Self Defence and Protecting Canadians

[Kat Stevens]

I would fully support a "Citizens Use of Force Continuum".  It should be something that, like sex ed, is taught to people in school.  Knowing your legal rights when confronted with being a victim is something very important - it should be, along with other things (like how our democracy works), something that should be part of a senior level "Civics" class for highschool kids.

Unfortunately, our kids are taught not to defend themselves in school.  Just last week I sat in the Principal of my 13 year old daughters schools  office for an hour, getting a bollocking for teaching her to box.  It seems that a little assw*pe decided to drag her around the yard by her hair for 10 mins or so.  She got loose, unleashed a combination on him, and reported it to the duty teach. End result, you ask?  Broken snot-locker for the instigator, a week suspension for my little princess, and a reaming for me...Worth it? You bet!

CHIMO,  Kat

 

[TCBF]

Try appealing the suspension by threatening the Board with suspending your daughter for defending herslf while being sexually assaulted.  Watch them freak out over that one.

Tom

 

[dutchie]

That would send me over the deep end, Kat. God help the bugger that tells me my kid can't stand up for her/himself. I never understood that logic. When I was a kid (I'm not THAT old - 30), it was the kid who started it that got the worst of the punishment, and only a slap on the wrist was given to the kid who defended himself (read:me). It meant I learned that I should never start a fight, but always finish one.

Anyhow, back on topic.

edit:lousy sensors.

 

[rw4th]

The school thing sickens me but it's like that everywhere now. According to them it's *never* ok to fight and if attacked you should just take it without fighting back. The school system is indoctrinating our kids to be victims. Why? I don't know but I could chime in with my conspiracy theory again.

 

[Kat Stevens]

The Principal told me that parents like me were the reason for violence in school.  I replied that she was taught "controlled violence", and I though the little puke got off lightly: She can scrap! He would have been dismantled if she wasn't under control. I also said I'm willing to sit in his office every day, if it meant my girl wouldn't be a victim again.....

CHIMO,  Kat

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Wait a sec ... she was attacked first and then defended herself and caught sh*t for it?!?!?  That's scary!  Without knowing all the details, if I were in your shoes and that Principal had even suggested that I, or my daughter, had done anything wrong, I would have absolutely gone postal: what the hell kind of lesson does that Principal think your daughter should learn?  ... it doesn't take too much imagination to see where such a demented kind of mentality can lead to.

I can't believe someone like that is allowed to teach!

 

[dutchie]

This is not news to me. This policy of zero tolerance for violence in schools is about 10 years old. Basically the (failed) logic goes something like this:

Violence of any kind is bad. If you engage in it, whether that be 'offence' or 'defence', you will be punished (er, corrected). If you are confronted with aggression/violence, you are to reason with the person. Under no circumstances are you to strike the person (including self-defence). Talk your way out of the situation. "You can never accomplish anything with violence".

That is the happy-crappy theory. If some kid was to actually follow this policy where and when I grew up (North Surrey - 80's), it would go something like this:

Shitrat comes up to kid and asks him for a light. Kid says I don't smoke. Bully says, 'fine, give me your bike'. Kid says, 'No kind sir, I cannot do that as it is my bike. I simpathize with your plight of no effective transport, so I will offer my time so you can tell me your problems.' Bully says 'no thanks' and punches kid in face. Kid tries to reason with bully. Bully takes bike. Kid wasn't taught how to deal wiht this outcome (all kids can be reasoned with....right?). Kid looses his Kuwi (that's a Kuwahara for those that don't know), and so must walk home. Kid cries as he lost his bike. Helpful stranger (adult, creppy looking) sees him walking home alone.....

That's how I see it. Of course, I don't subscribe to this logic, so if there are any morons out there, please explain how this teached kids good life skills.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

<img src=http://protestwarrior.org/nimages/the_sign.jpg>

 

[Kat Stevens]

I've also got an 18 year old daughter who carries a Kubotan on her keys.  she has been taught how and when to use it.  Also been told that if a cop ever asks, it's "just a keyring my Dad bought me".  The boost to her self confidence that little hunk of aluminum gives her is magical..

CHIMO,  Kat

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I remember a movie years ago in my Corrections basic and the distance the "bad guy" could get to and use the knife on the officer was anything less than 21 feet.
...and that was with the knife showing as if its someone who "really" knows how to use a knife, you will never see it.

 

[TCBF]

READ THIS POST:

Tom

---- Original Message -----
From: "AOB" <awpaob@telus.net>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 11:39 PM
Subject: Copy of Letter from Justice Minister.

> Self explanatory Ladies and Gentlemen

> The Honourable / Lhonorable Irwin Cotler, PC., O.C., M.P./c.p., o.c.,
depute
> Ottawa, Canada K1A 0H8
> MAR 1 5 2005
>
Dear Sir:

The office of my colleague the Honourable Anne McLellan, Deputy Prime
Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness,has
forwarded to me a copy of your correspondence, addressed to the Honourable
David Kilgour, enquiring whether a citizen is legally able to protect
himself in a home invasion type situation. I regret the delay in responding.

