Self Defence and Protecting Canadians

[Slim]

I spent just under 14 years training in this fine establishment.

Home invaders can come by if they want to...

http://www.kageyamadojo.com/index.html

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I firmly believe that Canada needs a "Castle Doctrine" enshrined into law - this needs to be backed by a clear constitutional protection of the right to private property.  Why should anybody be forced, under the threat of legal punishment, to abandon their hearth and home to a criminal who has unlawfully invaded it?

As I pointed out in the other thread - how often do total strangers break into other people's homes with the intent of killing the occupants?  Most murders in Canada are done by people who are known to the victims. 

In other words, why should the mere act of trespassing carry the death penalty? 

 

[Slim]

As I pointed out in the other thread - how often do total strangers break into other people's homes with the intent of killing the occupants?   Most murders in Canada are done by people who are known to the victims.  

In other words, why should the mere act of trespassing carry the death penalty?  

Well...just to play Devil's advocate (stealing your role for a change Mike) home invasions, which were virtually unheard of just a few short years ago, now seem to be on the rise as criminals realize that people (for the most part) are pretty helpless in their homes.

A good many have taken place in Toronto in the last little while.

I, for one, would welcome the "Castle Law" in this country!

 

[48Highlander]

They may not break in with the intent of murdering the occupants, but how many incidents has there been recently of "them" breaking in, tying people up, raping the women, and stealing anything not nailed down?

Knowing you have the option to employ your firearm would make you more confident in handling such a situation, and at the same time would put doubt and fear into "their" minds.  If I want to rob and rape some random woman, these days I really have very little to discourage me.  Even if I'm caught, I'll spend what, maybe 2 years in jail?  If on the other hand I know that every time I break into a house I may end up getting my head blown off, I'd be a lot lesslikely to do it, eh?

 

[Slim]

Most criminal types fear very little...

Certainly not the police from what my limited experience has already shown me.

They don't fear the courts

...But they do fear death or pers injury!

 

[Infanteer]

As I pointed out in the other thread - how often do total strangers break into other people's homes with the intent of killing the occupants?  Most murders in Canada are done by people who are known to the victims.

In my hometown (10,000 people) we just had a guy caught for home invasion.  A meth head, he would approach a random house and try the front door.  If locked, he used a shotgun to blow the door down.  Once inside, he would hold up the inhabitants with said shotgun for whatever money they had - he hit one house for $17 cash.  He hit 3 houses in a week before he was finally caught.  Now, I'm not saying it would be wise to engage him, especially if he got the jump on you while you were watching Hockey Night in Canada, but you shouldn't be legally obligated to be a victim if you found the opportunity to repel him.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85F0027XIE/85F0027XIE2002002.pdf

Although narrowly defined, 2/3's of home invasions are done by strangers.  There is a weapon present in over half of them and about half report an injury.  Sure, home invasion (narrowly defined) is a small percentage of recorded crime, but what difference does that make?  The criminal code and the police that enforce it are reactive measures - they respond to the commission of a crime and seek to punish transgressors accordingly.  You are already a victim once they are involved.  A "Castle Doctrine" is a preemptive measure - it gives citizens the legal backing to protect themselves and their homes (or vehicles) against illegal tresspass.  Besides, what difference to the numbers make?  One person who is becomes a victim due to our legal system is bad enough.  You can't say for certain what an "invader" (broadly defined) is going to do - steal your stereo (very likely)?  Hurt you in the effort to get something (somewhat likely)?  Rape or murder you (unlikely)?  Burn your house down?  Steal your car?  Preempt that uncertainty by sending the message to criminals that once they violate the security of somebody's house, they leave the "public domain" and enter the "private" where they take their lives into their own hands.

Why should person being targetted with a crime in their own home be forced to have to figure out what the intentions of the criminal are?  In my opinion, any law that empowers a targeted citizen over the criminal is a good one.

In other words, why should the mere act of trespassing carry the death penalty?

That's not what the law states - did you read what I posted, especially the bold parts?  It is not a death sentence, it is the legal backdrop to letting criminals know that, irregardless of their intentions, that they can expect lawful, matching comparable force if they invade your private abode (up to and including deadly force, but not necessarily meaning it).  Why should criminals expect to be free from harm as long as they don't target you in the process of violating your hearth and home?.  Your private dwelling is an extention of your personal space - the "Castle Doctrine" acts as a legal protection to citizens who prefer to stand their ground instead of forcing them to flee and become victims in order to avoid legal sanction.

 

[The_Falcon]

As I have said time and again Section 40 and 41 of the Criminal Code of Canada, give you permision to use FORCE to prevent someone from unlawfully entering your home, and removing them once they are in your house.  Use of force, and what is reasonable is covered under Sections 25-27.  There is NOTHING in the code that say you have to flee your house, if there was why would there be provision in the code that allow you do to the exact opposite.  The fact is there are cops out there who get rather incensed when they perceive people to be taking the law into their own inhands.  That is the culprit propagating this attitude that we can't defend oursleves in our own home, that we have to tuck tail and run; ignorants cops and overzealous prosecutors who are ignorant and/or indifferent to the laws on the books the expressly ALLOW us to use force to defend our homes.

 

[Infanteer]

Obviously "Defence of a Dwelling" and "Defence of house or real property" aren't clear enough to do so if citizens are getting tagged for using force on perps.

 

[R0B]

You're only allowed to use "as much force as is reasonably necessary." If you stab someone who breaks into your house unarmed, you'll almost certainly be charged for it. If you shoot anyone who does not have a gun, especially with today's anti-gun climate, you'll almost certainly spend some time in jail. Your best bet, if you use a firearm to protect your home, your family or yourself, is to try cover-up the crime afterwards.

In order to tackle this issue, Canada really needs to pass something on the order of this American bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-47

A BILL
To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and
  to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and
  to provide for the enforcement of such right.

1        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3  SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4        This Act may be cited as the ``Citizens' Self-Defense
5 Act of 2005''.
6  SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7        The Congress finds the following:
                            2
1            (1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally
2      liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as
3      evidenced by the following:
4                (A) The courts have consistently ruled that
5            the police do not have an obligation to protect
6            individuals, only the public in general. For ex-
7            ample, in Warren v. District of Columbia Met-
8            ropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.
9            App. 1981), the court stated: ``[C]ourts have
10          without exception concluded that when a mu-
11          nicipality or other governmental entity under-
12          takes to furnish police services, it assumes a
13          duty only to the public at large and not to indi-
14          vidual members of the community.''.
15              (B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim
16          Smith told Florida legislators that police re-
17          sponded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for
18          help to Dade County authorities.
19              (C) The United States Department of Jus-
20          tice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881
21          crimes of violence for which police had not re-
22          sponded within 1 hour.
23          (2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to de-
24      fend themselves, as evidenced by the following:




    HR 47 IH
                              3
1                (A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 peo-
2            ple in the United States use a gun to defend
3            themselves against criminals--or more than
4            6,500 people a day. This means that, each year,
5            firearms are used 60 times more often to pro-
6            tect the lives of honest citizens than to take
7            lives.
8                (B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases,
9            more than 192,000 are by women defending
10          themselves against sexual abuse.
11                (C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use
12          their guns to defend themselves every year, 92
13          percent merely brandish their gun or fire a
14          warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less
15          than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill
16          or wound his or her attacker.
17          (3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to pro-
18      vide for their families' defense, are routinely pros-
19      ecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self-de-
20      fense. For example:
21                (A) In 1986, Don Bennett of Oak Park, Il-
22          linois, was shot at by 2 men who had just sto-
23          len $1,200 in cash and jewelry from his subur-
24          ban Chicago service station. The police arrested




    HR 47 IH
                              4
1            Bennett for violating Oak Park's handgun ban.
2            The police never caught the actual criminals.
3                  (B) Ronald Biggs, a resident of Goldsboro,
4            North Carolina, was arrested for shooting an
5            intruder in 1990. Four men broke into Biggs'
6            residence one night, ransacked the home and
7            then assaulted him with a baseball bat. When
8            Biggs attempted to escape through the back
9            door, the group chased him and Biggs turned
10          and shot one of the assailants in the stomach.
11          Biggs was arrested and charged with assault
12          with a deadly weapon--a felony. His assailants
13          were charged with misdemeanors.
14                  (C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michi-
15          gan,    was  arrested,  jailed,  and  criminally
16          charged after he shot a criminal assailant in
17          1991. The thief had broken into Campbell's
18          store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-
19          bargained with the assailant and planned to use
20          him to testify against Campbell for felonious
21          use of a firearm. Only after intense community
22          pressure did the prosecutor finally drop the
23          charges.
24          (4) The courts have granted immunity from
25      prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the


    HR 47 IH
                                5
1      line of duty. Similarly, law-abiding citizens who use
2      firearms to protect themselves, their families, and
3      their homes against violent felons should not be sub-
4      ject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to
5      victimize them.
6  SEC. 3. RIGHT TO OBTAIN FIREARMS FOR SECURITY, AND

7                  TO USE FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF SELF,

8                  FAMILY, OR HOME; ENFORCEMENT.

9      (a) REAFFIRMATION          RIGHT.--A person not pro-
                                OF

10 hibited from receiving a firearm by Section 922(g) of title
11 18, United States Code, shall have the right to obtain fire-
12 arms for security, and to use firearms--
13              (1) in defense of self or family against a rea-
14      sonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful
15      infliction of serious bodily injury;
16              (2) in defense of self or family in the course of
17      the commission by another person of a violent felony
18      against the person or a member of the person's fam-
19      ily; and
20              (3) in defense of the person's home in the
21      course of the commission of a felony by another per-
22      son.
23      (b) FIREARM DEFINED.--As used in subsection (a),
24 the term ``firearm'' means--




      HR 47 IH
                              6
1          (1) a shotgun (as defined in section 921(a)(5)
2      of title 18, United States Code);
3          (2) a rifle (as defined in section 921(a)(7) of
4      title 18, United States Code); or
5          (3) a handgun (as defined in section 10 of Pub-
6      lic Law 99408).
7      (c) ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHT.--
8          (1) IN  GENERAL.--A  person whose right under
9      subsection (a) is violated in any manner may bring
10      an action in any United States district court against
11      the United States, any State, or any person for
12      damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as
13      the court deems appropriate.
14          (2) AUTHORITY    TO AWARD A REASONABLE AT-

15      TORNEY'S FEE.--In      an action brought under para-
16      graph (1), the court, in its discretion, may allow the
17      prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney's fee as
18      part of the costs.
19          (3) STATUTE    OF LIMITATIONS.--An  action may
20      not be brought under paragraph (1) after the 5-year
21      period that begins with the date the violation de-
22      scribed in paragraph (1) is discovered.
                             




    HR 47 IH

 

[The_Falcon]

Obviously "Defence of a Dwelling" and "Defence of house or real property" aren't clear enough to do so if citizens are getting tagged for using force on perps.

It seems very clear to me. It just some police officers tend to very disapproving of citizens doing thing that encroach on their territory.  When Ross Mcleod started Intelligarde in the 80s the police would actually arrest the security officers for assault after the security officer arrested someone under the Trespass to Property Act.  This happened on routine basis, because they were ignorant of the Fact that Ontario Trepass to Property Act contained arrest provisions, and they were also ignorant of Section 494 of the Criminal Code (which covered citizens powers of arrest).  He had to go to each police divison and teach the police about these sections of the law.  I think the criminal code provisions Sec 40 and 41 are fine the way they are, it is the police/crown (and it would seem quite large number of people in the civil population) who need the adjustment.

 

[Infanteer]

I think the USC that R0B put up spells out in plain English what needs to happen.

 

[The_Falcon]

You're only allowed to use "as much force as is reasonably necessary." If you stab someone who breaks into your house unarmed, you'll almost certainly be charged for it. If you shoot anyone who does not have a gun, especially with today's anti-gun climate, you'll almost certainly spend some time in jail. Your best bet, if you use a firearm to protect your home, your family or yourself, is to try cover-up the crime afterwards.

Reasonableness is dependant on the circumstanse and how well you articulate what happend to the police.  Your scenarios are too ambiguous, for example if I were a 5'2" 120lbs person (man/woman it doesn't matter in this case), and the intruder was in 6' 215lb range, stabbing that intruder even if they were unarmed would not be unreasonable given the size difference.  It would also not be unreasonable to stab that person, even if we were both approximately the same size (height/weight) and this time in the intruder is high on drugs and impervious to pain.  Also a person does not need to have a firearm in order for them to be dangerous enough that deadly is a viable option.  A person with a knife/icepick/awl, is just as dangerous as person with a firearm if not more so especially in a close situation.  It has been documented and proven that you need a minimum distance of 25-30 feet to create a safe zone for you to engage a hostile person with a knife, if you are using a firearm.  I doubt most of us here of that kind of floor space in our homes.

 

[The_Falcon]

I think the USC that R0B put up spells out in plain English what needs to happen.

I agree but in this country at this time that is very unlikely to happen any time some, so in the mean time it looks like we are stuck with S. 40 and 41.  We could hope that the coppers who read these boards put a little post-it in their criminal codes, and tell their cop buddies about these sections.

 

[R0B]

Reasonableness is dependant on the circumstanse and how well you articulate what happend to the police.  Your scenarios are too ambiguous, for example if I were a 5'2" 120lbs person (man/woman it doesn't matter in this case), and the intruder was in 6' 215lb range, stabbing that intruder even if they were unarmed would not be unreasonable given the size difference.  It would also not be unreasonable to stab that person, even if we were both approximately the same size (height/weight) and this time in the intruder is high on drugs and impervious to pain.  Also a person does not need to have a firearm in order for them to be dangerous enough that deadly is a viable option.  A person with a knife/icepick/awl, is just as dangerous as person with a firearm if not more so especially in a close situation.  It has been documented and proven that you need a minimum distance of 25-30 feet to create a safe zone for you to engage a hostile person with a knife, if you are using a firearm.  I doubt most of us here of that kind of floor space in our homes.

The entire reasonableness thing is purposely vague so that the courts can interpret it as they wish; what you might find reasonable may not be deemed reasonable by the courts. I'd say, if you stab someone for breaking into your house, you're going to get charged unless you were actually physically attacked. And even then, there's a pretty good chance you'll still face charges, especially if you cause death or serious injury. In fact, if you kill someone for breaking into your house, I'm just about certain that you would be charged with manslaughter, at the very least.
A lot of it boils down to police discretion. If you live in a small town, you're more likely to avoid prosecution than if you were in Toronto.
Regardless, the ambiguity of this law is a bad thing.

 

[midgetcop]

The entire reasonableness thing is purposely vague so that the courts can interpret it as they wish; what you might find reasonable may not be deemed reasonable by the courts. I'd say, if you stab someone for breaking into your house, you're going to get charged unless you were actually physically attacked. And even then, there's a pretty good chance you'll still face charges, especially if you cause death or serious injury. In fact, if you kill someone for breaking into your house, I'm just about certain that you would be charged with manslaughter, at the very least.
A lot of it boils down to police discretion. If you live in a small town, you're more likely to avoid prosecution than if you were in Toronto.
Regardless, the ambiguity of this law is a bad thing.

It's ambiguous because it's impossible to account for every possible scenario in this situation. It leaves the courts room to interpret each individual case.

Using as "much force as is reasonably necessary" may very well apply to stabbing an unarmed trespasser. For example, I'm a 5'2" female weighing 115 lbs soaking wet. If the trespasser is twice my weight and shows any resistance to leaving my property, then I could reasonably use more force than say, a man of the same size could use. Put some small kids into the house and again the situation changes again, more into my favour.

As long as you can justify your actions you'll find that the Criminal Justice System often favours the property owner. 

 

[Slim]

It's ambiguous because it's impossible to account for every possible scenario in this situation. It leaves the courts room to interpret each individual case.

Using as "much force as is reasonably necessary" may very well apply to stabbing an unarmed trespasser. For example, I'm a 5'2" female weighing 115 lbs soaking wet. If the trespasser is twice my weight and shows any resistance to leaving my property, then I could reasonably use more force than say, a man of the same size could use. Put some small kids into the house and again the situation changes again, more into my favour.

As long as you can justify your actions you'll find that the Criminal Justice System often favours the property owner.  

Hi M.C.

I would just like to play Devil's advocate regarding you statement for a moment.

Am I correct in saying that a criminal can sue a homeowner (successfully) if he/she somehow injures themselves while gaining forced entry into your home? I believe that has happened in a number of cases here in Canada. I know tht issue is not exactly the topic but it is one part of a larger problem. Why does someone who is commision of a crime against anyone else have the right to pursue legal action against the person they were committing a crime on?

Now to your statement: some 5'2 ladies and gentlmen are far from helpless and can, with their bare hands, easily overpower and dissable anyone who is taller, heavier and stronger. Likewise some very large and strong people are not cut out to defend themselves against an attacker/home invader whatever.

How do the courts deal with those types of cases?

 

[midgetcop]

Hi M.C.

I would just like to play Devil's advocate regarding you statement for a moment.

Hey Slim. No prob. 

Am I correct in saying that a criminal can sue a homeowner (successfully) if he/she somehow injures themselves while gaining forced entry into your home? I believe that has happened in a number of cases here in Canada. I know tht issue is not exactly the topic but it is one part of a larger problem. Why does someone who is commision of a crime against anyone else have the right to pursue legal action against the person they were committing a crime on?

As far as I know, anyone has the right to pursue civil action on anyone for anything. The real question is whether they can convince a Judge that their case has a leg to stand on.

Now to your statement: some 5'2 ladies and gentlmen are far from helpless and can, with their bare hands, easily overpower and dissable anyone who is taller, heavier and stronger. Likewise some very large and strong people are not cut out to defend themselves against an attacker/home invader whatever.

How do the courts deal with those types of cases?

Hmmm...are you asking, for example, should a small female who is a blackbelt in martial arts be expected to use her bare-hands vs. using a knife/weapon because she's more physically capable?

I dunno. Good question. But I doubt the courts would dig that far into her history/training.

If she's a more physically capable small female and she kicked the guy's a$$ in whatever fashion, I'd call her a superstar.  8)

 

[Michael Dorosh]

If I break into your house and step into a bear trap, you can be found liable for illegally setting a trap.  Booby-traps of any kind are, as far as I know, illegal.

 

[Old Ranger]

If I break into your house and step into a bear trap, you can be found liable for illegally setting a trap.   Booby-traps of any kind are, as far as I know, illegal.

That I am positive is correct!

Ben

 

[midgetcop]

If I break into your house and step into a bear trap, you can be found liable for illegally setting a trap.  Booby-traps of any kind are, as far as I know, illegal.

Never heard of it. But who woulda thunk it? It exists: Criminal Code Sec 247.