Not too sure if this is the correct section, but with a distinguished lawyer in Solomon Friedman want to ask this question.
Last Spring, the Moncton shooting caused three RCMP officer deaths and two seriously wounded. From many articles in various journals (MacLean's, Toronto Sun, etc) there seemed to something specific in the timing of the shootings that brings up my question. The young person with the semi-automatic rifle was walking down the street and folks in their houses contacted the RCMP. In the interim timeframe as the RCMP were responding, he was approached by an off duty RCMP officer (known by residents on the street) who he subsequently shot and killed. Now, my question. In the interim timeframe, could a person licensed for firearms have used force to stop further action by the individual? Under the Criminal Code, Section 34 as follows:
Defence: Use or threat of force
34. (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
Marginal Note: Factors
(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.
Just curious ..... thoughts? I am NOT advocating someone should (obvious risk involved), but from a legal point of view is Section 34 applicable?
Last Spring, the Moncton shooting caused three RCMP officer deaths and two seriously wounded. From many articles in various journals (MacLean's, Toronto Sun, etc) there seemed to something specific in the timing of the shootings that brings up my question. The young person with the semi-automatic rifle was walking down the street and folks in their houses contacted the RCMP. In the interim timeframe as the RCMP were responding, he was approached by an off duty RCMP officer (known by residents on the street) who he subsequently shot and killed. Now, my question. In the interim timeframe, could a person licensed for firearms have used force to stop further action by the individual? Under the Criminal Code, Section 34 as follows:
Defence: Use or threat of force
34. (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
Marginal Note: Factors
(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.
Just curious ..... thoughts? I am NOT advocating someone should (obvious risk involved), but from a legal point of view is Section 34 applicable?
Last edited:
