Bill C-60, the Citizen's Arrest and Self-Defence Act | GTAMotorcycle.com

Bill C-60, the Citizen's Arrest and Self-Defence Act

Methinks you're confusing the Federal and Provincial levels of government there and, where the racing and stunting law was concerned, ALL MPPS, from ALL parties, supported it. Don't just blame one; blame them all.

Where this law is concerned, it's right to take some time to consider unintended consequences. You wouldn't want someone to effectively kidnap some poor kid, because he THOUGHT that he was thinking about shoplifting, and then get away with it would you? This is another case of "governance by sound-bite" and, just because it's popular, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the right thing to do, nor the right way to do it.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Methinks you're confusing the Federal and Provincial levels of government there and, where the racing and stunting law was concerned, ALL MPPS, from ALL parties, supported it. Don't just blame one; blame them all.

Where this law is concerned, it's right to take some time to consider unintended consequences. You wouldn't want someone to effectively kidnap some poor kid, because he THOUGHT that he was thinking about shoplifting, and then get away with it would you? This is another case of "governance by sound-bite" and, just because it's popular, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the right thing to do, nor the right way to do it.
Click to expand...

No doubt.

I'm simply laughing at the fact that any government official would worry about unintended consequences of the next dumb law they come up with.

In this case, while your example is valid as a requiring thought (although the store owner Chan (?) had a history of actually being robbed, not just suspicion of possible robbery but was dragged through the court systems anyways), my interest in this Bill is more on the defence of life and property aspect. The recent examples of home owners being charged with all kinds of things while defending their life/property against criminals is abhorant to say the least.
 
Snobike Mike said:
The recent examples of home owners being charged with all kinds of things while defending their life/property against criminals is abhorant to say the least.
Click to expand...

Given the above, I've always maintained that if someone was dumb enough to break into my house, I'd put a .40cal round into their chest, then fire one into the wall and claim I had fired a warning shot prior...

Not to belittle your point, but laws have become so convoluted and borderline asinine, that only in North America do you find that the courts protect the rights of the perpetrator moreso than the victim - I have very little in the way of hope when laws like this rear their heads in parliament.
 
Snobike Mike said:
No doubt.

I'm simply laughing at the fact that any government official would worry about unintended consequences of the next dumb law they come up with.

In this case, while your example is valid as a requiring thought (although the store owner Chan (?) had a history of actually being robbed, not just suspicion of possible robbery but was dragged through the court systems anyways), my interest in this Bill is more on the defence of life and property aspect. The recent examples of home owners being charged with all kinds of things while defending their life/property against criminals is abhorant to say the least.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree but it's likely more an issue with Crowns receiving poor marching orders, rather than an issue with the law. Do the words "no reasonable prospect of conviction" ring a bell? When we're talking about self defence, that's usually what should happen.

As in most cases, the law likely doesn't need to be changed. It's a matter of trying to look good to the headline (not story) reading public, during an election year. Outrage buys votes. Pragmatism doesn't.
 
While I agree with Rob's points, one could argue that the law was created to mitigate the damage caused by poor marching orders given to the Crowns. There are 2 sad realities to our legal system:

1) The Crowns and the police are typically inclined to charge first, ask questions later. A criminal charge = thousands upon thousands that a person on an honest buck can ill-afford

2) Career criminals are more likely to know that their best bet is to STFU and ask for a lawyer, so they're more likely to get off on any charges that they may face than your typical law-abiding citizen who is convinced that the cop is his friend and that he should level with him. The cop is not your friend. He is a professional, there to do a job. His job is to charge people with offenses. If he is interviewing you as anything other than a witness, he is looking to charge you with an offense. A non-issue if you don't have anything better to spend your money on than legal fees.
 
It takes a while to get these laws properly tuned. Here in Florida, we have had the right to defend our homes and family for a while, but what if somebody threatens you in public? Until recently, the onus was on the threatened person to try to retreat from the danger.

OK, picture this. I walk legally across the street, step up onto the curb, and find myself face to face with an armed person who threatens me. How can I meet this requirement to try to retreat from the danger? I cannot step backward off the curb into traffic, and I am not going to turn my back on the attacker and look both ways before walking onto the street.

Florida changed its laws to put the responsibility for crimes such as the above squarely on the criminal making the threat. A threatened person has no requirement to yield an inch to a criminal, but can defend himself, other people, and his property against all illegal threats. Yes, we had all sorts of gas from people screaming "Wild West!" and other such nonsense, but the laws are in place and the idiots have piped down.

I spend lots of time in Ontario, so I hope Ontario produces laws that make it clear that criminals are responsible for the reactions their illegal actions provoke, and those defending themselves and others are responsible for accuracy of aim and not much else.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Where this law is concerned, it's right to take some time to consider unintended consequences. You wouldn't want someone to effectively kidnap some poor kid, because he THOUGHT that he was thinking about shoplifting,...
Click to expand...

Just last night I sent my 14 year old brother to my car to get a gym bag I had in the back seat. One of my neighbours, thinking he was a car thief, intervened. I think it's really cool that my neighbour was watching out for me, as I do for him, but I think had this been, say, Texas, this incident could have ended up horribly.
 
Last edited:
ariesmars said:
Just last night I sent my 14 year old brother to my car to get a gym bag I had in the back seat. One of my neighbours thinking he was a car thief intervened. I think it's really cool that my neighbour was watching out for me, as I do for him, but I think had this been, say, Texas, this incident could have ended up horribly.
Click to expand...

Your neighbour only intervened but didn't beat him to death with a shovel? Your logic is flawed, a tool albeit a shove or a gun can be used in the correct or incorrect manner. Either way your neighbour is awesome for making sure someone wasn't flat out stealing your car or it's contents.

Just because someone owns a firearm doesn't mean they default to shoot first, ask questions later.
 
those "realitiies" are just your opinion and have little truth to them.

FiReSTaRT said:
While I agree with Rob's points, one could argue that the law was created to mitigate the damage caused by poor marching orders given to the Crowns. There are 2 sad realities to our legal system:

1) The Crowns and the police are typically inclined to charge first, ask questions later. A criminal charge = thousands upon thousands that a person on an honest buck can ill-afford

2) Career criminals are more likely to know that their best bet is to STFU and ask for a lawyer, so they're more likely to get off on any charges that they may face than your typical law-abiding citizen who is convinced that the cop is his friend and that he should level with him. The cop is not your friend. He is a professional, there to do a job. His job is to charge people with offenses. If he is interviewing you as anything other than a witness, he is looking to charge you with an offense. A non-issue if you don't have anything better to spend your money on than legal fees.
Click to expand...
 
silence said:
Your neighbour only intervened but didn't beat him to death with a shovel? Your logic is flawed, a tool albeit a shove or a gun can be used in the correct or incorrect manner. Either way your neighbour is awesome for making sure someone wasn't flat out stealing your car or it's contents.

Just because someone owns a firearm doesn't mean they default to shoot first, ask questions later.
Click to expand...

Where is my logic flawed? My point is, careful review of these laws is a good thing. I used this incident as an example of how easily people can mistaken simple actions, for a crime in progress. -Trust me, I know first hand- I just sent my lil' bro to get me a bag out of my car, but in someone's eyes, he was robbery suspect. Yes, in Texas, where you can kill people to protect property, things could have turned out horribly. I wasn't suggesting gun owners have a shoot first mentality, I didn't even mention guns in my post, but that people may have one. Just read a couple of comments on this thread; even though I think they're kidding.

And BTW, the neighbour I'm going on about is a very thoughtful man, he didn't do anything crazy. Basically, my brother was made to know he was being watched and my nay'bour came to my door and let me know something was up. I encouraged him to do it again if he needed to and thanked him. And, that was it.

No editing.
 
ariesmars said:
Where is my logic flawed? My point is, careful review of these laws is a good thing. I used this incident as an example of how easily people can mistaken simple actions, for a crime in progress. -Trust me, I know first hand- I just sent my lil' bro to get me a bag out of my car, but in someone's eyes, he was robbery suspect. Yes, in Texas, where you can kill people to protect property, things could have turned out horribly. I wasn't suggesting gun owners have a shoot first mentality, I didn't even mention guns in my post, but that people may have one. Just read a couple of comments on this thread; even though I think they're kidding.

And BTW, the neighbour I'm going on about is a very thoughtful man, he didn't do anything crazy. Basically, my brother was made to know he was being watched and my nay'bour came to my door and let me know something was up. I encouraged him to do it again if he needed to and thanked him. And, that was it.

No editing.
Click to expand...

I agree that careful review and proper implementation for such a law is absolutely critical. I was simply referring to the logic behind the statement "say, Texas, this incident could have ended up horribly." was flawed since it was not objective.

Once again you're lucky to have such a great neighbour and good on you for looking out for each other.
 
silence said:
Your neighbour only intervened but didn't beat him to death with a shovel? Your logic is flawed, a tool albeit a shove or a gun can be used in the correct or incorrect manner. Either way your neighbour is awesome for making sure someone wasn't flat out stealing your car or it's contents.

Just because someone owns a firearm doesn't mean they default to shoot first, ask questions later.
Click to expand...

You cant argue with people who are afraid of guns. People who have never been to texas think its the wild wild west because the media and other anit gun dummies have made it out to be so.



On a related note the first line in that article said "OTTAWA - Should people defending their own homes or lives be able to use force to protect themselves or their property?"

Is this even a question? lol
 
OK I'm confused. So if someone comes into your house is stealing stuff and you think he/she may be a danger to you, you can't use force? What do they mean by force? You have to wait until they attempt to hurt you before you can do something about it? How about if someone is taking your stuff.... you have to tell them to stop and drop everything, but you can't touch them?
 
Metastable said:
OK I'm confused. So if someone comes into your house is stealing stuff and you think he/she may be a danger to you, you can't use force? What do they mean by force? You have to wait until they attempt to hurt you before you can do something about it? How about if someone is taking your stuff.... you have to tell them to stop and drop everything, but you can't touch them?
Click to expand...

I don't know what is actually out there on the books now as far as wording....however, from recent news it would appear your interpretation is correct :( It's the victims who are being charged for defending themselves. All it takes is for the criminal to claim they've been hurt by you and you're suddenly on the defence.
​
 
Metastable said:
OK I'm confused. So if someone comes into your house is stealing stuff and you think he/she may be a danger to you, you can't use force? What do they mean by force? You have to wait until they attempt to hurt you before you can do something about it? How about if someone is taking your stuff.... you have to tell them to stop and drop everything, but you can't touch them?
Click to expand...

You can use reasonable physical force to protect you and your stuff from harm or theft. You can't shoot someone to stop them from running off with your TV in their arms.
 
Metastable said:
OK I'm confused. So if someone comes into your house is stealing stuff and you think he/she may be a danger to you, you can't use force? What do they mean by force? You have to wait until they attempt to hurt you before you can do something about it? How about if someone is taking your stuff.... you have to tell them to stop and drop everything, but you can't touch them?
Click to expand...

It's the whole "duty to retreat" crap. American States, that have passed various forms of "Castle Doctrine" into law, have recognized that you have a right to defend yourself, in your own home, and shouldn't have to leave your own place of residence in order to avoid a confrontation with a criminal.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
It's the whole "duty to retreat" crap. American States, that have passed various forms of "Castle Doctrine" into law, have recognized that you have a right to defend yourself, in your own home, and shouldn't have to leave your own place of residence in order to avoid a confrontation with a criminal.
Click to expand...

There is no general "duty to retreat". You can use force against intruders and thieves in the act of their crime. You just can't use deadly force to protect property, and Canadian law imposes a duty to retreat only as a last resort before using deadly force to protect life and limb.
 
turbodish said:
There is no general "duty to retreat". You can use force against intruders and thieves in the act of their crime. You just can't use deadly force to protect property, and Canadian law imposes a duty to retreat only as a last resort before using deadly force to protect life and limb.
Click to expand...

The duty to retreat is implied, rather than implicit, and is present before the use of any significant amount of force.
 
The downside of this law is the ambiguity introduced into the system. Who determines how far is too far? What's to stop criminals from demanding charges be pressed against their assailants if they feel that they used excessive force? Feels like there's a ton of grey areas in the description they are providing so far. (not that there isn't today...)

Doesn't the onus lie on the judiciary system to throw out ridiculous charges? Cops should have laws that are black and white. That's what's wrong with 172.

I mean...how would you feel if you were the Crown in the David Chen case? Or the judge? You've gotta feel like a slimeball representing the state in that case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom