PDA

View Full Version : Self Defense laws



Croats
11-15-2013, 02:25 PM
Ok So I wrote the PM's office trying to let them know I am unhappy with the laws to self defense and that it is better now with newest changes but it is still a far cry from right and Canada does not need another Ian case and we should have castle law and the right to remove a person from his boots or shoes with gunpowder and a chunk of lead if inside my home as in break and enter or home invasion instance or for that matter the fact you are not wanted in home and it is 02:00 and you were not invited into my home that was locked before you entered it without an invite.
In the same token I stressed the fact that CCW or open carry would be better then assuming the LEO's can protect me/family/friends/other less fortunate when damn well we all know there is not even close to enough officers to be able to protect jack sh**,they are there to do the investigation and arrest after the fact.
So(below) is the letter I just got back and have not even read it fully but I already see a ton of lip service and political BS mumbo jumbo, please HELP ME write a proper reply back to reflect this and to stress the fact we need better laws this was a good step in right direction but not enough.
and .......................................go


Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX:



The Office of the Prime Minister has forwarded to me a copy of your correspondence concerning self-defence and the defence of property.



I would like to assure you that the Government of Canada believes law-abiding Canadians who have been the victim of a crime should not be re-victimized by the criminal justice system.



The criminal laws of Canada permit the use of force in defence of a personís home and property. A person is justified in using reasonable force to prevent someone from unlawfully entering the home and/or removing or damaging that property or to remove someone who is doing so. The Criminal Code also provides the basic defence of self-defence. Self-defence allows for the use of reasonable force to defend against an assault, which includes both actual force and an attempt or threat to apply force against a personís will.



Both self-defence and defence of property clearly allow a person to respond to force, actual or threatened, with force of his or her own. Where these defences apply, they excuse behaviour that would otherwise be criminal, such as assault or, in the case of self-defence, homicide. However, the force used in response to the threat must be reasonable, meaning that excessive force or more force than necessary to prevent the threat is never allowed. The final determination of what is reasonable will of necessity vary according to the specific circumstance of a given incident. Each case would thus have to be considered individually.



The police have discretion as to whether or not to recommend or lay charges, based on the evidence they obtain from the individuals who were involved and from any witnesses. Even when a criminal charge has been laid, the individual may still raise the defence of self-defence or defence of property during the trial, at which stage it is the judge or the jury (if there is one) who hear all the evidence and come to determinations of fact, including whether the evidence is sufficient to justify an acquittal on the basis of such a defence.



Nonetheless, as you are aware, in 2011, the Government introduced the Citizenís Arrest and Self-defence Act, which came into force on March 11, 2013. This act streamlined and simplified the defence of property and self-defence provisions in the Criminal Code, as well as expanded the circumstances in which citizensí arrests can be made.



Previously, the courts had found the laws on self-defence and defence of property to be confusing and unnecessarily complicated due to the way these provisions were written in the Criminal Code. The clarification of the laws in this area allows Canadiansóincluding police, prosecutors, and the courtsóto more easily understand and better apply the law, and assists prosecutors and police in exercising their discretion not to lay a charge or proceed with a prosecution.



The Act also expanded the citizenís arrest authority. Before these reforms were enacted, a private citizen could only arrest an individual who was actively engaged in committing a criminal offence. This act now allows a property owner to make an arrest within a reasonable period of time after finding someone committing a criminal offence that occurs on or in relation to property. However, the property owner is only permitted to make a citizenís arrest when there are reasonable grounds to believe that it would not be feasible in the circumstances for a peace officer to make the arrest.



The arrestor is still required to contact the police as promptly as possible after the arrest and the police will advise the arrestor whether to continue to detain the person until police arrive. In addition, the Act made it clearer that only as much force as is reasonably necessary could be used during a citizenís arrest.



I note your reference to the castle doctrine. This is an American common-law principle that gives a person certain protections against home intruders. Typically, the doctrine ensures that a person whose home is invaded may use force against the invader without any duty to withdraw or retreat from the home before using that force.



The new Canadian legislation permits a person in peaceable possession of property, or a person assisting someone they believe to be in peaceable possession of property, to commit a reasonable act (including the use of force) for the purpose of protecting that property from being taken, damaged, or trespassed upon.



