Basic Human Rights - Define them?

[MHz]

Wrong

Inciting a crowd to commit violence against a person - You as a citizen can arrest that person - using as much force and only as much as is required.

Threatening to harm a person - you believe that this person is going to harm you or kill you - You as a citizen can arrest that person or defend yourself- using as much force and only as much as required

Yelling Fire in a crowded Theater - Causing a high probability that others will be harmed - You as a citizen can arrest that person - using as much force and only as much as required.

Or take their picture and run to the guys who carry guns.
Oddly enough, in Canada, the ones instigating violence against the Police has been shown that they are Police themselves. You are suggesting you would go over and arrest them using force if they (plural) did not obey your commands. I hope somebody films the way you died.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Wrong

Inciting a crowd to commit violence against a person - You as a citizen can arrest that person - using as much force and only as much as is required.

Threatening to harm a person - you believe that this person is going to harm you or kill you - You as a citizen can arrest that person or defend yourself- using as much force and only as much as required

Yelling Fire in a crowded Theater - Causing a high probability that others will be harmed - You as a citizen can arrest that person - using as much force and only as much as required.

You can arrest a person, I agree. That would be citizen’s arrest. But if you assault him you would still be charged, convicted and sentenced.

And ‘defend yourself’? How can you claim to defend yourself if he hasn’t laid a hand on you?

Don’t confuse arrest with assault. You may have the right to make a citizen’s arrest. But if other person has not laid a hand on you and if you hit him in the name of ‘defense’, you will still be guilty of assault and battery.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

This reminded me of a cartoon I saw in Britain a long time ago. A National Front supporter (a neo Nazi group) has assaulted a black man; the black man is lying unconscious in the street.

The policeman confronts the National Front supporter. His defense? “I didn’t like the way he (the black man) wasn’t looking at me.”

 

[TenPenny]

But if you assault him you would still be charged, convicted and sentenced.

In case you were not aware, we live in Canada. Just because someone is charged with a crime, they are not automatically convicted. During trial, various circumstances are presented, and the judge or jury, depending on the trial, will make that determination.

You are making bizarre speculation, and stating it as fact. While I'm sure you're a legal expert as well as every other subject, you might want to brush up on this area of the law.

 

[MHz]

You can arrest a person, I agree. That would be citizen’s arrest. But if you assault him you would still be charged, convicted and sentenced.

And ‘defend yourself’? How can you claim to defend yourself if he hasn’t laid a hand on you?

Don’t confuse arrest with assault. You may have the right to make a citizen’s arrest. But if other person has not laid a hand on you and if you hit him in the name of ‘defense’, you will still be guilty of assault and battery.

If you rob somebody by telling them you have a gun in your pocket you just elevated robbery into armed robbery even though no weapon existed.

 

[ironsides]

You can arrest a person, I agree. That would be citizen’s arrest. But if you assault him you would still be charged, convicted and sentenced.

And ‘defend yourself’? How can you claim to defend yourself if he hasn’t laid a hand on you?

Don’t confuse arrest with assault. You may have the right to make a citizen’s arrest. But if other person has not laid a hand on you and if you hit him in the name of ‘defense’, you will still be guilty of assault and battery.

Usually the question of assault will not come up in a citizens arrest case because most of the time you are protecting either your person or someone else's. Anything other than that you should just back off.

 

[L Gilbert]

A reasonable restriction would be not being able to shout fire in a crowded theatre. When freedom of speech causes demonstrable harm to a human being, that is where freedom of speech ends. There is a saying, you right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Right to safety is the only right that can sometimes override freedom of speech.

But such instances are very rare and in practice, there really are no restrictions on freedom of speech (and rightly so).

The right to freedom of speech is more important than the right to freedom of thought? How do you figure that?
How do you figure the right to freedom of speech takes precedence over the right to life or the right to religion? That's just inane.
lmao I love it when people open their mouth before engaging brain.

 

[L Gilbert]

If you rob somebody by telling them you have a gun in your pocket you just elevated robbery into armed robbery even though no weapon existed.

... and if you robbed a judge that way, you've also added perjury to the list. lol

 

[Goober]

You can arrest a person, I agree. That would be citizen’s arrest. But if you assault him you would still be charged, convicted and sentenced.

And ‘defend yourself’? How can you claim to defend yourself if he hasn’t laid a hand on you?

Don’t confuse arrest with assault. You may have the right to make a citizen’s arrest. But if other person has not laid a hand on you and if you hit him in the name of ‘defense’, you will still be guilty of assault and battery.

During A Citzens Arrest you are allowed to use only the amount of restraint - shall we say violence that is needed to stop that person from commiting a further offence

You should educate yourself on what rights you have as a citizen when performing an arrest -
or how you are allowed to defend yourself from verbal threats of implied violent act against you or others - if you have a reasonable belief that you or someone may be physically harmed -

The Law allows you to protect yourself using violence - But only the amount that is needed to control the situation - and how they can be used. And calling the Police


Durka Durka - Internet Lawyer Extraordinaire - We need you?????????????????????

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In case you were not aware, we live in Canada. Just because someone is charged with a crime, they are not automatically convicted. During trial, various circumstances are presented, and the judge or jury, depending on the trial, will make that determination.

You are making bizarre speculation, and stating it as fact. While I'm sure you're a legal expert as well as every other subject, you might want to brush up on this area of the law.

One doesn’t have to be a legal expert for this TenPenny. If you assault somebody and that somebody has not laid a hand on you, if the facts are not in dispute, then you are guilty of assault, period.

Now, if there are any extenuating circumstances, they may be considered while sentencing. But I think the law is quite clear. If somebody has not laid a hand on you and you assault him, then you are guilty of assault.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The Law allows you to protect yourself using violence - But only the amount that is needed to control the situation - and how they can be used. And calling the Police

Durka Durka - Internet Lawyer Extraordinaire - We need you?????????????????????

Quite so, you can use violence needed only to control the situation. And if the other fellow has not laid a hand on you, how can you justify any amount of violence?

I stay with my assertion. If the other fellow has not laid a hand on you and you assault him, you are guilty. It doesn't matter what the other fellow said or did not say. After all, it is only his word against yours. It has no significance. But the results of assault can be self evident.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Quite so, you can use violence needed only to control the situation. And if the other fellow has not laid a hand on you, how can you justify any amount of violence?

I stay with my assertion. If the other fellow has not laid a hand on you and you assault him, you are guilty. It doesn't matter what the other fellow said or did not say. After all, it is only his word against yours. It has no significance. But the results of assault can be self evident.

If the other fellow attacks you with a knife, and you defend yourself with a hammer
(in Canada), as that's what you have on hand....does that make you a criminal in
Canada according to the Canadian Criminal Code?

 

[MHz]

... and if you robbed a judge that way, you've also added perjury to the list. lol

Only if you are on the stand under oath.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If the other fellow attacks you with a knife, and you defend yourself with a hammer
(in Canada), as that's what you have on hand....does that make you a criminal in
Canada according to the Canadian Criminal Code?

If you have been following my conversation with Goober, he seemed to imply that one could hit the other fellow even when he hasn’t laid a hand on you, that may be acceptable in some circumstances. To which my response was that it is never acceptable. If other fellow has not laid a hand on you, then you hitting him is assault, no matter what he may or may not have said.

What you are describing here is assault in response to assault, in self defense. A totally different matter.

 

[lone wolf]

If you have been following my conversation with Goober, he seemed to imply that one could hit the other fellow even when he hasn’t laid a hand on you, that may be acceptable in some circumstances. To which my response was that it is never acceptable. If other fellow has not laid a hand on you, then you hitting him is assault, no matter what he may or may not have said.

What you are describing here is assault in response to assault, in self defense. A totally different matter.

What you are describing is someone who doesn't have a clue what arrest and restraint mean. How many ways can a word be skinned, gutted and minced until it can be manipulated into you being right?

 

[TenPenny]

One doesn’t have to be a legal expert for this TenPenny. If you assault somebody and that somebody has not laid a hand on you, if the facts are not in dispute, then you are guilty of assault, period.

Now, if there are any extenuating circumstances, they may be considered while sentencing. But I think the law is quite clear. If somebody has not laid a hand on you and you assault him, then you are guilty of assault.

Are you able to follow your own posts? You mentioned being 'charged, convicted, and sentenced'.

Really, if you don't have the mental capacity to follow your own train of thought, please don't bother posting, you're making yourself out to be a fool.

You may think the law is clear, and it is: you are innocent until proven guilty, and just because SJP says you'll be charged, convicted, and sentenced, does not make it so.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Are you able to follow your own posts? You mentioned being 'charged, convicted, and sentenced'.

Really, if you don't have the mental capacity to follow your own train of thought, please don't bother posting, you're making yourself out to be a fool.

You may think the law is clear, and it is: you are innocent until proven guilty, and just because SJP says you'll be charged, convicted, and sentenced, does not make it so.

Sure the law is clear. What does innocent until proven guilty have to do anything? If you think I am wrong, by all means punch the next fellow you see on the street on the nose, knock out his teeth and then claim in the court (when you are tried) that he provoked you into punching him. See where that lands you.

I think you are arguing for the sake of argument, nothing else. Try living by your own advice, that it is OK to assault somebody when they have not laid a hand on you.

Your anger towards me (I can just see you at the computer, apoplectic, foaming at the mouth) has made you lose all perspective, the ability of thinking clearly. My advice to you is sit back, relax, take a deep breath (take several deep breaths) and calm down.

 

[Goober]

Sure the law is clear. What does innocent until proven guilty have to do anything? If you think I am wrong, by all means punch the next fellow you see on the street on the nose, knock out his teeth and then claim in the court (when you are tried) that he provoked you into punching him. See where that lands you.

I think you are arguing for the sake of argument, nothing else. Try living by your own advice, that it is OK to assault somebody when they have not laid a hand on you.

Your anger towards me (I can just see you at the computer, apoplectic, foaming at the mouth) has made you lose all perspective, the ability of thinking clearly. My advice to you is sit back, relax, take a deep breath (take several deep breaths) and calm down.

Not at all I am as cool a a cucumber -

 

[Goober]

Sure the law is clear. What does innocent until proven guilty have to do anything? If you think I am wrong, by all means punch the next fellow you see on the street on the nose, knock out his teeth and then claim in the court (when you are tried) that he provoked you into punching him. See where that lands you.

I think you are arguing for the sake of argument, nothing else. Try living by your own advice, that it is OK to assault somebody when they have not laid a hand on you.

Your anger towards me (I can just see you at the computer, apoplectic, foaming at the mouth) has made you lose all perspective, the ability of thinking clearly. My advice to you is sit back, relax, take a deep breath (take several deep breaths) and calm down.

SJP

Seems you are losing control - I will explain this in simpler terms just for you

Inciting a crowd to commit violence against a person - You as a citizen can arrest that person - using as much force and only as much as is required.

During the arrest ( citzens) if you have to wrestle them etc to the ground that is allowed unde the Criminal Code - Using only the amount of force required - You may not have to use force -

But then it is up to the Judge if you are charged to decide - Not you - Threatening to harm a person - you believe that this person is going to harm you or kill you - You as a citizen can arrest that person or defend yourself- using as much force and only as much as required - That is also covered under the Crminal Code -

Yelling Fire in a crowded Theater - Causing a high probability that others will be harmed - You as a citizen can arrest that person - using as much force and only as much as required.


You are preventing further harm to a large number of person -You as a citizen can arrest that person - using as much force and only as much as is required. During the arrest ( citzens) if you have to wrestle them etc to the ground that is allowed unde the Criminal Code - Using only the amount of force required - You may not have to use force - But then it is up to the Judge if you are charged to decide - Not you - That is why we have Judges apponted and not elected - So guess what - You don't get to decide - The courts do. CanadaSection 494. (Criminal Code)[6]


) ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT BY ANY PERSONAny one 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(i) has committed a criminal offence, and(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person

(2) ARREST BY OWNER, ETC., OF PROPERTYAny one 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 propertymay arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.

(3) DELIVERY TO PEACE OFFICERAny one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.Bitmap -Section 494, sub. 1, (a) is the "General Power of Arrest" for non-peace officers.- Section 494, sub. 1, (b) is known as the "Assist Power of Arrest" and includes assisting another citizen who witnessed a "Criminal Offence" and, therefore, "... is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person ...". This section of the Criminal Code of Canada IS that authorization.- Section 494, sub. 2, is the "Owner/Agent" power of arrest. It applies to both security and all other staff (or friends/neighbours if it is a dwelling) of any given property (The reason companies tell their staff they can't make such an arrest is because if the person making the arrest is hurt/killed by the criminal, the company becomes liable for the injury or death. Further, most people are neither equipped or trained to make proper arrests which greatly increases the likelihood of injury or death to the citizen).- in Section 494, sub. 2, (b) "...a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property." includes criminal offences that are not on that property at all. If someone steals from a store, the security personnel who pursue the thief can (but rarely ever do) leave the property to continue the pursuit. When the pursuit is broken off the thief is no longer considered to be "freshly pursued" and therefore others are no longer permitted to assist in the apprehension of the criminal (it, then, becomes a matter for the Police to handle). Note that 494(1)(a) allows for arrest related only to indictable offences, while 494(2) allows for arrest for any offence against the laws of Canada,[7] most notably small value theft.Is this legal?


Section 494 of the Criminal Code of Canada lays out the somewhat broad and intentionally vague circumstances under which any one can make a citizen’s arrest under Canadian law.According to section 494, “Any one may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes has committed a criminal offence, and is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.”Canadian law also provides any property owner (or “a person authorized by the owner,” usually a security guard) the right to “arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.” In all cases of citizen’s arrest, “Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.”While carrying out a citizen’s arrest, the arrestor is authorized by law to use “reasonable force” to carry out the arrest and detain the arrestee. Not surprisingly, what actually constitutes “reasonable force” has often been a point of contention in cases involving citizen’s arrests, but a recent and oft-cited Supreme Court case on the topic (2003’s R v Asante-Mensah, the details of which are somewhat mundane and not particularly relevant) upheld a citizen’s right to use force in the execution of an arrest. In her judgment,

Chief Justice Beverly McLaughlin defined an arrest as “a continuing status initiated by words accompanied by physical touching or submission and ending with delivery to the police, maintained as necessary with a force that is no more than reasonable in all the circumstances.”
“The ability to use force is necessary to the efficacy of the arrest power because it often provides a necessary precondition to securing the submission of the person arrested,” she wrote. “An occupier is therefore entitled to use reasonable force both to initiate the status of arrest and to maintain it.”

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Not at all I am as cool a a cucumber -

I wasn't referring to you, Goober (I am sure you know that).