Self Defence and Protecting Canadians

[Infanteer]

Okay, perhaps a new direction since anything related to guns seems to go down the toilet.  Just a bit of a rant on two news items that were on the 6 o'clock news tonight with some questions on how our legal system serves the Canadian public:

1) Store owner is robbed at knifepoint.  He is punched in the face and has his money taken.  His son runs out of the back with a stick and the store owner pulls out a bat and they beat on the robber and chase him out of the store.  The robber is battered as he beats feet and makes his getaway in his car.  The RCMP Officer states that, although he sympathizes with the victim, he does not condone the action because if the robber was seriously hurt or killed then the store owner and his son would face charges.

Question - Ok, let me get this straight - man is physically assaulted, is threatened with death, and has his livelihood infringed upon by a robber, and yet the Law claims that he also being a criminal for defending himself?  Is the law supposed to protect citizens from the transgressions of criminals, or is it supposed to be some neutral arbitrator between the victim and the offender (well, you did hit him with a bat, so he is now a victim too....).

Obviously, our laws aren't configured in a way to protect citzens who protect themselves - we seem to relish in the cult of victimhood.

2) A man is fleeing the police in a vehicle he just boosted and hits a van, killing a local pastor.  The thief/killer is arrested and is found to have a record of 16 prior convictions, of which many were felony offences.

Question - Why was this man on the streets?  At what point does it become apparent that rehabilitation is not going to work - 3 offenses?  5?  10? Or should we wait until he commits a heinous crime?

Obviously, our laws aren't doing enough to keep people who exhibit sociopathic behaviour from returning to the streets to commit more crimes - what has inspired this, I am unsure of, but it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.  Obviously, we seem to have flushed "personal responsibility" down the crapper at some point.

Just ranting,
Infanteer  :threat:

 

[TCBF]

Because society is to blame, therefore society must be punished.

"You only hate guns in the hands of civilians because thy delay and disrupt the transfer of wealth from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, right?"

I wrote the above WRT the existance of a school of thought that portends that all property is theft, and that resources must be fairly redistributed by the state.  There are several methods of doing this.  The method chosen to distribute our wealth into the hands of the mentally disenfranchised is to allow them to bust into our homes and busineses and take the wealth we have created and unfairly kept for ourselves.
We are alloewed to defend ourselves, but pursuit to inflict harm - not to be confused with pursuit to effect a citizens arrest - is frowned upon.  Reason: If we kill all the criminals, who will be left to commit all the crimes?

Who will redistribute our wealth?  Who will keep the judges and lawyers and corrections 'crats in hookers and SUVs?

Rock yourself to sleep tonight whispering "All property is theft,  All property is theft," and you will wake up in the New World Order.

;D

"Society is to blame."  "Right, we'll be arrestin 'im too!"  - Monty Python.

Tom

 

[Infanteer]

I'm not sure I would foist blame on socioeconomic egalitarianism.

I'm thinking that, perhaps, modern day bureaucratic models have begun to interfere with the institution of justice achieving its intended ends (the protection of society by addressing transgressions against the norms).  Quite simply, we seem to be focussing in on form at the cost of results.

Martin Van Crevald had an interesting statement about the intrusion of such a concept in a military organization, but I feel the comment may be applied to the institution of Justice today:

"Above all, an organization should ever keep in mind the purpose for which it was created; this involves striking a balance between productive (output-related) and administrative (function-related) tasks, the latter to be adequate but limited to the minimum possible.  Under no circumstances should function-related tasks be allowed to equal, much less exceed, the output-related ones in importance.  This should be reflected in the organization's doctrine and structure."

Maybe I'm off base on this one, but I see the news stories that I posted above and I genuinely feel that something is wrong (or at least out of wack).  Perhaps this is the place to start looking: a loss of institutional "output-related" tasks for the Justice system in Canada?

 

[TCBF]

For all forms of bureaucracy.  I think the Edmonton Public School board would hum along quite contentedly if it had no students.  Just one example. 

All bureaucracies want to grow.  Growth for the sake of growth is the philosophy of a cancer cell, but there we go, I guess.

Tom

 

[Infanteer]

For all forms of bureaucracy.   I think the Edmonton Public School board NDHQ would hum along quite contentedly if it had no students soldiers.   Just one example.

Sorry, my sarcasm dial is on "MAX POWER" tonight - goodnight.    :warstory:

 

[TCBF]

So is mine - see my post on the "Boots.."

;D

Tom

 

[LowRider]

Rock yourself to sleep tonight whispering "All property is theft,  All property is theft," and you will wake up in the New World Order.

Finally somebody who can think for himself!Watch out Tom because Big Brother doesn't want us to know the truth.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

1) Store owner is robbed at knifepoint.   He is punched in the face and has his money taken.   His son runs out of the back with a stick and the store owner pulls out a bat and they beat on the robber and chase him out of the store.   The robber is battered as he beats feet and makes his getaway in his car.   The RCMP Officer states that, although he sympathizes with the victim, he does not condone the action because if the robber was seriously hurt or killed then the store owner and his son would face charges.

Question - Ok, let me get this straight - man is physically assaulted, is threatened with death, and has his livelihood infringed upon by a robber, and yet the Law claims that he also being a criminal for defending himself?   Is the law supposed to protect citizens from the transgressions of criminals, or is it supposed to be some neutral arbitrator between the victim and the offender (well, you did hit him with a bat, so he is now a victim too....).

Just make sure you drag the perp back inside before the cops get there

 

[rw4th]

It's the cult of non-responsibility. We have gotten to the point where not only do we not want to be responsible for ourselves, but we seem to have empowered the government to actively deter us from taking responsibility for ourselves. How we got here, I'm not sure anymore. I think it's tied into the socialists trying to create their â Å“worker's paradiseâ ?, but woe be it on me to encourage conspiracy theories.

In the case of the storeowner who chases the guy out of the store, I would agree that he committed a crime IF he chased the guy down the street; self-defense does not and should not extend to revenge or punishment.

Do you have an actual link to the story? If this happened in the Montreal-Toronto axis of Liberal Evil then the storeowner would go to jail regardless.

 

[Infanteer]

In the case of the storeowner who chases the guy out of the store, I would agree that he committed a crime IF he chased the guy down the street; self-defense does not and should not extend to revenge or punishment.

Never chased the guy down the street - chased him out of the store.  They then smashed the windows out in his car as he got away.

My bone of contention is that the police were implying that the criminal was defending himself now that the storeowner and his son were swinging - isn't this the reason that he assumed his posture?  Do the authorities know if the citizens let down their "fight" instinct, the guy won't comeback with his knife and stab someone?

By pulling the knife on someone, the guy was fair game to be incapactiated with a bat - correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember being told (by a cop) that police have a shoot-to-kill policy with guys wielding knives once they get to within a certain distance.

 

[rcr]

 Do the authorities know if the citizens let down their "fight" instinct, the guy won't comeback with his knife and stab someone?

As I grew up in Toronto, like many here I presume, I can vouch for this as a predominant attitude amongst many juveniles.  An example of this is a verbal scuffle in a school can lead to a lynch-mobbing with or without the use of weapons after school.  Who's to say that the same mentality can't be applied to respecting laws and authority, especially that of retail establishments, or homes, that are ripe for the picking.

By pulling the knife on someone, the guy was fair game to be incapactiated with a bat - correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember being told (by a cop) that police have a shoot-to-kill policy with guys wielding knives once they get to within a certain distance.

If your life is threatened, you should have every right to defend yourself until the threat is dealt with, plain and simple.  Given the response time of Police in many situations (ie. Domestic abuse, rural areas, etc) there's always a chance that if one can't depend on Police intervention to defend themselves, they may not be alive to be judged afterwards.

As for Police and a shoot-to-kill policy regarding weapons within close proximity - that exact use of lethal force was applied here in Winnipeg last month, and though certain groups are stating that this use of force was uneccessary and descriminatory, the same rights the officer had should be there for civilians too.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Anyone facing grief for beating on a knife-wielding assailant just needs to get the expert witnesses on the stand testifying as to what a person armed with a knife can do over short distances and spans of time.

 

[x-grunt]

Okay, true story time, maybe it fits with the first story in the original post.

A few years back someone took a swing at me in a public place. I punched him in the head, ONCE, and this ended the fight.
Cops came and charge us both with assault, although I had acted to protect myself.
The charge against me was later dropped, but the cops explained to me that some witnesses had said I had struck him more then once, and this was why they arrested me too. (As an aside, having that charge on a police record caused me no end of headaches, and it's costing me over $600 to purge my file of it.)

The thinking behind the charge:
If someone strikes you and you immediately strike back, the court sees this as a reflexive action to defend yourself. If you strike TWICE, this is thought to be a considered action, and therefore an assault. Only if the person has attacked again can you strike back. So if he hits, you can hit back once. If he hits again, you can hit back again, but always if it's an immediate and reflexive action, no standing back to get an opening and then moving in. At least, this is my understanding based on my lawyers explanation.

How does this fit the story? It sounds like they chased the bad guy and beat the snot out of him. In the eyes of the law, that's a second assault, and a chargeable offense. Is it right? Is it wrong? That is what the courts are for, to decide on a case by case basis. A sympathetic cop may let it slide I'd guess, if the bad guy wasn't injured and in need of medical care.

So the law does allow for self-defence, but it's limited.

 

[rw4th]

By pulling the knife on someone, the guy was fair game to be incapactiated with a bat - correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember being told (by a cop) that police have a shoot-to-kill policy with guys wielding knives once they get to within a certain distance.

True, but that goes out the window when the guy turns around and starts running.

Chasing him out of the store=good
Attacking his car=bad (at this point you've gone from self-defense to wanting to punish the guy for his actions; that's not your job).

 

[rw4th]

Okay, true story time, maybe it fits with the first story in the original post.

A few years back someone took a swing at me in a public place. I punched him in the head, ONCE, and this ended the fight.
Cops came and charge us both with assault, although I had acted to protect myself.
The charge against me was later dropped, but the cops explained to me that some witnesses had said I had struck him more then once, and this was why they arrested me too. (As an aside, having that charge on a police record caused me no end of headaches, and it's costing me over $600 to purge my file of it.)