The use of deadly force is only reasonable in very exceptional circumstancesófor example, where it is necessary to protect a person from death or grievous bodily harm. The courts have clearly stated that deadly force is not considered reasonable in defence of property alone. However, in most cases of home invasion, a person will likely also have a reasonable fear for his or her own safety and that of others inside the home. Where this is so, self-defence may also be an available defence. Neither self-defence nor defence of property requires a person to retreat before being able to use force.



I believe that these reforms provide clear direction on the appropriate use of these defences, thereby providing Canadians with safer and healthier communities in which to live.



I also note your comments in relation to firearms. While the regulation of firearms is a shared responsibility between the Department of Justice Canada and Public Safety Canada, my colleague the Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, is the primary lead with respect to firearms legislation. I note that a copy of your correspondence has already been forwarded to Minister Blaney.



I appreciate having had your comments brought to my attention.



Yours truly,



The Honourable Peter MacKay

ReignCzech
11-15-2013, 02:49 PM
That's a pretty good letter back.


I will say though, each and every canadian can have with them at all times an antique handgun, travelling in vehicle just has to conform to transportation regulations, ( all documentation should accompany at all times) and at the ready at home.
There are also numerous alter setups people can conform to laws with NR rifles and shotguns quite easily, also ready to handle Restricted class pistol safes/wall mounts.

Croats
11-15-2013, 02:57 PM
That's a pretty good letter back.


I will say though, each and every canadian can have with them at all times an antique handgun, travelling in vehicle just has to conform to transportation regulations, ( all documentation should accompany at all times) and at the ready at home.
There are also numerous alter setups people can conform to laws with NR rifles and shotguns quite easily, also ready to handle Restricted class pistol safes/wall mounts.

I do appreciate that info and am kind of aware of that part but I am trying to push for a law change or to have them push something to give us a shoot the bastard in my home or private property who does not belong there in the first place and don't care about the "reasonable force" crap or up to the LEO's dissgresion or the judge or a jury there should be no it's up to someone else to decide.
Your on my property and without an invite and your not a frined or a delivery person and your threatening me or my family then I should not have to prove jack sh** fire first ask questions later period!
As Mr McKay mentions about castle law which is what we should have here my home is my castle and if your in it at 02:00 in the morning while me and family are sleeping then you just threatened my life no excuses no reasons the door was locked and that means stay the f*** out.

ReignCzech
11-15-2013, 03:11 PM
^^^ In the meantime, in a situation, to protect yourself from all means through the court if/when an intruder etc endangers you, family, and your property.... keep a brand new clean knife on hand.
If you have to drop/shoot to kill an intruder, .. then place knife in their dead hand. Grounds for lethal force, proven, your story is the only one, dead burglars, criminals can't speak.

This was actually told to me by a retired RCMP chief and superintendent.

Sounds fine to me.

ReignCzech
11-15-2013, 03:32 PM
I'll have to add that I also think the CFO's, RCMP, and CFC should issue the ATC 1,2,3's out to those whom qualify and require them.
More than out those whom presently possess such authorization.

So this is a good start IMO of raising the issue, action and awareness, I think.

There are too many victims of crimes in this country that have occurred in their own domains by infiltration.
Also many other types of individuals harassed by criminal organizations, cults, and other situations that warrant affirmative protection.
Canada doesn't have any solid programs for numerous individuals. Police can't do squat in prevention, only 'catch-up' and forensics, which are after the fact of crimes.

The entire group of acts, bills and amendments are archaic and need serious re-writing to conform to the times and changing pace.
Unfortunately the awareness and dedication to such change in Canada has proven itself to follow after the facts of problems and personal losses.

Can't blame anyone really, there just is a requirement for reconfiguration, and to conform to the changing world around everyone.

Croats
11-15-2013, 05:38 PM
^^^ In the meantime, in a situation, to protect yourself from all means through the court if/when an intruder etc endangers you, family, and your property.... keep a brand new clean knife on hand.
If you have to drop/shoot to kill an intruder, .. then place knife in their dead hand. Grounds for lethal force, proven, your story is the only one, dead burglars, criminals can't speak.

This was actually told to me by a retired RCMP chief and superintendent.

Sounds fine to me.

