Self Defence and Protecting Canadians

[muskrat89]

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.).

I can't speak for a CCW, but I just bought a shotgun about 3 weeks ago (at a store, not a private sale). I have a Green Card. I had to provide proof that I had been at the same residence for the past 3 months; and I couldn't have left the Country in the previous 90 days. My background check was "delayed" which is almost a given for resident aliens, from what I understand. (They can either be "approved", "delayed", or "denied"....

I haven't pursued a CCW (yet), because Arizona is an "open carry" state, and I can carry a firearm almost anywhere, as long as it is in plain view...

 

[KevinB]

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.).

NON Perm resident aliens need a hunting license...  :  Go figure - here I am with a Alaskan hunting license with a Glock 23 in Fla.  ???  but it makes it okay...  For simple use at a site to take a course no problem - I have had friends take courses at BW no problems...

 

[rw4th]

A hunting license you say ... hmmm.

I have had friends take courses at BW no problems...

Were they mill or leo at the time? They told me that that was the one loophole: if I still had a valid ID card they could workout some kind of exception under NAFTA. Anyway, BW is one of the few places that actually applies this rule; most don't really care and some might run a background check I just wanted to go to BW since it's in within reasonable driving distance from here (Montreal).

 

[Quiet Riot]

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 interpet sec.35 alittle differently, maybe because i've just finished a 14hour shift....  but to me it seems it gives the person who starts a fight or provokes a fight, without the intention of causing bodily harm the ability and justification to fight back without being liable to an assault charge but other charges like B&E or robbery could still apply. From the CCC synopsis of Sec.35:

there are 3 criteria which must be met for the actions in self defence following the defender's initial aggression to be justified.  1st, similar criteria as that found in s.34(2) apply, namely that the force is used under the person's reasonable apprehension of death or greivous bodily harm from the person whom the defender originally assaulted or provoked and the defender must believe on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary to prevent his own death or grievous bodily harm being inflicted upon him. 2nd, the defender did not, at any time before the need arose to protect himself from death or grievous bodily harm, try to cause death or grievous bodily harm. 3rd, there is an obligation upon the defender to decline further conflict and leave or retreat as far as is feasible before the need to defend from death or grievous bodily harm arises.

  So, the robber from the first story could've turned around and fought back if he believed he was in danger of death or grievous bodily harm.....
About the citizen arrest part and winging him the leg or something, it's under sec.25 I believe , you have to be directly assisting a peace officier to use any force that will cause death or grievous bodily harm and there can't be anyother way that would be less harmful and the fleeing person has to pose the threat of death or grievous bodily harm to someone under thier direct protection. i'll post the legal jargon later or correct myself when i have time to research it fully.

 

[TCBF]

"I interpet sec.35 alittle differently, maybe because i've just finished a 14hour shift....  but to me it seems it gives the person who starts a fight or provokes a fight, without the intention of causing bodily harm the ability and justification to fight back without being liable to an assault charge but other charges like B&E or robbery could still apply. From the CCC synopsis of Sec.35:
Quote
there are 3 criteria which must be met for the actions in self defence following the defender's initial aggression to be justified.  1st, similar criteria as that found in s.34(2) apply, namely that the force is used under the person's reasonable apprehension of death or greivous bodily harm from the person whom the defender originally assaulted or provoked and the defender must believe on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary to prevent his own death or grievous bodily harm being inflicted upon him. 2nd, the defender did not, at any time before the need arose to protect himself from death or grievous bodily harm, try to cause death or grievous bodily harm. 3rd, there is an obligation upon the defender to decline further conflict and leave or retreat as far as is feasible before the need to defend from death or grievous bodily harm arises.
  So, the robber from the first story could've turned around and fought back if he believed he was in danger of death or grievous bodily harm.....
About the citizen arrest part and winging him the leg or something, it's under sec.25 I believe , you have to be directly assisting a peace officier to use any force that will cause death or grievous bodily harm and there can't be anyother way that would be less harmful and the fleeing person has to pose the threat of death or grievous bodily harm to someone under thier direct protection. i'll post the legal jargon later or correct myself when i have time to research it fully."

This stuff ain't Canadian.  You have no duty to decline in your own home.  And you can use lethal force in self defence.

Tom

Tom

 

[Quiet Riot]

TCBF, I got the 3 criteria about sec.35 from the Criminal Code of Canada 2003 edition. when I used the store robber incident and said the robber could've turned around and fought I was wrong.  It could be argued that the robber went into the store with the intention to cause serious bodily harm  or death or caused the owner to believe that because of the knife he pulled out." 2nd, the defender did not, at any time before the need arose to protect himself from death or grievous bodily harm, try to cause death or grievous bodily harm."  An example of sec.35: Party"A" starts a fight or provokes a fight with party "B" with no intention of causing death or grievous bodily harm.  "B" then puts up a fight "A" wasn't ready for and "A" tries to run away.  "B" pursues him with the intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm or "A" on reasonable gounds believes he's in danger of death or grievous bodily harm "A" is then justified to defend himself within the limits of the situation.  I doubt sec.35 could be applied to a robbery or B&E.
"You have no duty to decline in your own home.  And you can use lethal force in self defence."  This is true but to use lethal force the circumstances are very stringent.  Unlike in the states you can't shoot someone simply for breaking into your home in Canada, they have to pose the threat of serious bodily harm or death to you or someone under your direct protection. From what we were told in class using force and especially deadly force anytime outside of defending youself from bodily harm or death, could open yourself up to a civil suit and assault charges. A while back a home owner was sucessfully sued by someone who broke into his house and then got attacked by the guys dog because he had no sign saying there was a dog present.... But i think the guy who commited the B&E was charged.

sec.40 of the criminal code defence of dwelling
40.Everyone  who is in peaceable possesion of a dwelling-house and everyone 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. 
Once he's out or of the property you can't pursue him, to effect a citizen arrest under s.494. 
Synopsis of sec.40 from CCC: the section justifies the use of as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking in or entering a dwelling house if the conditions of the section are met.  the person seeking entry into the house must be without lawful authority. The force must be necessary for that purpose, ie to preventthe break-in and not for any additional reason. The defender using the force must be in peaceable possesion of the home.

 

[TCBF]

Did you read the letter from Irwin cotler, above?

Why can you not persue to effect a citizens arrest? I would check that out.

What classes are you taking?  Remember, the classes taught may be taught with caution, especially towards police and security students who will use force under the various provincial police acts - very strict pieces of legislation.

I recall one case from about twenty years ago in my hometown - Thunder Bay - where some rowdies went out to a guys house in the woods to lean on him regarding some criminal matter.  They made their intent known to one and all, and the homeowner shot one guy through his front door. 

No charges were laid.  Big sob fest from all of the deceased friends, but a tough titty. 

Case law on self defence invariably aids the homeowner against the intruder.  As long as the homeowner sticks to self defence.  Shooting the perp in the back as he exits, or as he is running down the street is called murder.  Chasing the perp to effect a citizens arrest using reasonable force?  No problem

The prob with discussions like this, is that our stories inevitably lead to the "Self defence is illegal in Canada because Mr Numbty  saw the guy who robbed his store three days later and shot him as he exited a waterslide at the West Ed Mall."

Half of the examples used invariably are good examples of assault, but not self defence.

Quiet Riot, does your RSC handbook have any good case law examples regarding self defence?

Tom

 

[KevinB]

A hunting license you say ... hmmm.

Were they mill or leo at the time? They told me that that was the one loophole: if I still had a valid ID card they could workout some kind of exception under NAFTA. Anyway, BW is one of the few places that actually applies this rule; most don't really care and some might run a background check I just wanted to go to BW since it's in within reasonable driving distance from here (Montreal).

Yeah they where MIL,

 

[Quiet Riot]

Most of my knowledge comes from highschool law classes and a police foundation course at a local college.   I am also just interested in law and read up on it whenever I have the chance.   You could be correct about the instructors being a little cautious about teaching the use of force since they are all police officers or lawyers and teaching a police foundation class.   Maybe it's a lack of sleep but what do you mean by RSC handbook.    In your story of the rowdies going to this guys house and one getting shot.   They would be considered trespassers for being on his property without being invited and if they threatened him with violence or he believed on reasonable grounds that they would cause him bodily harm or death he would be justified in defending himself, using no more force than neccesary.   So if it was a group he would have no chance especially if they had shown up with weapons to defend himself just with his hands.   If someone breaks into your house to steal some stuff you can't just shoot him, he posses no threat of bodily harm or death.  
You are correct about the pursuing someone for a citizens arrest, I misunderstood the section about using force while pursuing someone without directly helping a peace officer.   It is stated in s.494(2)(a)(b) that the property owner or anyone authorized by the property owner can arrest anyone found commiting a criminal offence on or inrelation to that property.
well i am off to another wonderful night at work... :

