The justice system fails!

[roadtoruin]

Once again you're talking out of complete ignorance.

The principle of self-defence is well recognized and defined in Canadian law. As long as your actions are limited to only the force reasonably needed to repel or end an attack in light of the threat to life and limb posed by that attack, and do not go any further, you're not going to be facing charges.

Your right to use force in self-defence ends once the immediate threat of attack has ended. You are entitled to use reasonable force after that point to detain the attacker until police arrive, but you can't continue to pound on the attacker after he is obviously down or has surrendered. If the attacker had halted his attack and fled, you also can't claim self-defence if you later hunt down the attacker and instigate a resumption of the fight.

If you seriously injure or kill the attacker in the course of an attack, there will certainly be an investigation but the amount of Monday-morning second-guessing done by the cops is minimal. You would have to go way over the top before the cops would consider laying charges, and even then it usually won't happen without first consulting and obtaining the agreement of the Crown.

I'm not talking out of complete ignorance. There was a story not even a year ago where a canadian store owner shot some would be robbers and he was charged for it. I can't find the link for it at the moment though.

On another note we should have the right to carry and conceal in canada. Heres a good argument for it - Crime Controlled By Armed Citizens

[turbodish]

This is a good example right here: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...hoplifter.aspx

That's a poor example. First off it wasn't self defence but an improper citizens arrest. The storekeeper would have been justified in his actions had he undertaken them at the immediate moment the shoplifting had actually occurred. To do it later is vigilantism.

In fact the story makes note of another incident where the storekeeper did precisely that and face no repercussions.

He said he had recently complained to an officer about his store being plagued by shoplifters. His employees caught two suspected thieves on Friday. Employees guarded one suspect inside the store for almost six hours until officers arrived, he said.

There were no forcible confinement or assault charges in that case because reasonable and proper procedure was followed.

[Flashmonkey]

You're not talking about self defence here. You're talking about vigilante punishment, and history shows that vigilantes are often worse than the criminals (real and otherwise) they purport to punish and over-punish.

But this is the problem. There is potentially a huge grey area as to how this is interpreted. At what point does the victim stop being a victim and start being a vigilante? Granted, a woman defending herself and clawing her attacker's eyes out may be seen as one thing, but what about an experienced martial artist or professional fighter? If they are put in a situation of duress and are forced to defend themselves, given the amount of damage they can inflict on an individual, how will their actions be interpreted, and how can we, as citizens, expect any kind of consistency with these kinds of rulings? Any experienced martial artist or fighter will tell you that their reactions and how they will deal with a violent situation will differ greatly from that of a regular, non-trained individual. Whether they intend to or not, they will do a great deal more damage to their attacker.

[Flashmonkey]

There were no forcible confinement or assault charges in that case because reasonable and proper procedure was followed.

And maybe if the cops didn't take 6 hours to show up that first time, he would've been a little more patient the second time around.

[mat2312]

Charges are extremely rare. The defender gets a whole lot of benefit of the doubt precisely because of the "split-seconds" and crisis situation in which a decision to defend against attack must be made.





You're not talking about self defence here. You're talking about vigilante punishment, and history shows that vigilantes are often worse than the criminals (real and otherwise) they purport to punish and over-punish.

The lines of self defence and vigilante justice can be blurred in a split second. The point I'm trying to make is that our justice system has become so pussified that law abiding citizens have to justify their actions when a criminal tries to harm them.

Look at the loops firearms owners have to go through ANYTIME their legal firearms are used to defend themselves against a perp. Even if you were in a high crime area with home invasions on the regular you are NOT permitted to have a firearm readily accessible for you to defend yourself...

[turbodish]

And maybe if the cops didn't take 6 hours to show up that first time, he would've been a little more patient the second time around.

"Reportedly" took 6 hours to arrive. If you call police and tell them you are actually holding a person under arrest, they're usually pretty quick to arrive and take custody of the prisoner.

[invictus43]

People need to stand up to losers like this so they dont get their own way.

Treats of death shouldnt be a get out of jail free card for them.

Meh..I was threatened with death..I still testified..that's life.

[turbodish]

The lines of self defence and vigilante justice can be blurred in a split second. The point I'm trying to make is that our justice system has become so pussified that law abiding citizens have to justify their actions when a criminal tries to harm them.

Which is precisely why you get a lot of leeway and won't face charges except in exceptional circumstances.

Eventually though, the rope has to run out. Like in this case: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...olice-say.aspx

Look at the loops firearms owners have to go through ANYTIME their legal firearms are used to defend themselves against a perp. Even if you were in a high crime area with home invasions on the regular you are NOT permitted to have a firearm readily accessible for you to defend yourself...

You can't keep a loaded gun on the night table. You are expected to keep your guns and ammo in secure storage.

This is reasonable. There are too many instances in the US of children having ready access to guns and blowing off theheads of other children. Here in Canada, and even with our stricter gun storage laws, half of all guns used in crimes are weapons stolen from legal gun owners.

Unless you've shot an unarmed person, or shot an obviously fleeing armed person in the back, or summarily executed someone who has already laid down their weapon, you will not get touched. Go and search the news media to find examples otherwise.

[Flashmonkey]

"Reportedly" took 6 hours to arrive. If you call police and tell them you are actually holding a person under arrest, they're usually pretty quick to arrive and take custody of the prisoner.

Ok you're right...reportedly. To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if the Post embellished on that a little bit. But still, to arrest the store owner for acting out in defense of his business when he's clearly being plagued with a bout of shop lifting leaves a lot to be desired. Besides, it's not like he killed the guy or anything, either.

[turbodish]

You blurted out something as being run-of-the-mill fact and I called you on it. I don't care if you like me or not for doing so.

I'm not talking out of complete ignorance. There was a story not even a year ago where a canadian store owner shot some would be robbers and he was charged for it. I can't find the link for it at the moment though.

Shooting someone who is pointing a weapon at you is reasonable, but you cannot use lethal force to defend property alone. Shooting someone over an iPod or VCR is not self defence and it is not reasonable. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...n-alberta.aspx

The case of the store owner was last year. The issue there wasn't with the level of force used, but the fact that he had a weapon on property illegally. In the end I don't think charges were ever laid against the store owner. "No one is allowed to have a gun on their premises for protection in the city. We have laws that govern the ownership and handling of guns. Anyone in possession of a gun has to have it safely stored in a designated place," said Insp. Eric Grummisch." Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...#ixzz0hnBqOSk3"

There as also another BC jewelry store shooting in which an armed robber was shot and paralyzed afterthe store owner retrived a registered gun from the store safe and started shooting. The robber got a 4 year sentence over and above his paralysis. The store owner was not charged. http://www.westkelowna.com/2009/12/2...y-store-owner/

On another note we should have the right to carry and conceal in canada. Heres a good argument for it - Crime Controlled By Armed Citizens

Sure. It seems to work in the US. Per capita homicide rate by any means is 3 times higher than Canada. Isolate firearms-related homicide and the case gets even grimmer.

the U.S. rate of gun homicide was nearly eight times Canada's, the agency says. Homicides accounted for 38 per cent of deaths involving guns in the United States and 18 per cent in Canada.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/...#ixzz0hnFjH4n2

Yes, that's just what we need in Canada.

[froghammer]

The ignorance shown by some here is absolutely astounding. McGuinty and the Liberals are a provincial government and as such can enact and enforce only provincial laws. Use of permissible force in self-defence is covered under the Criminal Code of Canada. The Criminal Code supercedes provincial law.

My point. You've missed it.

[turbodish]

Ok you're right...reportedly. To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if the Post embellished on that a little bit. But still, to arrest the store owner for acting out in defense of his business when he's clearly being plagued with a bout of shop lifting leaves a lot to be desired. Besides, it's not like he killed the guy or anything, either.

It's hard not to feel sympathy for the store owner but a line still needs to be drawn.

Right now, the kidnapping and weapons charges have been dropped. He's still facing charges of assault and forcible confinement in connection with unnecessarily beating and holding the thief prisoner in a van instead of delivering him immediately to police.

[turbodish]

My point. You've missed it.

And just what point was that?

[DaFrEnCh-TiCkLeR]

Tell the judge to s*** it and take the juvie pass. Not like he's going to do hard time here...

I would rather do a contemp charge then get the crap beaten out of me at every party and everyone calling me a snitch.

to each is own I guess.

[roadtoruin]

You blurted out something as being run-of-the-mill fact and I called you on it. I don't care if you like me or not for doing so.

Notice I said "likely", which means I wasn't "blurting something out as being run-of-the-mill fact".

[froghammer]

I would rather do a contemp charge then get the crap beaten out of me at every party and everyone calling me a snitch.