I had several "friends" of various departments tell me to my face and also including the local PD friends the exact same thing, good thing I have a healthy stock pile of knives etc etc etc...LOL

I still think the law stinks and needs more repairs to the wording big time.

If my home has had a window or a door or the wall or ceiling smashed open to gain entry into my home and I or family oir both are inside any person will be removed from planet with extreme prejudice and IDC who you are if your in my home without a damn good reason or a warrant I letting loose to protect my family because after you broke in by what ever means is grounds for a threat and you have instantly provided me the excuse of endangering my family, no good comes from someone breaking in for any reason and the courts may noit see it as a threat but I promise you if you break into a judges home and do absolutely nothing they will spin it like your the devil himself so to that I say if it is good enough for you it is good enough for me.

Croats
11-15-2013, 05:40 PM
I'll have to add that I also think the CFO's, RCMP, and CFC should issue the ATC 1,2,3's out to those whom qualify and require them.
More than out those whom presently possess such authorization.

So this is a good start IMO of raising the issue, action and awareness, I think.

There are too many victims of crimes in this country that have occurred in their own domains by infiltration.
Also many other types of individuals harassed by criminal organizations, cults, and other situations that warrant affirmative protection.
Canada doesn't have any solid programs for numerous individuals. Police can't do squat in prevention, only 'catch-up' and forensics, which are after the fact of crimes.

The entire group of acts, bills and amendments are archaic and need serious re-writing to conform to the times and changing pace.
Unfortunately the awareness and dedication to such change in Canada has proven itself to follow after the facts of problems and personal losses.

Can't blame anyone really, there just is a requirement for reconfiguration, and to conform to the changing world around everyone.

Yup your right!
How many crimes happen daily right under our noses and nothing can be done to fix it, hell even the ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRcmp of High river are not to be trusted so with that in effect do expect anything better from any other judge or official??

Edenchef
11-16-2013, 02:05 PM
^^^ In the meantime, in a situation, to protect yourself from all means through the court if/when an intruder etc endangers you, family, and your property.... keep a brand new clean knife on hand.
If you have to drop/shoot to kill an intruder, .. then place knife in their dead hand. Grounds for lethal force, proven, your story is the only one, dead burglars, criminals can't speak.

This was actually told to me by a retired RCMP chief and superintendent.

Sounds fine to me.

No surprise, here. "Dead men tell no tales" ArrrrrrrrCMP Motto?

Cheers!

PS. And latex gloves!

Croats
11-16-2013, 04:27 PM
No surprise, here. "Dead men tell no tales" ArrrrrrrrCMP Motto?

Cheers!

PS. And latex gloves!

Bahahhaa hey wait not funny.......

Mad Hatter
11-16-2013, 09:04 PM
Anyone invades my home in the middle of the night it will be a shoot first ask questions later scenario as I will be fearing for my life and safety and that of my family. Unless the gun makes them run away before I fire it (preferred situation).

Just on an aside, the question arose on an American podcast as to what defines a "firearm in use" when it is not disabled/locked away. By Canadian law, admiring and otherwise caressing and wooing over it, cleaning, servicing, showing it off, dry fire target practice, using it as a reference… are all considered "in use". As long as it is not loaded. What about it sitting on your night stand with a mag beside it being "used" as a home defence measure? Any way around the definition of "use" to circumvent "unsafe and improper storage"? Just had to ask.

But the response from Mr. Mackay is definitely a step in the right direction!

coastal
11-16-2013, 09:11 PM
That's a decent reply for sure....and I wonder if Steven Blaney will send you a reply as well!?

I like this part:

" Neither self-defence nor defence of property requires a person to retreat before being able to use force."

Croats
11-16-2013, 09:58 PM
That's a decent reply for sure....and I wonder if Steven Blaney will send you a reply as well!?

I like this part:

" Neither self-defence nor defence of property requires a person to retreat before being able to use force."

I would highly recommend you print off a copy for yourself and keep it should the need arise you can use it as a reference and all communications from said office have a file and it is kept so you can always go back on it also ;)

Aaron
11-16-2013, 11:44 PM
It all boils down to "intent". You can't accidentally break into a secured home that isn't your own with out criminal intent.
Period!!!


Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

Mikthaniel
11-16-2013, 11:51 PM
Keep a blank round in the chamber (live rounds after that) and hope your warning shot scares them off...

