Self-defence in Canada | GTAMotorcycle.com

Self-defence in Canada

The mistake was saying anything other than Johnson fell down the stairs with the knife.
 
Come in to my home like that and it would be a worse result then a few stabwounds... But then again, the sound of the action of my 12 gauge slamming a round in pretty much guarantees I wont face any resistance and they will just leave with nobody being hurt.
 
Why don't we have something like a castle law, again? Was there a reason for this or is that a stupid question?
 
rmemedic said:
Come in to my home like that and it would be a worse result then a few stabwounds... But then again, the sound of the action of my 12 gauge slamming a round in pretty much guarantees I wont face any resistance and they will just leave with nobody being hurt.
Click to expand...

+1.
 
This is an interesting issue.

A friend of mine had a similar incident about 7 years ago.

Kid(17) broke into his house on a long weekend as he was normally away weekends with his family.

This time, he just happened to be sleeping working overtime shifts, the kid came in through the window of the basement, made noise as he was trying to get in.

My buddy found him in the basement disconnecting some very high end audio equipment, struggle started, kid lost.

The kid was tied up and the police were called.

No conviction on the kid, my friend is charged with forced confinement and assault and ended up doing time as he had a previous bar fight assault conviction when he was 18.

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
 
If you injure a criminal in self-defence, just don't call the cops. The criminal certainly won't. Say you beat the snot out of a thief who was breaking into your car? Seriously, is the thief going to call the cops?
 
RetroGrouch said:
If you injure a criminal in self-defence, just don't call the cops. The criminal certainly won't. Say you beat the snot out of a thief who was breaking into your car? Seriously, is the thief going to call the cops?
Click to expand...

You will be surprised at how many times they will. One factor is they want to sue you for pain and suffering, they think they won the lottery... They also tend to not be too smart, and many times get off anyways.

The sad part about all this is best case you are out thousands of dollars defending yourself in court for defending yourself. There are not many laws in the US I like but Castle law is one we should have here. Too many liberal hug a thug laws here.
 
What happened to your friend blows my mind.

Canadian laws sometime seem to have it's priorities backwards. It really seems to be the case here that you are not allowed to defend yourself or your property.

Now a bank's money, that can be defend with lethal force. But not your property or your life.
I get angry when I hear stuff like this.

reciprocity said:
This is an interesting issue.

A friend of mine had a similar incident about 7 years ago.

Kid(17) broke into his house on a long weekend as he was normally away weekends with his family.

This time, he just happened to be sleeping working overtime shifts, the kid came in through the window of the basement, made noise as he was trying to get in.

My buddy found him in the basement disconnecting some very high end audio equipment, struggle started, kid lost.

The kid was tied up and the police were called.

No conviction on the kid, my friend is charged with forced confinement and assault and ended up doing time as he had a previous bar fight assault conviction when he was 18.

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Click to expand...
 
Google Ian Thompson....for two years now Ontario Justice system has been trying to make an example of him....

background story. Three thugs were hired by Ians neighbour to firebomb his property. All caught on video as the three assailants threw molotov cocktails on his house setting it on fire. All three are well known to police and have priors. Ian runs out and shoots three shots in the air to disperse the assailants. End result? Mr Thompson is charged with unsafe storage of firearm because....get this....he took way too short of a time to grab the gun = gun not stored in safe. When it was proven it has been proven safe they are going after him because his ammo was not "safely stored" even though there is ZERO law or rule about "safe" storage of ammo...it just has to be away from the firearm and not easy accessible by the firearm....

its insane....

I just believe in the three S's....Shoot, Shovel, Shut-up.
 
Given that the charges were dropped, I would say it's working as intended.

Obviously, it wasn't ideal because it obviously took a long time. That being said, it is easy to point to one case and see it could be done better, but I think that reasonable people can agree that the state can't just back off as soon as someone says self defence. The prosecutor conducted a investigation and the case was dropped.
 
Puh lease.....it was dropped because the Crown new it wasnt going to win. But they cant let it go to a ruling because a "not guilty" verdict would have setup a precedent....

No way in hell will the Gov allow a self-defense precedent in Canada....

The fact that the dude is 10s of thousands of dollars in debt because of it? where's the justice in that...

The "charge em, and let court sort it" mentality HAS TO STOP!

OpenGambit said:
Given that the charges were dropped, I would say it's working as intended.

Obviously, it wasn't ideal because it obviously took a long time. That being said, it is easy to point to one case and see it could be done better, but I think that reasonable people can agree that the state can't just back off as soon as someone says self defence. The prosecutor conducted a investigation and the case was dropped.
Click to expand...
 
Red_Liner740 said:
Puh lease.....it was dropped because the Crown new it wasnt going to win. But they cant let it go to a ruling because a "not guilty" verdict would have setup a precedent....

No way in hell will the Gov allow a self-defense precedent in Canada....

The fact that the dude is 10s of thousands of dollars in debt because of it? where's the justice in that...

The "charge em, and let court sort it" mentality HAS TO STOP!
Click to expand...

yes the Crown dropped the charges because there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.... thats what they are supposed to do, now you have a problem with that because??

yeah. the guy spent legal fees, he is out cash, that sucks. But the bigger picture is that the state can't just not investigate every time someone says self defence, thats how you get the George Zimmermans.
 
Last edited:
Take home message, kids??

The police is not your friend!!

Sent from my tablet using my paws
 
OpenGambit said:
yes the Crown dropped the charges because there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.... thats what they are supposed to do, now you have a problem with that because??

yeah. the guy spent legal fees, he is out cash, that sucks. But the bigger picture is that the state can't just not investigate every time someone says self defence, thats how you get the George Zimmermans.
Click to expand...

Only an idiot would think there is no problem with stringing someone along for 15 months with something that could be figured out in a week.
 
OpenGambit said:
Given that the charges were dropped, I would say it's working as intended.

Obviously, it wasn't ideal because it obviously took a long time. That being said, it is easy to point to one case and see it could be done better, but I think that reasonable people can agree that the state can't just back off as soon as someone says self defence. The prosecutor conducted a investigation and the case was dropped.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you could not be more wrong IMO. First the legal fees likely ran into the 10's of thousands, that is life changing financial punishment to the majority of people.

Second they could have investigated WITHOUT charging him. That way they do their job and he is not punished. But in these cases that is not how it works. They did not find him innocent they charged him and THEN figured out that they were not going to win (more like no contest). Not even about right or wrong, it was about it does not look like they will win so they quit....

Even under castle law, you can still be charged, they still investigate but the actual victim has rights.
 
Dude deserves his legal fees back plus some for the stress and lost income that he has undoubtedly endured.

Sure, investigate the case. Then, when and if there is a good chance it's punishable THEN charge the guy.
 
All this case tells me is if someone breaks into my house I am better off killing him and dumping the body somewhere. I'd most likely never get caught as I doubt the thief would tell anyone where they were going, and there would be no motive or ties linking me and him.

That's what inadequate property rights will do. If police/law is seen as ineffective, then people take matters in their own hands. Like I witnessed in Indonesia when villagers tied up a scooter thief, pulled an old tire around him, doused him in gas and lit him up -- all because the cops were corrupt and ineffective. If you want a society without vigilantism, then have laws that protect citizens, not criminals.
 
Gnu said:
Only an idiot would think there is no problem with stringing someone along for 15 months with something that could be figured out in a week.
Click to expand...

Only an idiot thinks this kind of thing can be figured out in a week. Especially with the budget that our provincial crowns work with.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom