Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy
Thanks for proving my point.
First of all, try and focus........ we were talking about two things: the way the law is now, and the law as I hope it is after the Conservatives re-introduce and pass Bill C-60.
Secondly, you forget I teach this stuff: I do have some idea what I'm talking about. I already referenced the Use of Force model taught to all Canadian police and armed security, and all private security in BC, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and soon expanding to all provinces. If you don't understand it, I'll be happy to answer questions.
Third: If you directly observe a crime...oh Hell, here is the Canadian Criminal Code: Argue with THAT.
Section 494. (Criminal Code)
(1) ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT BY ANY PERSON
Anyone may arrest without warrant(s)
(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or
(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes
(2) ARREST BY OWNER, ETC., OF PROPERTY
- (i) has committed a criminal offence, and
- (ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person
Anyone who is
(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or
(b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property
may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.
(3) DELIVERY TO PEACE OFFICER
Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.
(Too big for quotation)
Yes Virginia, you have the power to arrest, under certain conditions.......and to use FORCE, as shown in section 25.......
No, you don't "have the right to force someone to the ground because you think they have broken some law, and you don't have the right to use a weapon on them when they bash your head in after you grab them." I never said you did.
Unless in doing so you are merely responding to the resistance THEY OFFER. Which is what you can't seem to get through your addled brain....the use of force is led by the person being apprehended, and the arresting person has every right to respond in kind, up to and including the use of lethal force.
Fourth, Thompson is not a lawyer.........but he obviously understood the law better than the idiots that tried to prosecute him, as all assault charges have been dropped because "there was no reasonable chance of conviction". All that remains are unsafe storage charges because he had loaded guns when the police arrived. Those WILL be thrown out, this is simply an attack by the unprincipled nanny-state drooling morons you so obviously voted for.
Once again, the Criminal Code of Canada....
DEFENCE OF HOUSE OR REAL PROPERTY
41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.
42. (1) Every one is justified in peaceably entering a dwelling-house or real property by day to take possession of it if he, or a person under whose authority he acts, is lawfully entitled to possession of it.ASSERTION OF RIGHT TO HOUSE OR REAL PROPERTY
(2) Where a person
(a) not having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or(b) not acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,assaults a person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be without justification or provocation.(3) Where a person
(a) having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or(b) acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,assaults any person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shalled be deemed to be provoked by the person who is entering.
So...ARGUE WITH THE CRIMINAL CODE..
Well speaking of the criminal code, you missed a couple of important ones.
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
Extent of justification
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).
Self-defence in case of aggression
35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if
(a) he uses the force
(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.
Dream as much as you like, you're just not going to ever be justified in shooting someone stealing from you. It's in the code and specified for that purpose which is to prevent over zealous people like yourself from getting carried away with yourself. You're not a cop Colpy.