Self Defence in Canada (split from Gun Control 2.0)

[brihard]

I'm not a huge fan of adding criminal offences where current ones are adequate. Governments like to do this. I would rather see differentiations in sentencing provisions to sanction certain circumstances.

I generally agree, though I wouldn’t be opposed to a discrete offence for home invasions where the home is believed to be occupied or the accused is reckless to the likelihood. Anyway though that was more tangential to options on how we’d capture the stats.

 

[Furniture]

I generally agree, though I wouldn’t be opposed to a discrete offence for home invasions where the home is believed to be occupied or the accused is reckless to the likelihood. Anyway though that was more tangential to options on how we’d capture the stats.

As a complete layman in the legal world, I think this might be a useful distinction for crime stats tracking.

Breaking into an obviously empty structure is very different from breaking into a structure that is clearly, or likely occupied.

As a youngster, I myself engaged in some minor "break and enter" of old cottages that weren't used much. That's an entirely different beast than kicking down the door of a home you know people are in.

 

[lenaitch]

As a complete layman in the legal world, I think this might be a useful distinction for crime stats tracking.

Breaking into an obviously empty structure is very different from breaking into a structure that is clearly, or likely occupied.

As a youngster, I myself engaged in some minor "break and enter" of old cottages that weren't used much. That's an entirely different beast than kicking down the door of a home you know people are in.

True, but you can subdivide stats without necessarily changing the law. Impaired operation by drug vs alcohol, for example.

 

[Halifax Tar]

What a horrible story...

12 hours to get police to show up...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1973995660102770885

 

[OldSolduer]

What a horrible story...

12 hours to get police to show up...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1973995660102770885

One day we will see a lynching in a major urban center where some ne'er do well has been nabbed by ordinary people....who in other situations might be very good people.
Desperate times....make....

 

[Remius]

B.C. judge says self-defence can include expelling someone who has outstayed welcome

A B.C. Supreme Court judge says self-defence rules that allow people to arm themselves against an intruder can also include situations where someone refuses to leave after initially being welcomed.

www.ctvnews.ca

A step in the right direction?

 

[brihard]

B.C. judge says self-defence can include expelling someone who has outstayed welcome

A B.C. Supreme Court judge says self-defence rules that allow people to arm themselves against an intruder can also include situations where someone refuses to leave after initially being welcomed.

www.ctvnews.ca

A step in the right direction?

Sounds like a totally reasonable decision to make.

 

[Halifax Tar]

B.C. judge says self-defence can include expelling someone who has outstayed welcome

A B.C. Supreme Court judge says self-defence rules that allow people to arm themselves against an intruder can also include situations where someone refuses to leave after initially being welcomed.

www.ctvnews.ca

A step in the right direction?

A surprising take...

Perhaps my faith in our judiciary can be saved...

 

[Haggis]

Sounds like a totally reasonable decision to make.

I'm glad to see his Honour drawing a parallel to bar bouncers. Had this gone the other way, it could've opened up a huge can of worms for the hospitality industry.

 

[brihard]

I'm glad to see his Honour drawing a parallel to bar bouncers. Had this gone the other way, it could've opened up a huge can of worms for the hospitality industry.

Tracking the legal authorities on that, bouncers are generally acting as an agent of the owner/tenant of the property. This generally gives them authority under provincial trespass act to remove or arrest trespassers. As soon as they’re acting with that legal capacity, section 25 of the Criminal Code offers a defence to reasonable and necessary use of force. There’s no reason for that not to apply to an individual who determines that someone is no longer permitted to be in their residence. Expanding this to recognize the applicability of self defence is those persons are assaulted in the case of lawfully using reasonable force is also a no brainer. This does still all come back to the usual considerations of force used being defensible as ‘reasonable’.

 

[Haggis]

Tracking the legal authorities on that, bouncers are generally acting as an agent of the owner/tenant of the property. This generally gives them authority under provincial trespass act to remove or arrest trespassers. As soon as they’re acting with that legal capacity, section 25 of the Criminal Code offers a defence to reasonable and necessary use of force. There’s no reason for that not to apply to an individual who determines that someone is no longer permitted to be in their residence. Expanding this to recognize the applicability of self defence is those persons are assaulted in the case of lawfully using reasonable force is also a no brainer. This does still all come back to the usual considerations of force used being defensible as ‘reasonable’.

Years ago when I worked for a few months as a "doorman", we were briefed during our training on some case law under the old self-defence provisions which involved excessive force. The main thrust back then was to ensure none of us carried any weapons while working.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Tracking the legal authorities on that, bouncers are generally acting as an agent of the owner/tenant of the property. This generally gives them authority under provincial trespass act to remove or arrest trespassers. As soon as they’re acting with that legal capacity, section 25 of the Criminal Code offers a defence to reasonable and necessary use of force. There’s no reason for that not to apply to an individual who determines that someone is no longer permitted to be in their residence. Expanding this to recognize the applicability of self defence is those persons are assaulted in the case of lawfully using reasonable force is also a no brainer. This does still all come back to the usual considerations of force used being defensible as ‘reasonable’.

The crown would have had better luck arguing that it was unreasonable force used, rather then arguing they didn't have the right to arm themselves in the first place.

 

[Blackadder1916]

This makes for easy politicking, but I’d need to see specific proposed wording for the law. Saying a use of force is ‘presumptively’ reasonable sounds great, but it doesn’t mean an investigation won’t still happen, and any ‘presumption’ just means the way you lean to start, potentially reversing an onus.

There’s no statutory presumption that police use of force is reasonable but, de facto, that’s essentially how it’s treated- though any use of force resulting in death or serious harm is investigated, in most cases by an independent external agency.

I could see, and would generally be fine with, an amendment to section 34 establishing a rebuttable presumption along these lines. I think it would be reasonable policy and would definitely be publicly supported… BUT we would need to be prepared for some ugly cases where individuals think it means they can take things to excess.

I’d suggest that it should include wording along the lines of: “such use of force in defense of oneself or others against an intruder in a dwelling-house shall be considered presumptively reasonable only to the extent necessary to deter or repel a real or perceived attack, or to effect an arrest of an intruder under section 494 of the Criminal Code.

For greater certainty, a lawful occupant of a dwelling house is not expected to measure with certainty the degree of danger presented by an intruder, however any use of force must not be manifestly disproportionate.

For greater certainty, the lawful occupants of a dwelling house does not have a duty to retreat from a real or perceived attack from an intruder.

The presence of other lawful occupants in the dwelling house who are potentially vulnerable dangers by an intruder is to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of the lawful occupant’s perception of a threat. For greater certainty, it will be a mitigating factor in assessing any force used by the lawful occupant where young persons, persons with physical or mental infirmities, or persons otherwise less able to defend themselves are also present in the residence.”

That’s just me spitballing off the top of my head, but this would help build an explicit provision to afford lawful occupants of a residence greater latitude to use force in self defence, and in defense of others. It would also codify that defense of self or others in residence doesn’t let you keep beating the piss out of someone once the threat is gone or subdued, and it explicitly links the use of force to a legal citizen’s arrest. It also really buttresses a ‘last line of defense’ argument for protecting others less able to protect themselves.

Just my two cents as I think out loud.

And introduced yesterday.

Private Member's Bill C-270 (45-1) - First Reading - Stand on Guard Act - Parliament of Canada

Private Member's Bill C-270 (45-1) - First Reading - Stand on Guard Act - Parliament of Canada

www.parl.ca

 

[brihard]

And introduced yesterday.

Private Member's Bill C-270 (45-1) - First Reading - Stand on Guard Act - Parliament of Canada

Private Member's Bill C-270 (45-1) - First Reading - Stand on Guard Act - Parliament of Canada

www.parl.ca

Allowing for the fact that I'm quite sleepf***ed right now, the proposed section 2.2 as I read it basically makes it an absolute presumption that someone unlawfully in a residence is automatically deemed to be using force or the threat thereof, and makes it an absolute presumption that deadly force is reasonable against someone merely for unlawfully being in the dwelling. Essentially this bill would seem to make it fair game to kill anyone unlawfully in a house regardless of what actual reasonable threat they present.

Section 2.1 is a smoke show; it creates a new rebuttable presumption of the intruder's intent, but their intent is not previously a factor in section 34. Section 2.1 appears made utterly redundant by 2.2.

Section 1.1 is simply a 'for greater clarity' section, but again made redundant by 2.2

So yeah... As I read it, in my admittedly exhausted state, the proposed section 34(2.2) essentially makes it a nearly completely unaccountable right to kill any intruder into a dwelling house based on how strongly worded the related presumptions are.

This won't go anywhere of course, but if it did it would lead to unnecessary deaths. The Criminal Code already allows you to use force including deadly force to defend yourself or others, depending on the threat you can articulate reasonably perceiving.