That way you don't have to put a bullet into your own property to get the point across...

Croats
11-17-2013, 09:36 AM
Keep a blank round in the chamber (live rounds after that) and hope your warning shot scares them off...

That way you don't have to put a bullet into your own property to get the point across...

Blamk round = Discharge of a firearm charge along with disturbing the peace mischief etc etc. If your going to pull the trigger it may as well be a live round and aimed right at there cold dark hart seeing as the courts/judges and PD will make you feel exactly as if your the murdering thug criminal and not the guy who broke into your home threatened the lives of you and your family and could have raped all of you and smeared crap on the walls and executed the dog, guess who will serve more time?? YOU so if your going to fire a "round" make it count.
If you need reference to this feel free to look at the Mess Ian had to go through and there are many case similar and far and beyond his and muich simpler then his also and the end result in this country is the so called justice system will turn you into this raging lunatic who owns a firearm and went on rampage instead of the hero who saved himself and his family from harm in there own home.
There, that is the nicest way I can put it without swearing the whole way. We don't have equal rights or anything when it comes to use of deadly force but had you been in uniform and a LEO or a soldier and in line of duty all is good, I am not going to point out all the various cases and issues but it goes back and forth the end result is you in your home asleep minding your own business is going to be treated worse then the guy who has a wrap sheet 10 miles long if he broke in and you shot him or her and that is the problem I have I should not have to prove anything, your in my home you broke in and now I have to prove that my life or families life is in danger?>>>>>> WTF???????? the first part broke in is enough to prove you mean no good and now you have put my family and myself in danger but the way the law is you have no right to touch this perp in your home in fact if they fall and or hurt themselves they can sue you (yes thats right) for damages or injury and this lip service of a letter is all smoke and mirrors, in the end you have to prove your innocence not the guy who broke in so if you think that is right and fair carry on.

Edenchef
11-17-2013, 10:58 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^:agree::shoot:

Cheers!

coastal
11-17-2013, 11:52 AM
So really the best defense would be an unregistered handgun that you "wrestled out of his hands and reluctantly turned on him"

Mad Hatter
11-17-2013, 01:19 PM
So really the best defense would be an unregistered handgun that you "wrestled out of his hands and reluctantly turned on him"

Except for the fact that you are automatically guilty of a felony whilst he is innocent until proven guilty and his word will be taken over yours. Yes, I have great faith in our justice system. Especially when in comes to the RC's who are clearly anti-gun.

Mad Hatter
11-17-2013, 01:24 PM
Blamk round = Discharge of a firearm charge along with disturbing the peace mischief etc etc. If your going to pull the trigger it may as well be a live round and aimed right at there cold dark hart seeing as the courts/judges and PD will make you feel exactly as if your the murdering thug criminal and not the guy who broke into your home threatened the lives of you and your family and could have raped all of you and smeared crap on the walls and executed the dog, guess who will serve more time?? YOU so if your going to fire a "round" make it count.
If you need reference to this feel free to look at the Mess Ian had to go through and there are many case similar and far and beyond his and muich simpler then his also and the end result in this country is the so called justice system will turn you into this raging lunatic who owns a firearm and went on rampage instead of the hero who saved himself and his family from harm in there own home.
There, that is the nicest way I can put it without swearing the whole way. We don't have equal rights or anything when it comes to use of deadly force but had you been in uniform and a LEO or a soldier and in line of duty all is good, I am not going to point out all the various cases and issues but it goes back and forth the end result is you in your home asleep minding your own business is going to be treated worse then the guy who has a wrap sheet 10 miles long if he broke in and you shot him or her and that is the problem I have I should not have to prove anything, your in my home you broke in and now I have to prove that my life or families life is in danger?>>>>>> WTF???????? the first part broke in is enough to prove you mean no good and now you have put my family and myself in danger but the way the law is you have no right to touch this perp in your home in fact if they fall and or hurt themselves they can sue you (yes thats right) for damages or injury and this lip service of a letter is all smoke and mirrors, in the end you have to prove your innocence not the guy who broke in so if you think that is right and fair carry on.

Who is Ian? Is that the jewellery store in BC incident from a couple of years ago?

coastal
11-17-2013, 02:41 PM
Ian is the guy that was terrorized by those guys at his house with the fire bombs and threats. Right? He fired some warning shots and had it all on video.

Edenchef
11-17-2013, 03:03 PM
Ian is the guy that was terrorized by those guys at his house with the fire bombs and threats. Right? He fired some warning shots and had it all on video.

Yes, welcome to the Police State of Canada. It's deterrence by frivolous prosecution. He should never have been charged in the first place, but LEO's decided to push their anti gun agenda by laying stupid charges. He was later cleared, but only after spending many $ on legal counsel. Leo's are out nothing, but the message was sent, loud and clear.........if you defend yourself we (police) will make you pay, one way or another. Now, the same thugs that threatened him are out and he has been denied police protection or an ATC so that he can defend himself. Pure vengeful B_____T by the police!

Cheers!

ReignCzech
11-17-2013, 03:13 PM
Yes, welcome to the Police State of Canada. It's deterrence by frivolous prosecution. He should never have been charged in the first place, but LEO's decided to push their anti gun agenda by laying stupid charges. He was later cleared, but only after spending many $ on legal counsel. Leo's are out nothing, but the message was sent, loud and clear.........if you defend yourself we (police) will make you pay, one way or another. Now, the same thugs that threatened him are out and he has been denied police protection or an ATC so that he can defend himself. Pure vengeful B_____T by the police!

Cheers!

+1.... I'd like to add to it, however everyone's thinking the additional adds on presently anyways...
In the meantime people, keep you powder dry, security, protection and scenario proof of legal protection at hand, so at the time of the next publicized case,... to be continued....

Croats
11-17-2013, 06:50 PM
Yes, welcome to the Police State of Canada. It's deterrence by frivolous prosecution. He should never have been charged in the first place, but LEO's decided to push their anti gun agenda by laying stupid charges. He was later cleared, but only after spending many $ on legal counsel. Leo's are out nothing, but the message was sent, loud and clear.........if you defend yourself we (police) will make you pay, one way or another. Now, the same thugs that threatened him are out and he has been denied police protection or an ATC so that he can defend himself. Pure vengeful B_____T by the police!

Cheers!

Well put and copy that!

That is why I asked to please help me write I rebutle to him to say exactly that in meaningful words to drive that point across and make him think he is a criminal and needs to be ashamed.... that kind of letter to really drive the point across.

Grizz
11-17-2013, 09:11 PM
In the end, all macho bullshit aside, only you can truly decide what you are going to do should should someone break in.

Personally, with my wife and three year old in the house, I could give a shit what the police or a judge says. Going to jail knowing they are OK as a result of my actions would be 100% worth every moment!!! I could never live with myself should the alternative happen. Don't get me wrong, I'm not coming out of the room guns-o-blazin and you can take whatever is in the house but enter the bedroom where my family and I are and it's definitely over


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Croats
11-18-2013, 06:55 AM
In the end, all macho bullshit aside, only you can truly decide what you are going to do should should someone break in.

Personally, with my wife and three year old in the house, I could give a shit what the police or a judge says. Going to jail knowing they are OK as a result of my actions would be 100% worth every moment!!! I could never live with myself should the alternative happen. Don't get me wrong, I'm not coming out of the room guns-o-blazin and you can take whatever is in the house but enter the bedroom where my family and I are and it's definitely over


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Copy that! and yes very much so exactly what you said, family first and judges and LEO's last - seeing they should show up just in time to do the investigation after the fact.

coastal
11-18-2013, 10:17 AM
In the end, all macho bullshit aside, only you can truly decide what you are going to do should should someone break in.

Personally, with my wife and three year old in the house, I could give a shit what the police or a judge says. Going to jail knowing they are OK as a result of my actions would be 100% worth every moment!!! I could never live with myself should the alternative happen. Don't get me wrong, I'm not coming out of the room guns-o-blazin and you can take whatever is in the house but enter the bedroom where my family and I are and it's definitely over


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Amen to that....I have a multi tier defense system in place, and firearms would be a backup, backup plan, and I will have plenty of time to make a sane decision.

