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

[Dohhh]

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.

You actually do have the ability to defend yourself, even if it means killing the other person.
This is directly quoted from the canadian criminal code

Defense of Person
Self-Defence Against Unprovoked Assault
... / Extent of justification.
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

<dl><dd>(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and </dd><dd>(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. [R.S. c.C-34, s.34.] </dd></dl> Self-Defence In Case Of Aggression.
35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if
<dl><dd>(a) he uses the force <dl><dd>(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and </dd><dd>(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm; </dd></dl> </dd><dd>(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and </dd><dd>(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose. [R.S. c.C-34, s.35.] </dd></dl> Provocation.
36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures. [R.S. c.C-34, s.36.]
Preventing Assault
... / Extent of justification.
37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent. [R.S. c.C-34, s.37.]

 

[Metastable]

So is breaking into your house seen as a form of "assault" or similar where you can introduce force before force is applied against you? I mean if there is a chick and she is 5' nothing and a huge dude breaks into her house, she's not going to wait until something happens.... right. If she can grab a bat and take a few preemptive swings, would it be seen as self defense even though the big dude never saw it coming?

 

[turbodish]

So is breaking into your house seen as a form of "assault" or similar where you can introduce force before force is applied against you? I mean if there is a chick and she is 5' nothing and a huge dude breaks into her house, she's not going to wait until something happens.... right. If she can grab a bat and take a few preemptive swings, would it be seen as self defense even though the big dude never saw it coming?

If someone has broken into your house, trespass law allows you to apply physical force to remove the intruder from your home. Trespass law also allows you to use physical force to detain the intruder for police. The intruder doesn't even have to be stealing things or causing damage for you to use force - simply being in your home is enough.

The force must be reasonable to the degree of perceived threat implied by the presence of the intruder, but the police and the courts allow a wide latitude of discretion in determining whether the degree of perceived threat justified the amount fo force used to expel or subdue the intruder. A small person using a bat to subdue or expel a huge dude would be seen as reasonable, provided that the beating stopped reasonably soon after the threat had retreated or surrendered.

 

[viper84737]

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.

Having just returned from riding around North America, one of my stops being Texas, my favorite sign in the whole world was this one I just had to take a photo of:

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/yHVT6qYgSkxK2s9MFjbBIYt1vOWmTkBiMblLrp_EAu8?full-exif=true

Not saying they're all redneck gun-toters AT ALL, but the sign was still awesome.

 

[Brian P]

Awesome reply from a cop when speaking to someone on another forum, who had their bikes stolen from their garage in Tennessee:

I'm covered with insurance so it's really just the violation and negotiation on price with the insurer. The wife is super freaked though.

I felt reassured when the cop told me that "This isn't New York. We don't care about the poor misguided criminals, if they're on your property you can do anything you want. Just make sure they're not around to rise when the judge says will the defendent please rise..."

 

[promac]

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.

Armored car drivers and guards carry loaded firearms. At what point are they permitted to use force? What is the threshold in dollar value? If one were to carry a holstered unloaded handgun with a charged magazine in their pocket, at what point are they using force? When they load it or when they point it? At what point do they have lawful excuse to load it? I think that's the problem with our laws - if someone breaks into your home, that should give you lawful excuse to make ready and carry a loaded weapon. Whether you need to use it or not is already provided for in the Criminal Code.

 

[viper84737]

Castle Doctrine FTW (look it up).

 

[Liquid Drummer]

Armored car drivers and guards carry loaded firearms. At what point are they permitted to use force? What is the threshold in dollar value? If one were to carry a holstered unloaded handgun with a charged magazine in their pocket, at what point are they using force? When they load it or when they point it? At what point do they have lawful excuse to load it? I think that's the problem with our laws - if someone breaks into your home, that should give you lawful excuse to make ready and carry a loaded weapon. Whether you need to use it or not is already provided for in the Criminal Code.

I was talking to a guy who does deposit pick ups from stores (I work retail) and we were talking about being robbed and using his gun, etc.

From what he told me, all the robber has to do is turn his back to the guard and the guard is unable to use his gun at that point.

So if you just run up, snatch the ruffled bag they use, put your back to him and start running, the only thing they can do is chase/watch.

 

[CruisnGrrl]

I was talking to a guy who does deposit pick ups from stores (I work retail) and we were talking about being robbed and using his gun, etc.

From what he told me, all the robber has to do is turn his back to the guard and the guard is unable to use his gun at that point.

So if you just run up, snatch the ruffled bag they use, put your back to him and start running, the only thing they can do is chase/watch.

so you gotta run backwards up to them to avoid being shot in the first part of your plan?

 

[promac]

so you gotta run backwards up to them to avoid being shot in the first part of your plan?

What happens if you walk up, unarmed, and politely ask the guard for the bag? What if the person is merely asking for help or assistance? What if a tug of war over the bag starts? Not that it really matters anyway because the guard has a loaded handgun at his/her immediate disposal. At what point can any other person lawfully have a loaded firearm at their immediate disposal? Although one might have lawful excuse to use a loaded firearm, other laws prohibit any means of availability. IMO, a carry permit would rectify that problem. Otherwise, a strange noise or unexpected and unknown guest should provide you with lawful excuse to carry a loaded firearm in your home until you're satisfied there are no potential or suspected threats.

 

[Snobike Mike]

If someone has broken into your house, trespass law allows you to apply physical force to remove the intruder from your home. Trespass law also allows you to use physical force to detain the intruder for police. The intruder doesn't even have to be stealing things or causing damage for you to use force - simply being in your home is enough.

The force must be reasonable to the degree of perceived threat implied by the presence of the intruder, but the police and the courts allow a wide latitude of discretion in determining whether the degree of perceived threat justified the amount fo force used to expel or subdue the intruder. A small person using a bat to subdue or expel a huge dude would be seen as reasonable, provided that the beating stopped reasonably soon after the threat had retreated or surrendered.

The problem is with our current liberal ****** system is that even if you brandish a weapon (especially a firearm) you're likely to be the one getting charged (unsafe storage would be the start and it would go downhill from there).

2nd problem is PROVING that your percieved threat was worth even the brandishing of a weapon, let alone use of one. Again you'll be charged first and have to explain later. There are to many examples even within the last year of these types of situations where law abiding gun owners are charges while the criminals are lucky to get a slap on the wrist.

 

[bombshelter13]

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.

That sounds like a contradiction to me.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

The problem is with our current liberal ****** system is that even if you brandish a weapon (especially a firearm) you're likely to be the one getting charged (unsafe storage would be the start and it would go downhill from there).

2nd problem is PROVING that your percieved threat was worth even the brandishing of a weapon, let alone use of one. Again you'll be charged first and have to explain later. There are to many examples even within the last year of these types of situations where law abiding gun owners are charges while the criminals are lucky to get a slap on the wrist.

'Brandishing' a weapon indicates that the situation was not of sufficient for the weapon to be used, in the first place. Most (ie 'virtually all') self defence instructors will tell you that you don't bring out a weapon, unless you intend to use it immediately. You don't threaten an assailant with your firearm; you SHOOT him.

Situations, like the one involving the firebombing of Ian Thompson's home, are patently ridiculous though. A reasonable person, presented with the same situation and having the same equipment/training, would behave in exactly the same manner.

That sounds like a contradiction to me.

It isn't. The issue is what constitutes "reasonable force." Someone who is running away from you, is not a threat.

 

[Salos Dafee]

... Someone who is running away from you, is not a threat.

I strongly disagree. A person who initiates a violent attack on me remains a threat while he lives. Whatever motivated that criminal to attack me will be augmented by my having deflected one attack. If I assist in prosecuting him, my actions will again aggravate any evil intentions he had against me.

Most of us do not have firearms, nor indeed any genuine weapon handy. If, when attacked, I am fortunate enough to grab a hammer or a baseball bat, then doubly fortunate enough to knock the attacker down, I am going to smash away as hard as I can for as long as I can, disregarding attempts to surrender, disregarding immobility, disregarding unconsciousness (perhaps feigned), and disregarding flow of the attacker's blood. So far as I am concerned, he doesn't need any blood from now on.

Understand, the above scenario is unlikely: I am far from young, and almost anyone
initiating an attack on me would have a substantial edge ... but you never know ...

There are lots of things in short supply on this planet,
but one commodity we have entirely too many of is violent criminals.
We don't need them on the streets, and we don't need them in jails,
consuming scarce funds and resources and learning how to be more
effective and elusive criminals during their brief incarcerations.

 

[viper84737]

Most of us do not have firearms, nor indeed any genuine weapon handy. If, when attacked, I am fortunate enough to grab a hammer or a baseball bat, then doubly fortunate enough to knock the attacker down, I am going to smash away as hard as I can for as long as I can, disregarding attempts to surrender, disregarding immobility, disregarding unconsciousness (perhaps feigned), and disregarding flow of the attacker's blood.

I support this. It's all about "risk management" at that point. You can't take the risk that he's actually subdued until your judgment clears the situation. WHAT IF he's faking it? How many times have I myself thought of faking submission as a way to gain tactical advantage over an opponent? Many. Therefore it is to my and only my discretion at that point to do whatever it takes to ensure my own protection according to my standards. Besides, show me where in the "law" there exists a set of definitions whereby one can be sure no further actions in defense are necessary?

Nature has designed us with the mechanisms to defend our persons, and this design includes the use of violence. We cannot disregard our nature by creating ridiculous laws to protect "the other guy" when he started it. And yes, HE STARTED IT is a perfectly valid reason to trigger such mechanisms. This is real life, not kindergarten.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I strongly disagree. A person who initiates a violent attack on me remains a threat while he lives. Whatever motivated that criminal to attack me will be augmented by my having deflected one attack. If I assist in prosecuting him, my actions will again aggravate any evil intentions he had against me.

Most of us do not have firearms, nor indeed any genuine weapon handy. If, when attacked, I am fortunate enough to grab a hammer or a baseball bat, then doubly fortunate enough to knock the attacker down, I am going to smash away as hard as I can for as long as I can, disregarding attempts to surrender, disregarding immobility, disregarding unconsciousness (perhaps feigned), and disregarding flow of the attacker's blood. So far as I am concerned, he doesn't need any blood from now on.

Understand, the above scenario is unlikely: I am far from young, and almost anyone
initiating an attack on me would have a substantial edge ... but you never know ...

There are lots of things in short supply on this planet,
but one commodity we have entirely too many of is violent criminals.
We don't need them on the streets, and we don't need them in jails,
consuming scarce funds and resources and learning how to be more
effective and elusive criminals during their brief incarcerations.

You can disagree with me all that you want, but it's supported by case law. Do so at your peril.

 

[viper84737]

You can disagree with me all that you want, but it's supported by case law. Do so at your peril.

And let the attacker stand at yours.

 

[Salos Dafee]

And let the attacker stand at yours.

THAT is precisely the point. If, having been attacked, I am, through great luck, gazing down at some thug who says, "I give up. I GIVE UP!", I face two perils: the significant likelihood of immediate violent death if I quit beating, and some nebulous threat of prosecution if I kill the bastard, then kill I will!

Choice. Scales. Death on one. Badge on the other. Screw the badge, I choose to live.

 

[viper84737]

THAT is precisely the point. If, having been attacked, I am, through great luck, gazing down at some thug who says, "I give up. I GIVE UP!", I face two perils: the significant likelihood of immediate violent death if I quit beating, and some nebulous threat of prosecution if I kill the bastard, then kill I will!

Choice. Scales. Death on one. Badge on the other. Screw the badge, I choose to live.

Agreed. Risk management at its finest. Obviously with maximum discretion involved at all times. I can see you are a survivor, Salos Dafee. When the zombie apocalypse comes, I'll have you on my side.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Zombie = Rabid Dog

Huge difference.