped a step Michael, If the police and the crown decide that your actions were reasonable and justifiable then you won't be going to trial in the first place.

Yes, you're correct.

 

[The_Falcon]

The criminal has to be inside you house, with a weapon, and there must be evidence of a warning shot to show do diligence in trying to avoid grievous bodily harm or death.

When the warning shot was fired is dependant on your statement to the Police.

Ben

Seeing as how you did not bother reading the sections of the code I mentioned, no the criminal does not need to be IN your house Section 40 Defence of Dwelling

40. Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority

Section 41 Defence of House or Real Property

41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

Assault by trespasser
(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

Section 25 Protection of Persons Administering and Enforcing the Law

25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose

3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection (1) in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservation of any one under that person's protection from death or grievous bodily harm.

The criminal does not need a weapon for you to use deadly force, all you need is the belief that on reasonable grounds that deadly force was your only option to preserve your life or the life of another person. Example, if you are a 5'0" 100 man/woman, and the person breaking into your house is like a 6'5" 240lbs bodybuilder, you would definetately have reasonable grounds to believe that person could cause grievous bodily or death to you, even if they did not have a weapon.  Lastly I have not seen it written anywhere that you are required to fire a warning shot (If you know where this is written please enlighten me), the police don't fire warning shots so why would a private citizen?  We are not in Bosnia.

We would hope!   Crown and Police not having to bend to political pressure.

Ben

 Actually there was an incident in Scarborough last year were, a bunch of thugs tried ripping off a store near Cedarbrae Mall, and the store owner killed one of the thugs in self defence.  He was not charged at all, in fact the dead guys accomplisses were actually tried and convicted of the killing.  (This happened like two or three weeks ago).  So yeah if the police feel you are justified in your actions they will not charge you.

 

[Slim]

Yes, you're correct.

No I'd be somewhat cautious about assuming that...

Anyone who defends themself with a firearm in Canada can expect to enter the Criminal Justice System in Canada and have to go through the whole trial thing in order to be exonorated of the charge, be it Murder 2, manslaughter or whatever.

I am anassistnat instructor at a shooting school that teaches private security (amoung others) to use firearms.

Most of the examples are concerning armoured car guards.

Several times in Ontario  A.C.G. have had to use firearms to defend themselves. Even though they are holders of ATC's they were still arrested and brought before a judge to answer for the incidnet.

 

[The_Falcon]

No I'd be somewhat cautious about assuming that...

Anyone who defends themself with a firearm in Canada can expect to enter the Criminal Justice System in Canada and have to go through the whole trial thing in order to be exonorated of the charge, be it Murder 2, manslaughter or whatever.

I am anassistnat instructor at a shooting school that teaches private security (amoung others) to use firearms.

Most of the examples are concerning armoured car guards.

Several times in Ontario   A.C.G. have had to use firearms to defend themselves. Even though they are holders of ATC's they were still arrested and brought before a judge to answer for the incidnet.

  Cause the cops and crown did not think the shootings were justified.  They would not have pursued the matter, if they didn't believe the guards had f'ed up.

 

[Old Ranger]

Hatchet Man,

I'm glad that I stand corrected.  Warning shot was from someone who actually did time defending his house and family.  Police told him there should have been a warning shot fired above the door frame.

In your Police studies, you might get to see the video of a gangbanger firing a handgun (canted sideways) at a store clerk.  Scum bag emptied the clip and missed...Store clerk hit said idiot upside the head with a baseball bat..then did time.

And are you sure about Police not bending (somewhat) to political influence?

Regards Ben.

 

[Infanteer]

Anyone who defends themself with a firearm in Canada can expect to enter the Criminal Justice System in Canada and have to go through the whole trial thing in order to be exonorated of the charge, be it Murder 2, manslaughter or whatever.

Is this due to firearms legistlation or is it locked in case-law in the criminal code?

 

[Slim]

  Cause the cops and crown did not think the shootings were justified.   They would not have pursued the matter, if they didn't believe the guards had f'ed up.

No...Not really true...

I know what you're saying and this time last year would've thoght the same.

howeer I've been involved in too many cases that should have been clear cut in favour of the ACG but were not treated by the police as such.

I'll ask my higher at work if I can present some of these cases to you all.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Just to clarify my comment; yes, Hatchet Man is correct that it is possible you will not be charged for defending yourself.  That's up to the police and the criminal justice system.  We have had "vigilantes" here in Calgary defend themselves also and not have charges brought against them.  However, as I said originally, there are no guarantees either way.

 

[The_Falcon]

Hatchet Man,

I'm glad that I stand corrected.  Warning shot was from someone who actually did time defending his house and family.  Police told him there should have been a warning shot fired above the door frame.

In your Police studies, you might get to see the video of a gangbanger firing a handgun (canted sideways) at a store clerk.  Scum bag emptied the clip and missed...Store clerk hit said idiot upside the head with a baseball bat..then did time.

And are you sure about Police not bending (somewhat) to political influence?

Regards Ben.

Where was this out of curiosity?  I am thinking Infanteer may be onto something in that people getting busted for self defence related charges may be due to the case law out there which is its own can of worms.  I also agree with you Michael in that there are no real guarantees about being charged or not, it all comes down to how you cover your a$$ and how well you articulate your answers to the investigating officers.  In any case I think this topic has gotten far enough off its original track, that we can all agree to an extent that while the statute law is pretty cut and dry about when you can use force(including deadly force) and for what circumstances, the common law is very likely not so cut and dry (thanks alot bleeding heart lefties).

 

[Old Ranger]

Since we are a little of track, do you know any good defence lawyers??

Just in case of course. ;D

I'll ask my brother if he remembers the video.  (might be a while for an answer)

Ben

 

[The_Falcon]

Since we are a little of track, do you know any good defence lawyers??

Just in case of course. ;D

I'll ask my brother if he remembers the video.   (might be a while for an answer)

Ben

Clayton Ruby

 

[Cloud Cover]

Where was this out of curiosity?   I am thinking Infanteer may be onto something in that people getting busted for self defence related charges may be due to the case law out there which is its own can of worms.   I also agree with you Michael in that there are no real guarantees about being charged or not, it all comes down to how you cover your a$$ and how well you articulate your answers to the investigating officers.   In any case I think this topic has gotten far enough off its original track, that we can all agree to an extent that while the statute law is pretty cut and dry about when you can use force(including deadly force) and for what circumstances, the common law is very likely not so cut and dry (thanks alot bleeding heart lefties).

WTF. Only an idiot would talk to the police after killing someone, self defence or otherwise. Thats why most criminals are idiots. Much of the underlying theory behind modern common law defences pre-date the criminal code. It has nothing to do with bleeding heart lefties- a good deal of common law defences arise or are developed in response to bizarre theories of liability advanced by the Crown.  

 

[Slim]

WTF. Only an idiot would talk to the police after killing someone, self defence or otherwise. Thats why most criminals are idiots. Much of the underlying theory behind modern common law defences pre-date the criminal code. It has nothing to do with bleeding heart lefties- a good deal of common law defences arise or are developed in response to bizarre theories of liability advanced by the Crown.  

Case in point a martial artist who was attacked outside a bar in toronto several years ago, was able to defend himself with very minimal force, and was convicted for it.

I'm going to try and find that story but Whiskey may already be familier with the specifics of the case.

 

[TCBF]

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

- The reason you own it is immaterial to your necessity in using it in an act of self defence.

"The criminal has to be inside you house, with a weapon, and there must be evidence of a warning shot to show do diligence in trying to avoid grievous bodily harm or death."

- B_llsh_t.  Pure and utter.  And please don't say "A cop told me."  I will laugh even harder.  

Tom

 

[Slim]

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



Tom

No Tom

Its not BS. There are far too many bank and Armoured car guards out here who have been convicted, or at least gone though, the justice system after being involved in what we would consider to be a righteous shoot. And done in the course of their normal employment (ie guarding money or other valuables) I'm talking about people in Ontario, employed and trained by Armoured car companies, and in the course of their normal lawful duties.

Even though the CCC says that you have the right to use reasonalbe force up to and including deadly force if you doi so you WILL be arrested, you WILL be incarcerated (if only briefly) and you and your employer will be forced to defend yourselves in a court of law.

And...even if your aquited of any criminal charges you can still be heald civilly liable for any damage to persons or property that you cause during the course of your duties.