The criminal laws of Canada permit the use of force in defence of a
person's home. Section 40 of the Criminal Code provides that a person in
lawful possession of a dwelling house is justified in using reasonable
force to prevent someone from forcibly breaking in to the dwelling house.

Section 41, further, provides that such a person is justified in using
reasonable force to prevent someone from trespassing on that
property, or to remove someone who is already trespassing.

In addition to wanting to defend the integrity of the house itself,the
person inside the house is likely to also fear for their safety and the
physical integrity of others inside the house in a home invasion situation.

In this regard, you may also be interested to know that section 34 of the
Criminal Code provides the basic defence of self-defence. Selfdefence
allows for the use of reasonable force to defend against an assault, which
includes both actual force on a person against their will as well as an
attempt or threat to apply force.

Both self-defence and defence of property clearly allow a person to respond
to force, actual or threatened, with force of their own. Where these
defences apply, they excuse behaviour that would otherwise be criminal,
such as assault or even homicide. It is, however, necessary that the force
used in response to the threat be reasonable. Factors such as whether or
not the invader had a weapon, the threat posed by the invader, the
vulnerability of the defender, and the defender's options for defending
himself and his house would certainly be relevant considerations in
determining whether the response of the homeowner was reasonable. The final
determination of what is reasonable, however, will of necessity vary
according to the specific circumstance of a given incident. Each case would
therefore have to be considered on its own.

I appreciate having had your concerns brought to my attention. Yours
> sincerely,
> A~~- ~ CVtQVA.
> Irwin Cotler

EDIT: JUST CLEANED IT UP, TEXT AS IS

MB Edit: Removed name & address.

 

[TCBF]

Hey, Thanks Bruce!  I had just finished cleaning it up on the other thread, had copied it, and was coming back here to do a cut and paste!  But you beat me.  I was cleaning it up before submitting it earlier when my mouse froze my devilmachine.  So I thought I would post it raw and clean it up later. Thanks.

Tom

 

[Inch]

I guess there's a first time for everything, instead of starting a new thread, I'll just recount my incident from last night on this thread since it's related to the subject.

So me and the boys were at the mess for the 81st RCAF mess dinner, afterwards we went downtown for a few drinks and then called it a night around 2:30am. I got a ride with my buddy and his girlfriend back to their place and I was going to catch a cab home from there. As we're pulling into the underground parking in their building we see a car stopped ahead of us with the two guys getting out and yelling at someone. All of a sudden this dude takes off from behind a truck, my buddy and I hop out of the car and help the other two guys chase the thief down to the lower garage, he headed for the elevator and as we were getting there he pulled a knife on the first guy that got there so we all backed off. I called the cops and two of them showed up about 5 minutes later. They didn't catch the guy though, he was long gone. The guy had been breaking into cars in the parking garage stealing whatever he could get his hands on, he smashed the windows out of 4 of them (as well as destroyed the trunk on one in an attempt to get into it), a 5th car was unlocked, he had broken the side rear window on a truck, ripped the hood ornament off a Mercedes that was down there, and for effect, he slashed my other buddy's truck tonneau cover.

That shit just pisses me off, I wish we would have caught the guy, but knowing how the system is, he probably would have gotten off scottfree while 8 people are out a few hundred bucks to replace windows and whatnot.

 

[camochick]

I dont understand why we dont do the same thing california does. Three strikes and you're out. YOu commit three crimes and you go to jail for life. Everytime there is some violent crime, be a robbery, murder, rape etc, the person is always a repeat offender, and not once or twice, it's usually like 10 times or more. They just declared this guy in Edmonton a dangerous offender after more than 20 violent crimes. It took the fact that he beat an old man into a vegetative state for them to call him a dangerous offender. They need to crack down on this garbage. They also need to make our jails, actual jails instead of five star resorts.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Camochick, please define "crime". I do believe the nature of the offence plays a signifcant role in California, for example thousands of public safety regulatory offences, ranging from speeding to , [ahem ...] unsafe storage of a firearm are exempt from the 3 strikes rule.

 

[camochick]

OK, i guess i should have defined crime because i dont think sending someone to jail for a couple speeding tickets is appropriate. I guess to me, sending someone to jail would be for theft, drug related offences, murder, assaults, anything in the violent nature. My whole point was that we allow people to offend and offend and offend and then something really bad happens, ie: four RCMP get killed. and then we do something. 

 

[Kunu]

Camochick, please define "crime". I do believe the nature of the offence plays a signifcant role in California, for example thousands of public safety regulatory offences, ranging from speeding to , [ahem ...] unsafe storage of a firearm are exempt from the 3 strikes rule.

That's right, California's famous "three-strikes" law is only applicable for felonies, not misdeameanors.  

 

[rw4th]

Ok, I'm going to revive this thread.

Does anybody know if there is anything in Federal or Provincial law similar to England's "duty to retreat" law?

 

[TCBF]

Certainly not in your own home. 

The rest, I think, is covered by case law for self-defence and asault.

But, hey, I am not a lawyer.

Tom

 

[rw4th]

Certainly not in your own home.  

You'd think so, but I remember reading something to effect that during a home invasion you were legally obliged "escape" or at the very least avoid the intruder. This might have been specific to Quebec and/or Ontario.

This is why I ask