The thinking behind the charge:
If someone strikes you and you immediately strike back, the court sees this as a reflexive action to defend yourself. If you strike TWICE, this is thought to be a considered action, and therefore an assault. Only if the person has attacked again can you strike back. So if he hits, you can hit back once. If he hits again, you can hit back again, but always if it's an immediate and reflexive action, no standing back to get an opening and then moving in. At least, this is my understanding based on my lawyers explanation.

How does this fit the story? It sounds like they chased the bad guy and beat the snot out of him. In the eyes of the law, that's a second assault, and a chargeable offense. Is it right? Is it wrong? That is what the courts are for, to decide on a case by case basis. A sympathetic cop may let it slide I'd guess, if the bad guy wasn't injured and in need of medical care.

So the law does allow for self-defence, but it's limited.

Now that is just assinine. So every fight has to basically look like a hockey fight? Do you know how this extends to the use weapons; i.e. guy slashes at you and you move out of the way and hit him. Do you have to wait for him to slash again before doing something else?

This just goes to re-enforce my point that we have made self-defense illegal.

 

[x-grunt]

Now that is just assinine. So every fight has to basically look like a hockey fight? Do you know how this extends to the use weapons; i.e. guy slashes at you and you move out of the way and hit him. Do you have to wait for him to slash again before doing something else?

rw4th, I can't tell you for sure. I think the guideline is you may not use more force in self-defence then is being used against you. Nor may you pursue someone who has disengaged and continue the fight.

In my case, the court withdrew the charge as it was self-defence, so to some extent it is permissible by law. I imagine in an extreme situation the court would consider the circumstances. At least, I bloody well hope so.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

rw4th, I can't tell you for sure. I think the guideline is you may not use more force in self-defence then is being used against you. Nor may you pursue someone who has disengaged and continue the fight.

What if the robber (as in the original example) is running away with the money he stole from the store?  The shopkeeper has the right to defend his person but not his property?  THAT's assinine!

 

[x-grunt]

What if the robber (as in the original example) is running away with the money he stole from the store?  The shopkeeper has the right to defend his person but not his property?  THAT's assinine!

I have no clue. Maybe there's a police or other law type  lurking on the thread who can shed light on all this.

 

[Infanteer]

True, but that goes out the window when the guy turns around and starts running.

Chasing him out of the store=good

I think in many cases, this is to hard to discern; in the heat of the moment how is one supposed to tell (especially with the fight/flight mechanism kicking in) if a criminal, who has already escalated the violence to a high level, is necessarily willing to de-escalate his posture?  I personally feel that if you're going to threaten someone with death or intense fear for their well-being, you better watch out.

It's just like the example from my hometown of the old-man who blasted the kid who was running away after breaking into his house.  Old man finds 4 punks in his house and goes into survival mode - whether they were there to steal his TV or to rob and beat him (both of which happen frequently), he did not know so he was fully justified in fighting these guys off of his personal space (and the Jury aquitted him of any wrongdoing).

But I agree with you in principle - if the storeowner had a gun instead, I would not want to see him (or empower him) to run out of the street blasting away at the guy; this is why any legal-protection for citizens in self-defence cases must come hand-in-hand with the responsibility to know the proper ROE's.  Soldiers learn it, so I'm sure a civilian can too.

Attacking his car=bad (at this point you've gone from self-defense to wanting to punish the guy for his actions; that's not your job).

Sure, that is where the Justice System is supposed to take over.  I wonder though, could you make a credible claim in this circumstance that you were trying to restrain a violent criminal?  I could see him believing that he was trying to stop the vehicle so that he could turn this man over (once subdued) to the police.  Should citzens, as part of a "Self-Defence ROE", be given guidelines for how to detain someone if they get in a situation where they use violence to defend themselves or their property?

 

[rw4th]

Sure, that is where the Justice System is supposed to take over.   I wonder though, could you make a credible claim in this circumstance that you were trying to restrain a violent criminal?   I could see him believing that he was trying to stop the vehicle so that he could turn this man over (once subdued) to the police.   Should citzens, as part of a "Self-Defence ROE", be given guidelines for how to detain someone if they get in a situation where they use violence to defend themselves or their property?

Now you're getting into "citizen's arrest" territory. I'm honestly not sure if Canadian law still has anything to cover this.

Also, as pointed out, there's also the case of the guy running away with your possessions. While I think I *should* be able to run after and subdue him to recover my possessions, what am I actually legally entitled to do?

Oh, and here's another point I wanted to bring up on the Gun Control thread, but I don't think I can re-read without getting mad at the moment. The government has bared from civilian ownership almost all â Å“less-lethalâ ? options such as pepper-spay and tasers. My PAL enables me to buy a gun, why couldn't it also allow me to buy a taser? I'd much rather â Å“tazeâ ? the guy stealing my VCR then shoot him and the storeowner in the story above would have been much better served with taser or pepperspray.

After jumping through the PAL hoops, the government trusts me with a gun. Why can't it also trust me with a taser? My answer: it doesn't want to enable civilians to defend themselves in any way, but that's just my anti-socialist paranoia again.