Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26
  1. #1
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    3,345

    Stand Your Ground - Ayoob

    For those who may be confused.


    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isn’t hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  2. The Following 4 Users Like This Post By CLW .45

    Aniest (12-22-2019), manic29 (02-12-2020), spider69 (12-22-2019), stewbud (12-22-2019)

  3. #2
    Senior Member spider69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    ontario
    Posts
    264
    The concepts that Capt. Ayoob (Grantham,N.H. Police) cite in this video are identical to the concepts in our Criminal Code used by Crown Prosecutors when determining whether charges should be proceeded with against Canadians who had used deadly force in self defense cases. Therein lies the"rub" for Canadians. When contemplating arming oneself for self defense.we really need to commit to memory all of these concepts.
    It's been said that you can't fix stupid. Turns out you can't quarantine it,either.

  4. #3
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    3,345
    Quote Originally Posted by spider69 View Post
    The concepts that Capt. Ayoob (Grantham,N.H. Police) cite in this video are identical to the concepts in our Criminal Code used by Crown Prosecutors when determining whether charges should be proceeded with against Canadians who had used deadly force in self defense cases. Therein lies the"rub" for Canadians. When contemplating arming oneself for self defense.we really need to commit to memory all of these concepts.

    When Canadians wind up in the dock it is usually because they had little or no idea what the legal considerations were.

    The basis is “what would a reasonable man do, given the circumstances, and what he knew”

    That actually works fairly well for the reasonable man who has thought it out beforehand.

    Decisions made in the heat of the moment, with no forethought, tend to cause errors that can get one charged, or killed.
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isn’t hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  5. #4
    Senior Member Two For Sure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    730
    The concept of "castle doctrine" is well established in Canada. Although not codified in law the courts have decided there is no expectation of retreat in your own home. "Stand your ground" is a bit more precarious as the same consideration does not apply outside your home. Whether you escalated the encounter or had the opportunity to retreat and didn't take it will definitely be taken into consideration and may be the difference between going home or going to prison.

  6. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    SWOntario
    Posts
    2,546
    Massad Ayoob is a good guy. Met him at Second Chance long ago. However, he's primarily a gun rag writer. He retired, in 2017, as a part time, American, police officer. Nothing he says applies to Canada.
    "...arming oneself for self defense..." That is no longer a reason to own a firearm under the FA. If you even mention SD you will be denied.
    While "castle doctrine" is an established legal thing, if you shoot somebody doing so you will face every charge in the FA from unsafe storage to misuse of a firearm. It'll cost you, very likely in 6 figures, to defend your actions. And you will have to prove your life or those of your family were directly in danger.

  7. #6
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    3,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Justice View Post
    Massad Ayoob is a good guy. Met him at Second Chance long ago. However, he's primarily a gun rag writer. He retired, in 2017, as a part time, American, police officer. Nothing he says applies to Canada.
    "...arming oneself for self defense..." That is no longer a reason to own a firearm under the FA. If you even mention SD you will be denied.
    While "castle doctrine" is an established legal thing, if you shoot somebody doing so you will face every charge in the FA from unsafe storage to misuse of a firearm. It'll cost you, very likely in 6 figures, to defend your actions. And you will have to prove your life or those of your family were directly in danger.

    Trained with Mass in the mid eighties in Idaho.

    At the time, he was also training in Montreal and other Canadian locations.

    Everything he says, unless specific to an American law, is applicable to Canada!

    Even when specific to an American law, it often has some applicability because the basis of the criminal law in both nations is English Common Law.

    In his training, he uses broad principles that are applicable everywhere because students are often from far flung locations.

    My course had two Albertans, three Idahoans, two Washingtonians, a gentleman from Wyoming, and a couple others from places that escape me.

    Canadian police are taught ability, opportunity, and jeopardy as the basis for justifiable use of deadly force.

    Sometimes the words have been changed to protect the plagiarists.

    As for the duty to retreat, it is expressed differently in different jurisdictions.

    In Canada, you must not use force that is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm if you can see another way of stopping the attack.

    Put another way, a reasonable man won’t kill another if he can see a safe way to survive without doing so.