 

[Slim]

Wed, April 13, 2005
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2005/04/13/994570-sun.html

Cop ruled justified in killing man

DROVE CAR AT OFFICER

By JONATHAN JENKINS, TORONTO SUN

A TORONTO cop was justified in gunning down Courtney Peters after the thrice-deported crack dealer drove his car at him during a bust, the Special Investigations Unit has ruled. "The officer had a reasonable and honestly held belief that Mr. Peters posed a real and imminent threat to the officer's life and safety and to the lives and safety of those in the vicinity," the unit's director, James Cornish, said in a press release.

"I believe the use of lethal force was necessary to attempt to end that threat."

Peters, 32, died at the scene, near Ellesmere Rd. and Victoria Park Ave., on Oct. 14.

The officer, whose name was not released, suffered a neck and arm injury after he was hit by Peters' Infiniti.

Peters had been ordered out of the country three times and had a lengthy criminal record, primarily for selling crack cocaine, which was found in his car. He once tried to electrocute a girlfriend and his former defence lawyer told the Sun he didn't believe his client ever would have surrendered peacefully.

end

People like this are why we need to be able to protect ourselves with potentially deadly force!

Slim

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

....and if the sheep only know how many of these wolves are out there............

 

[rw4th]

....and if the sheep only know how many of these wolves are out there............

Oh, no, not in Canada! That kind of stuff only happens in the US   :

I've read a couple of books by John Douglas, and you'd be surprised how many serial killer/rape cases he consulted on in Canada. We definitely have our share psycho and sociopaths as well as murderers and rapists. It always amazes (and scares) me how people think that ignorance of danger is somehow translated into safety.

 

[Infanteer]

It always amazes (and scares) me how people think that ignorance of danger is somehow translated into safety.

That's a National Institution - look at our Forces....

 

[Island Ryhno]

On a sort of a side note to this, if anyone is interested in serial murders, violence rates etc, you should have a read of anything by Elliot Leyton, he is one of the most prolific authors of such items in the world and has been a consultant to FBI, Scotland Yard, Interpol, RCMP etc etc. I had the pleasure of doing a course called War and Agression with him at Memorial University and he was by far the best orator I've ever heard!

 

[Sailing Instructor]

One issue that blurs the line between self-defense & assault is the role of the victim & perpetrator.  When the perpetrator commits the crime (say break-in & theft) there is a victim created by virtue of the act of the crime.  But notice that the perpetrator and victim aren't immaleable persons who have existed as such from birth, they are mere roles as are 'mother,' 'teacher,' 'accountant,' and 'soldier.'

Thus, if the person who was victimised by the break-in & theft retaliates by assault, he then holds the role of perpetrator for his assault.  Then we have two persons, both of which are perpetrators & victims.  The distinction is that these roles are held with regard to different acts (the break-in & theft in one place, and the assault in the other).

This confusion of the roles of victim & perpetrator with the persons who occupy the roles is doubtless the reason behind so many assaults that are seen, by the perpetrator, as self-defense for a crime their victim committed against them.  This is an abuse of 'victim-status' that results in a vindication of the actions of victims because they were, at one time, victims.

(I thank Dr Trudy Govier for her insight to this point of logic.)

 

[Brad Sallows]

That only applies to morally confused people who fail to understand it's all of a piece.  Germany was an aggressor until the Allies liberated occupied Europe.  Then the Allies assaulted poor Germany.

 

[Infanteer]

Please tell Dr Trudy Govier that she is morally confused....

 

[Brad Sallows]

I guess we need to distinguish between boxing the thief about the ears in the heat of the act to recover the stolen property, and hunting him down to administer a punitive beating.  There is a difference.

 

[Infanteer]

Is it considered moral to  box a thief in the ears to eject him from your home that he is violating?

 

[Brad Sallows]

The question is always going to be: what is reasonable restitution for the wrong committed?