Ditto. It's a quality of life thing at that point.

[turbodish]

Notice I said "likely", which means I wasn't "blurting something out as being run-of-the-mill fact".

Well then your spelling is bad. The correct version of the word is "unlikely". Charges are very seldom laid for use of force in self defence against attack.

[mat2312]

Which is precisely why you get a lot of leeway and won't face charges except in exceptional circumstances.

Eventually though, the rope has to run out. Like in this case: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...olice-say.aspx

Reasonable limitations I understand but it's self defense is definitely a hot topic. There are individuals who say "oh don't defend yourself, call the police", lifetime victims I call them. Or there's people like myself who will defend to the death anyone I care about and anything I own.

What's the guy to do? I don't think he should be firing off a gun in a crowded area but I can't blame the guy for wanting his stuff back. Should he let the guy run off? Confront him? What if the robber had a weapon???

I know it's only an ipod, but it's HIS ipod and he should have the right to defend it. I can understand the close proximity of innocents but what if he was in an alley with just the robber? In my opinion I say shoot 'em up. Every situation is unique but I'm not against lethal force defending property, that might sound absurd to some but only ONE party to a crime gets to choose whether or not to be there.

You can't keep a loaded gun on the night table. You are expected to keep your guns and ammo in secure storage.

This is reasonable. There are too many instances in the US of children having ready access to guns and blowing off theheads of other children. Here in Canada, and even with our stricter gun storage laws, half of all guns used in crimes are weapons stolen from legal gun owners.

Unless you've shot an unarmed person, or shot an obviously fleeing armed person in the back, or summarily executed someone who has already laid down their weapon, you will not get touched. Go and search the news media to find examples otherwise.

Storage laws actually serve no purpose. Infact most of our firearms laws were designed and created out of fear instead of logic. I don't have children, why do I have to keep my firearms/ammo locked up?? If I live in the barrens of Northern Ontario 200 kilometers away from the nearest young person why the hell would I have to keep my firearms locked up?? There is absolutely no reason why a licenced person should not be able to decide on his own in what capacity he wants to store his firearms and ammo. The risk of theft puts reverse onus on the owner when it should be on the criminal. Why don't we get tough on the use of firearms in crime? Hug-a-thug supporters would rather we target law abiding citizens because somehow they believe the removal of legal firearms in Canada will prevent the criminals from acquiring them . They tried that overseas, the only people armed in Britain are the thugs.

Why am I not able to reasonably access my firearms in the event I need them to defend myself or my family?

I have a little brother who's just turned 12. He's grown up around firearms, held them, cleaned them, loaded them, shot them well before his 9th birthday. He's been taught that they are tools but they can also hurt you if misused. The vast majority of LEGAL gun owners preach this logic. It's all about education, not restrictions. I don't agree with leaving a firearm loaded but there's absolutely no reason why they can't be left out in a home.

That stat about half the guns are stolen is completely false. Please post the link so I can prove it wrong.

From guncontrol.ca (a bs site but lets use their stats to show I'm not biased) http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Hom...theIllegal.pdf

Guns Recovered in Toronto (2004)

Guns from US Sources 111 (52&#37
Traced 82
Believed smuggled 29


Guns from Canadian Sources

On file as stolen 35
Canada (from unknown) 36
Too old for trace 6
Not registered 26
Guns from Canadian Sources - 103 (48%)


Using their numbers only 34 out of 214 can be PROVEN stolen that's 16%

[twinn]

Cops almost never charge someone with assault in the case of self defense. Turbo is right about that. Reason is that most times, the person who is mugging or robbing someone usually has a criminal history while the victim does not.

Only cases I have heard of that happening are in cases where doormen go to through someone out of a club and in the process hurt or "work over" the patron.

As for guns and storage, gun ownership in Canada is not defines by our charter and is more like a privillage then a right (in the US its the opposite).


I vaguly remeber a case many years ago in Mississagua (like 10-15 years ago) where a avid hunter caught someone in their garage, he got out his .22 rifle and shot the guy in the *** as he ran away. Dude got charged because there was no immediate threat.

[inreb]

I vaguly remeber a case many years ago in Mississagua (like 10-15 years ago) where a avid hunter caught someone in their garage, he got out his .22 rifle and shot the guy in the *** as he ran away. Dude got charged because there was no immediate threat.

That happened in Hamilton as well (same timeline too)