Grizz
11-18-2013, 10:26 AM
I've even went as far as adopting the air martial concept and have made some "home defence" loads with less powder to ensure the projectiles do not leave the house and end up in the neighbours!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

coastal
11-18-2013, 10:31 AM
I've even went as far as adopting the air martial concept and have made some "home defence" loads with less powder to ensure the projectiles do not leave the house and end up in the neighbours!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

If the neighbors don't hear anything...did it make a sound? ;D

Grizz
11-18-2013, 10:33 AM
If no one hears anything....did it really ever happen??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

coastal
11-18-2013, 10:35 AM
I don't think it did...pure logic.

Tactical72
11-18-2013, 12:08 PM
If no one hears anything....did it really ever happen??

Only if they find the body...

Edenchef
11-18-2013, 12:53 PM
Only if they find the body...

"Give me the serenity to put up with all the daily B_____t, but if not; the wisdom to hide the bodies where they will never be found."

My nightly prayer.

Cheers!

coastal
11-18-2013, 01:11 PM
LOL

Croats
11-18-2013, 01:43 PM
"Give me the serenity to put up with all the daily B_____t, but if not; the wisdom to hide the bodies where they will never be found."

My nightly prayer.

Cheers!


Or.............http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/Roger_uit/Leo2A5.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Roger_uit/media/Leo2A5.jpg.html)

I hear that removes traces/DNA but only if you hit the target within 10' ....I know bad joke ...I like your prayer BTW ...LOL

ReignCzech
11-18-2013, 02:45 PM
"Give me the serenity to put up with all the daily B_____t, but if not; the wisdom to hide the bodies where they will never be found."

My nightly prayer.

Cheers!

knutz! heh, heh.

skinned and burnt, meat cut up for dog food.
pig farm feed.
through woodchipper into lake for fish food.
in a deep enough hole with a yard of lime.
tossed out of a helo over mountains.

anyone want to add their 'remedies' ??!!?

Croats
11-18-2013, 02:47 PM
knutz! heh, heh.

skinned and burnt, meat cut up for dog food.
pig farm feed.
through woodchipper into lake for fish food.
in a deep enough hole with a lard of lime.
tossed out of a helo over mountains.

anyone want to add their 'remedies' ??!!?

Send them to *insert any place in middle east with an American flag tattoo to there forehead*, the rest will work itself out.

Asphalt Cowboy
11-18-2013, 03:45 PM
one word .. CUJO ;)

Mad Hatter
11-19-2013, 01:06 PM
knutz! heh, heh.

skinned and burnt, meat cut up for dog food.
pig farm feed.
through woodchipper into lake for fish food.
in a deep enough hole with a yard of lime.
tossed out of a helo over mountains.

anyone want to add their 'remedies' ??!!?

Reminds me of a TV show I watched the other night when these two guys killed the one's wife, wrapped her all up and took her up into a small plane to dump her body over the mountains. They flew back in to land with no lights or ID beacon on so when they landed, the airport security came over an checked the plane for drugs. Finding nothing they told the guys to get their lights fixed. Then one of the security guys walked around the plane and found the smoking gun. When they dumped her out of the plane, a strap on the wrapping had caught on the plane and they brought her back in with them! Of course any real pilot would have felt the imbalance of that unwanted ballast.

Just make sure to incinerate and then send the chipper to the scrap metal dealer to be shredded.

zguy
11-20-2013, 06:30 PM
It all boils down to "intent". You can't accidentally break into a secured home that isn't your own with out criminal intent.
Period!!!

Agree with the idea. But LE often do it, with and sometimes without a warrant.

zguy
11-20-2013, 06:39 PM
Keep a blank round in the chamber (live rounds after that) and hope your warning shot scares them off...

That way you don't have to put a bullet into your own property to get the point across...

What if the guy is already over you when you fire? The blank won't help you much. If you have to shoot and decide to do it, you need the real thing.

Asphalt Cowboy
11-20-2013, 06:46 PM
http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff309/H2SNOW1/morgan_zps0cc9c919.jpg (http://s237.photobucket.com/user/H2SNOW1/media/morgan_zps0cc9c919.jpg.html)

Grizz
11-21-2013, 11:00 AM
If the guy is over you, how are you going to get your gun??? If the confrontation is in progress and he knocks you down, you've already lost as he should have not been allowed to get that close in the first place!!!

Croats
11-21-2013, 11:09 AM
If the guy is over you, how are you going to get your gun??? If the confrontation is in progress and he knocks you down, you've already lost as he should have not been allowed to get that close in the first place!!!

Your reading into this Way too far.
The right to be able to use deadly force in my own home to protect my family or myself without repercussion form the LEO's/judges/in-justice system/media/ etc is what we are talking about not what if he runs through the door with a C9 (AKA - SAW) and shoots the place up or a group of 20 people or any other crap it is about rights not about what if's.

Mad Hatter
11-21-2013, 01:58 PM
Agree with the idea. But LE often do it, with and sometimes without a warrant.

They can barge in, do whatever they want and shoot you dead. "Oops. Wrong address. Damn!" And they'd be acquitted.

Edenchef
11-21-2013, 06:29 PM
They can barge in, do whatever they want and shoot you dead. "Oops. Wrong address. Damn!" And they'd be acquitted.

Hell! They can run up and shoot you as you water your lawn and get away with it!

Cheers!

Prince Jimmy
11-21-2013, 09:08 PM
Hell! They can run up and shoot you as you water your lawn and get away with it!

Cheers!

If you can't beat them....join them. ;-)

Spark-
11-22-2013, 08:58 AM
Here are my thoughts on what I might respond with:

Current Canadian laws do, in fact, assure the re-victimization of otherwise law abiding citizens. When self defense is necessary in a person’s home, as you have stated, a person will likely have a reasonable fear for his or her own safety and that of others inside the home. Where the legal occupant of that home has a presumption of innocence, it is reasonable to assume that deadly force would only be used if it were necessary. The laws are written in a way that opens the door for forensic scrutiny of the situation after the fact, and indeed law enforcement is mandated to lay charges where firearms infractions are evident. Wherever these laws leave room for interpretation, law enforcement is obligated to lay charges based on the presumption of guilt rather than innocence.

This egregious situation was highlighted recently in the case of Ian Thomson. In spite of Mr. Thomson having video surveillance of and in his home, the RCMP and Crown Prosecutors laid charges, without evidence, based on the assumption of guilt. The burden of proof lied entirely on Mr. Thomson to prove his innocence. This is onerous at best, and likely unconstitutional. It nearly guarantees that victims of home invasion will be charged with firearms offences when a firearm is used in self defense. Where the law allows the mere possibility for a home invasion victim to be subsequently charged with a crime, history shows that they will be.

Although the Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defense Act is a step in the right direction, it is only a step. I would respectfully disagree that current laws provide Canadians with safer and healthier communities in which to live. During a home invasion, it would be nearly impossible to assess the physical capabilities of an intruder compared with the victim’s. It would be unreasonably dangerous for a home’s resident to respond to such a threat with anything less than the threat of lethal force. Home invasion is a very risky and potentially violent act, and the courts should recognize that a person who commits such an act has conceded any of his rights to life, liberty, or security of the person.

In regards to firearms legislation, I would also disagree that the laws provide safer communities. Data from Statistics Canada show that gun control legislation has had no discernible effect on trends of gun crime. There are, however, approximately 15,000 Canadians yearly who are charged with “non-violent” weapons offences. These are offences where there is no act of violence, no threat of violence, and no potential victim. These are charges laid on people who are otherwise law abiding Canadians, and these charges bear the full force of the Criminal Code. I implore you recognize that where these laws should be demonstrably justified, that their positive effects on society cannot be demonstrated, and that they are in fact burdensome to peaceful Canadians. The very fact of being a licensed gun owner means concession of many of the basic rights which are supposed to be guaranteed by the Charter.

I respectfully request that you bring your considerable influence to bear on these issues, and that you take whatever action is at your disposal to affect legislation which is logical and reasonable in light of these viewpoints.

coastal
11-22-2013, 09:32 AM
Very nice!

awndray
11-22-2013, 09:47 AM
That's a pretty good letter back.
It's a well written letter indeed, but as Croats said, it's all political jibber jabber.All it says is that you can do whatever you think is right, but it's up to the authorities to decide if it was right or wrong. Essentially, what he's saying is whatever happens, it'll be presented to the courts and it will turn into another expensive trial. As to defending your property, how does that work if we don't have any property rights in Canada? See where I'm going with this?

Croats
11-22-2013, 10:34 AM
It's a well written letter indeed, but as Croats said, it's all political jibber jabber.All it says is that you can do whatever you think is right, but it's up to the authorities to decide if it was right or wrong. Essentially, what he's saying is whatever happens, it'll be presented to the courts and it will turn into another expensive trial. As to defending your property, how does that work if we don't have any property rights in Canada? See where I'm going with this?

Most graciously appreciated for the translation from Croats to Engrish! LOL

joking aside you outlined what I was trying to say and cleared up the misunderstanding info. I seem to have somehow (once again) managed to do.

I am looking for a way to tell the MAN go F yourself and this is crap laws, change is what we want not lip service and expensive trials and BS for the victim who the crown is quick to wish to turn into a freaking criminal.

Croats
11-22-2013, 10:37 AM
Here are my thoughts on what I might respond with:

Current Canadian laws do, in fact, assure the re-victimization of otherwise law abiding citizens. When self defense is necessary in a person’s home, as you have stated, a person will likely have a reasonable fear for his or her own safety and that of others inside the home. Where the legal occupant of that home has a presumption of innocence, it is reasonable to assume that deadly force would only be used if it were necessary. The laws are written in a way that opens the door for forensic scrutiny of the situation after the fact, and indeed law enforcement is mandated to lay charges where firearms infractions are evident. Wherever these laws leave room for interpretation, law enforcement is obligated to lay charges based on the presumption of guilt rather than innocence.

This egregious situation was highlighted recently in the case of Ian Thomson. In spite of Mr. Thomson having video surveillance of and in his home, the RCMP and Crown Prosecutors laid charges, without evidence, based on the assumption of guilt. The burden of proof lied entirely on Mr. Thomson to prove his innocence. This is onerous at best, and likely unconstitutional. It nearly guarantees that victims of home invasion will be charged with firearms offences when a firearm is used in self defense. Where the law allows the mere possibility for a home invasion victim to be subsequently charged with a crime, history shows that they will be.

Although the Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defense Act is a step in the right direction, it is only a step. I would respectfully disagree that current laws provide Canadians with safer and healthier communities in which to live. During a home invasion, it would be nearly impossible to assess the physical capabilities of an intruder compared with the victim’s. It would be unreasonably dangerous for a home’s resident to respond to such a threat with anything less than the threat of lethal force. Home invasion is a very risky and potentially violent act, and the courts should recognize that a person who commits such an act has conceded any of his rights to life, liberty, or security of the person.

In regards to firearms legislation, I would also disagree that the laws provide safer communities. Data from Statistics Canada show that gun control legislation has had no discernible effect on trends of gun crime. There are, however, approximately 15,000 Canadians yearly who are charged with “non-violent” weapons offences. These are offences where there is no act of violence, no threat of violence, and no potential victim. These are charges laid on people who are otherwise law abiding Canadians, and these charges bear the full force of the Criminal Code. I implore you recognize that where these laws should be demonstrably justified, that their positive effects on society cannot be demonstrated, and that they are in fact burdensome to peaceful Canadians. The very fact of being a licensed gun owner means concession of many of the basic rights which are supposed to be guaranteed by the Charter.

I respectfully request that you bring your considerable influence to bear on these issues, and that you take whatever action is at your disposal to affect legislation which is logical and reasonable in light of these viewpoints.

May I use this to bombard there email addresses in Ottawa?? It covers things with many good references and I would recommend others do the same, unless someone has something to add or make this reply better in some way or shape or form???

zguy
11-22-2013, 05:06 PM
The assumption in my post was that you already had your gun in hand.

Mad Hatter
11-22-2013, 08:37 PM
May I use this to bombard there email addresses in Ottawa?? It covers things with many good references and I would recommend others do the same, unless someone has something to add or make this reply better in some way or shape or form???

This letter says it all very well, and I would also respectfully ask permission to use it.

Spark-
11-22-2013, 09:30 PM
Feel free to use it to your heart's content. I would advise against overexposure of identical letters as credibility may be lost. Politicians are generally ignorant of most issues on every level, and they tend to value personal letters from knowledgeable or expert constituents. Form letters or petitions often carry less weight than personal pointed correspondence. They know that the lobbyists are full of shite, but it's just so damn hard to think independently with all that campaign money floating around.

This study (http://www.rkba.ca/c68_charter_violations.html) is a great overview regarding charter infringements, although a couple of his case law arguments could be better.