Need we arm Canada?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
when the wording "armed" comes into play, you immediately think "gun"
I think we need to be more specific
I think we need to be more specific
Machjo: You are not permitted to use lethal force in Canada. You are only allowed to use the force necessary to subdue your attacker. Any more and guess who goes to jail. Aint socialism grand?
I fully agree on that front. However, when lethal force is in fact the force necessary to subdue an attacker, then it is legal.
The problem I see though is that the law gets messy in the case of a riot. If a group of crowbar wielding thugs are standing in front of my home and smashing it, technically my own life and body might not be in danger. As for defending my property, I could go behind a man and grab him in a bear hug and make a citizen's arrest. Fair enough.
Now if all the others start yelling a me to release him, this is where the law gets messy. They're still not technically threatening me, yet I must assume that if I keep holding him they could hurt me. But if I release him, then I forfeit my right to make a citizen's arrest. At that stage, I'd say the law ought to grant me the legal right to release him and immediately turn on the others who were yelling at me, and use lethal force, the argument being that owing to their superior numbers, I have no choice but to use lethal force to compensate. And even if they have not explicitly threatened me, the fact that they are defending a person who has used violence against my property should stand as evidence that they do defend violence, and so are likely violent. Since they outnumber me, and I have only two arms, there is no way I could arrest them all. As a result, preemptive lethal force is my only safe option to defend my right to make a legal citizen's arrest to defend my property. Certainly I ought to target my attack exclusively to those who have shown verbal aggression towards me by telling me in a threatening tone of voice to release someone I was not harming but merely arresting. And of course the second they disperse or run away, I should immediately cease form using lethal force, but still reserve the right to chase after the one who smashed my window to make a peaceful citizen's arrest, and again be free to use lethal force against any organized group interfering with this right.
Not lethal force, but the right to maim, such as by aiming for the legs or arms for example.
Of course they should be taught to use the minimal force necessary to defend themselves and their property. Though sometimes lethal force is the minimum force necessary when you're outgunned and outnumbered.
To the best of my knowledge, the law is similar in both countries. You are expected to use minimal force. And in both countries, lethal force is acceptable if that is the minimum force required.
The problem of course comes with interpreting 'minimum force', and when we would consider lethal force to be the legitimate minimum force required.
Essentially, I'm proposing that when we face an organized group of outlaws, that we define minimum force a little more loosely to take certain factors such as numbers into account.
actually in many states down there they are allowed to use lethal force if someone enters their home and they believe they are in danger..
And what about if they don't enter the house but are merely smashing his shop windows. Would he be allowed to step outside, stand between them and his windows, try to make a citizen's arrest, and if obstructed by numbers from doing so, use lethal force to defend his right to make a citizen's arrest?
To the best of my knowledge, that is either not allowed or a very grey area. My proposal would be to modify the law to in fact allow him to use lethal force in such a case on the argument that he is outnumbered and that they have already shown the potential of being violent, and that should suffice. And seeing that he has a right to make a citizen's arrest, intentional obstruction of that right should be interpreted by law as an assault on his rights.
My grandson started karate lessons when he was about 5. He did okay and he liked it. It gave him this false sense of security. So when he "took his karate" to school one day, the other kid didn't have karate, he had brawn. So much for karate.
no you're wrong there.
I don't know which states they are, but they do have the right to shoot someone lethally if they believe they're in danger.
but the rules are different.
in some states you have to give a verbal warning or something before you can cock and shoot.
but in others you don't have to say anything..
And by the way, I'd extend this to being allowed to make a citizen's arrest even on another's behalf. So if I see an organized group of vandals smashing a shop window, even if I don't know the owner, and I attempt a peaceful citizen's arrest, and get should down in a menacing voice to release him, by law I should be allowed to target all who are shouting me down with lethal force if necessary or, if I have a firearm, then with maiming force, as long as they prevent me from making the citizen's arrest. Again, seeing that I'm outnumbered, the only way to compensate would be to have the right to use more force by law, in recognition of the fact that they could potentially be a threat even if they have not explicitly threatened me.
No. I'm pissed at the lack of respect for the law that those thugs showed in Toronto. And society needs the ability to uphold the law.
No. I'm pissed at the lack of respect for the law that those thugs showed in Toronto. And society needs the ability to uphold the law.
Actually, if you are in Canada, you may use lethal force ..."if you, or another person, are in clear and immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm". There is an expectation that you retreat, if that is an available option, but you may use lethal force against anyone threatening you with a weapon.
The only difference in most states is that they actually allow people to HAVE the necessary means of self-defense.
In most (although not all) of the US states one is still expected to retreat if that is an available option.
This is where I'd modify the law somewhat. You should be allowed to stand your grown if you are defending your property or another person's property, even if no person is in danger. I would also extend it to reserving the right to make a peaceful citizen's arrest, meaning that if you are obstructed from doing so, and if there is reason to believe that you may need to use lethal force against willful obstruction in making that arrest, you should be allowed to use whatever force is necessary to make that arrest if attempting to make that arrest may put your safety in danger.
And Copie, what does the law say if there is no clear proof of your life being in danger, but there is clear proof of your property being in danger and of a breakdown in law and order?
There's an idea. If they were all required to at least learn some basic fighting skills in school, they could do that. They'd follow the thugs around and the second they start smashing, the smashing would be given right back at them.
I don't think you could call it vigilante justice if its legal. The only difference between a vigilante and a police officer is the rubber stamp of a beaurocrat. Like the difference between a privateer and pirate.
And don't say "oh police have all this magical training". If they did then basic things like "don't taser an 80 year old bedridden lady for sitting up in bed too fast when you illegally break into the wrong house by mistake and don't give any identification of who you are" or "Hey, maybe you shouldn't arrest people for videotaping you breaking the law you are sworn to uphold?".
Hyperbole aside. I see no reason that you shouldn't trust someone with a gun if you can trust them with a vote. If they are too irresponsible and dangerous to be entrusted with a firearm, they are too irresponsible to vote. That a mentally unstable person under incarceration can vote, but a law-abiding citizen with secret level clearance can't own a gun is ridiculous.
You can crack down on guns or not, just be logical and remove voting rights from anyone you can't trust with a gun.
And don't say "oh police have all this magical training". If they did then basic things like "don't taser an 80 year old bedridden lady for sitting up in bed too fast when you illegally break into the wrong house by mistake and don't give any identification of who you are" or "Hey, maybe you shouldn't arrest people for videotaping you breaking the law you are sworn to uphold?".
Hyperbole aside. I see no reason that you shouldn't trust someone with a gun if you can trust them with a vote. If they are too irresponsible and dangerous to be entrusted with a firearm, they are too irresponsible to vote. That a mentally unstable person under incarceration can vote, but a law-abiding citizen with secret level clearance can't own a gun is ridiculous.
You can crack down on guns or not, just be logical and remove voting rights from anyone you can't trust with a gun.
That's why I'm suggesting modifying it. Certainly the principle of minimum force should still apply, and perhaps even have this right apply exclusively in a riot situation. I'm all for constraints. But clearly these vandals know the law and are exploiting it to their advantage by ensuring the police never have a legal right to take appropriate action when the police is outmanned.
I have no problem with using lethal force if mine or anybody else's life is threatened.