    Again, what Mass teaches is most certainly applicable to Canada.
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isn’t hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  8. The Following 2 Users Like This Post By CLW .45

    manic29 (02-12-2020), P-B. (01-04-2020)

  9. #7
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    3,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Justice View Post
    Massad Ayoob is a good guy. Met him at Second Chance long ago. However, he's primarily a gun rag writer. He retired, in 2017, as a part time, American, police officer. Nothing he says applies to Canada.
    "...arming oneself for self defense..." That is no longer a reason to own a firearm under the FA. If you even mention SD you will be denied.
    While "castle doctrine" is an established legal thing, if you shoot somebody doing so you will face every charge in the FA from unsafe storage to misuse of a firearm. It'll cost you, very likely in 6 figures, to defend your actions. And you will have to prove your life or those of your family were directly in danger.

    Along with, “You don’t need a gun, you have police to protect you;” and “Some guns are just too dangerous for your neighbours to have;” “That is no longer a reason to own a firearm under the FA” is a bald faced lie!


    You may possess non restricted firearms for any reason, without interference by the bureaucracy.

    Further, section 28 of the firearms act provides four reasons to possess a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun.

    To protect life is number one!


    Permitted purposes

    28 A chief firearms officer may approve the transfer to an individual of a restricted firearm or a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns) only if the chief firearms officer is satisfied

    (a) that the individual needs the restricted firearm or handgun

    (i) to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals, or

    (ii) for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation; or

    (b) that the purpose for which the individual wishes to acquire the restricted firearm or handgun is

    (i) for use in target practice, or a target shooting competition, under conditions specified in an authorization to transport or under the auspices of a shooting club or shooting range that is approved under section 29, or

    (ii) to form part of a gun collection of the individual, in the case of an individual who satisfies the criteria described in section 30.

    1995, c. 39, s. 28 2003, c. 8, s. 21

    And, section 20 of the act provides that anyone who is licenced to possess restricted firearms or prohibited handguns may be authorized to carry to protect life.

    That your access to those provisions is limited by a rights violating requirement to demonstrate need does not alter the essential fact.

    Use, carriage, and possession of firearms to protect life is a very Canadian thing!
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isn’t hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  10. The Following User Liked This Post By CLW .45

    manic29 (02-12-2020)

  11. #8
    Senior Member Two For Sure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    730
    Quote Originally Posted by CLW .45 View Post
    Everything he says, unless specific to an American law, is applicable to Canada!

    Even when specific to an American law, it often has some applicability because the basis of the criminal law in both nations is English Common Law.

    In his training, he uses broad principles that are applicable everywhere because students are often from far flung location
    There are "Stand Your Ground Laws" in some American states. There aren't any in Canada. I wouldn't based my actions in Canada on the advice of an American speaking in America to a largely American audience. Nor would I stake my liberty on a mealy-mouthed phrase like "often has some applicability" based on some loose connection to English Common Law coming from someone who is not a lawyer.

  12. #9
    Senior Member Zinilin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,558
    Quote Originally Posted by Two For Sure View Post
    There are "Stand Your Ground Laws" in some American states. There aren't any in Canada. I wouldn't based my actions in Canada on the advice of an American speaking in America to a largely American audience. Nor would I stake my liberty on a mealy-mouthed phrase like "often has some applicability" based on some loose connection to English Common Law coming from someone who is not a lawyer.
    You would do well to read the Citizens Arrest and Self Defence Act of 2012.
    Inform yourself.

  13. The Following User Liked This Post By Zinilin

    manic29 (02-12-2020)

  14. #10
    Senior Member Two For Sure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    730
    Quote Originally Posted by Zinilin View Post
    You would do well to read the Citizens Arrest and Self Defence Act of 2012.
    Inform yourself.
    I have read it before. This subsection in particular.

    (2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

    • (a) the nature of the force or threat;
    • (b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
    • (c) the person’s role in the incident;
    • (d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
    • (e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
    • (f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
    • (f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
    • (g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and
    • (h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
    Other means would include retreat if it were an available option which is hardly "stand your ground."

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •