Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack

[Unforgiven]

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

• (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 PROPERTY
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.......


My emphasis.........

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.

 

[cranky]

(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;

any armed or unarmed criminal that comes at me while I have a loaded firearm must be shot. Any other action could and will very likely result in the criminal in control of my loaded weapon.

Stupid is Stupid. Don't charge an armed homeowner in his own home.

 

[Colpy]

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.

I have never, not once, if you go back and read, argued that there was no legal requirement AS THE LAW STANDS, for retreat. Good Lord, man, I taught this stuff to armed guards!!! You think I wanted them all in jail????

You will see that I warned Cranky that his plan of home defense would see him go to jail for "a long, long time".

I argued there should NOT be a requirement to retreat, and that the sections you list should be removed.

I argued when it came to Thompson and the fire bombers, the only place to retreat was OUTSIDE.........where they were. That justified his use of a weapon.......obviously, the Crown eventually (the idiots) agreed, as all charges pertaining to assault and dangerous use of weapons were dropped, as there was (quote) "no reasonable chance of conviction".

You will find that the requirement to retreat is rarely applied to uniformed guards.........I can list at least two occasions in Canada where armoured guards pursued and shot robbers, and were not prosecuted.

 

[Unforgiven]

I have never, not once, if you go back and read, argued that there was no legal requirement AS THE LAW STANDS, for retreat. Good Lord, man, I taught this stuff to armed guards!!! You think I wanted them all in jail????

You will see that I warned Cranky that his plan of home defense would see him go to jail for "a long, long time".

I argued there should NOT be a requirement to retreat, and that the sections you list should be removed.

I argued when it came to Thompson and the fire bombers, the only place to retreat was OUTSIDE.........where they were. That justified his use of a weapon.......obviously, the Crown eventually (the idiots) agreed, as all charges pertaining to assault and dangerous use of weapons were dropped, as there was (quote) "no reasonable chance of conviction".

You will find that the requirement to retreat is rarely applied to uniformed guards.........I can list at least two occasions in Canada where armoured guards pursued and shot robbers, and were not prosecuted.

That is where the law fails. Police apply the law and the Attorney General sees to having the case move through the courts. Someone chasing after you shooting isn't in danger from the one running away from them and their gun. Anyone stupid enough to chase after someone who is fleeing and shoot at them needs to have their gun privileges taken away.

There is a reason you don't do that. Here it is.

A man on his way to work at the St. Luc hospital this morning, never made it, and in fact ended up in the emergency room of another hospital.

The 36-year-old man was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Police were shooting at a suspect at the corner of Rene Levesque and St. Denis, when at least one of the police bullets ended up hitting the passerby instead.

The suspect died earlier today. He has been identified as Patrick Limoges.

We got word of the bystander's death late this afternoon.

 

[TenPenny]

It's a bit silly to bring up the case of Montreal Police shooting a man for cutting open garbage bags, and killing an innocent bystander in the process, as evidence of anything other that the utter incompetence of the Montreal police force.

 

[cranky]

Wow, there is a sincere stuborness to read the posts correctly.

Who on this thread is advocating running after someone and shooting them?

Colpy, was that you? I didnt think so.

Im prepared to run after a criminal with intent to inform the police of his location, or with intent to use the same amount of reasonable force that a security officer or police officer would use.

In the case of a 52in TV set, it isnt that hard to stop or slow him down while he has both hands on the TV set, in fact, if he stays civilized, i would have him march the TV set back to my house, why would i want to shoot him?

 

[Unforgiven]

It's a bit silly to bring up the case of Montreal Police shooting a man for cutting open garbage bags, and killing an innocent bystander in the process, as evidence of anything other that the utter incompetence of the Montreal police force.

Let me understand you correctly. It's not silly if it's another police force? Like ending pursuit of a stolen car because killing someone is never going to be of less importance than stopping a car from being stolen? Chasing after some guy who stole your lawn tractor and shooting 3 people isn't going to be kosher no matter how many security guards you train.

 

[cranky]

Let me understand you correctly. It's not silly if it's another police force? Like ending pursuit of a stolen car because killing someone is never going to be of less importance than stopping a car from being stolen? Chasing after some guy who stole your lawn tractor and shooting 3 people isn't going to be kosher no matter how many security guards you train.

Do you think its reasonable to surrender your firearm to a criminal that is in your home?

 

[ironsides]

Intruder:

 

[cranky]

lets make this a wide open question for anyone to answer.........describe a situation where it is reasonable to surrender your loaded firearm to an intruder in your home.

The TV theif? surely we can trust that he won't use it on me, right?

IMO, if an intruder comes at you - and you aren't a mean MOFO like Chuck Norris - no one in this world can gaurantee that you won't get your ass beaten, leaving you completely helpless if the intruder chooses to pick up your own weapon and use it against you.

 

[cranky]

-------------------------------------------------

Edited june 22

well guys, I was really hoping that one the nay sayers on this thread would have the balls to answer or address my question. I guess you don't have an answer, so you are avoiding me.

 

[cdn_bc_ca]

It's been a while since I posted in this thread and I've only read the last few comments, but...

I'm curious as to what would happen if you had gun in hand and the thief insists on leaving with your TV and you shoot him in a non life threatening location because you're determined to not let him go with your stuff (and he's unwilling to leave empty handed)? Then when the guy is unable to leave because he's writhing in pain from the gun shot wound, you call the cops.

What would happen to you legally when the cops arrive?

In the other situation, what would happen to you legally if you just shot him in the head and claimed self defense?

"describe a situation where it is reasonable to surrender your loaded firearm to an intruder in your home"

The authorities...

 

[Colpy]

lets make this a wide open question for anyone to answer.........describe a situation where it is reasonable to surrender your loaded firearm to an intruder in your home.

The TV theif? surely we can trust that he won't use it on me, right?

IMO, if an intruder comes at you - and you aren't a mean MOFO like Chuck Norris - no one in this world can gaurantee that you won't get your ass beaten, leaving you completely helpless if the intruder chooses to pick up your own weapon and use it against you.

You are missing the point:

Under current law, if you have a way to retreat, but instead choose to arm yourself and confront an intruder, you are in deep trouble.

The problem is not defending yourself when attacked; it is being armed in the first place.

Completely idiotic, I know, but the bureaucrats of the nanny-state expects us to run in the face of evil.

Otherwise, how could they exist????

 

[Unforgiven]

You are missing the point:

Under current law, if you have a way to retreat, but instead choose to arm yourself and confront an intruder, you are in deep trouble.

The problem is not defending yourself when attacked; it is being armed in the first place.

Completely idiotic, I know, but the bureaucrats of the nanny-state expects us to run in the face of evil.

Otherwise, how could they exist????

You might like this movie.

Guns and Weed

It's campy and has quite a heavy bias but it's also got a sense of humour and some good points.
I maybe don't agree with them all but I bet we could agree on a lot of the points in here.

 

[cranky]

You are missing the point:

Under current law, if you have a way to retreat, but instead choose to arm yourself and confront an intruder, you are in deep trouble.

The problem is not defending yourself when attacked; it is being armed in the first place.

Completely idiotic, I know, but the bureaucrats of the nanny-state expects us to run in the face of evil.

Otherwise, how could they exist????

Thanks. I understand what you are saying. Would you happen to have the segment of code that says this? or any case law about it?

maybe this is why Tomlinson, former NFA president, suggested that a person take a hard look at citizen's arrest instead of any claim to self defense.

check this link out:
http://www.nfa.ca/node/179

its titled "protecting human life from criminal violence"

 

[ironsides]

I found this answer on another site:

"I live in a big city with a lot of crime and lowlifes around, and I was wondering if use of deadly force is legal if you feel that your life is in danger. I have 2 examples:

1. If you are walking through a street late at night, and some thugs corner you and look like they are going to hurt you. You get in a fight, but you are losing, but you mange to get a knife / gun off one guy. You stab / shoot one of them, and the others run off. You later find out that the person you stabbed / shot died, can you be arrested?

2. You are sleeping in your apartment / house when you see someone's inside (that broke in). You confront the person and they threaten you and attack you. All that is available is a kitchen knife, and you stab them. You guard the wounded person, and call 9/11 and stay with them till the Police and Ambulance arrive. The person later dies in hospital. Again, can you be arrested for this?

Ssection 34 of the Criminal Code, Defence of Person.

The grey area of whether you'll be charged (and convicted) lies with the word 'reasonable' within the Criminal Code.

In the first example, while you are cornered and believe you are going to be hurt, you indicate that you got into a fight - it appears at that point you were not assaulted and therefore couldn't have been defending yourself. Assuming they did in fact assault you first, the question becomes whether firing the gun is reasonable compared to threatening with the gun or shooting it in the air.

In the second example, it is not clear what the intruder used to attack you. If it was his fists, a knife likely would not be considered equal force. Secondly, he threatened you before attacking you. The question here is whether you reasonably believe you couldn't otherwise preserve yourself, such as by running out of the residence.

In both examples if your intention was to protect your property, you cannot assault the intruder to protect your property. You can only defend yourself once the intruder has assaulted you."

Which means if someone breaks into your house and you and your family are present, you can only use a feather duster to chase them out if he is not allergic to dust. A mans home is not his castle in Canada. I would shot the intruder (when you shoot, you shoot to kill, not wound) and defend my actions in court.

 

[cranky]

thanks, but check out the nfa link that I provided, it is an excellent read.

 

[Colpy]

Defending his home : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery

 

[In Between Man]

Defending his home : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery

Unconscionable that he would be charged. Canada needs castle doctrine law.

 

[cranky]

Imo, seld defense is a natural right. ANY regulations regarding self defense should be viewed with the greatest degree of contempt because it is all designed to protect the offender at the risk of the defender.