A question on the right to self defense

[baci2004]

What I saw others doing on the thread was making claims like as soon as anybody is in their home they can be shot no matter what, etc., which is wrong.

Hypothetical question for you....

You are out being a womanizing slime ball one night when an armed intruder breaks into your home. When you return you find the police questioning your wife and the intruder lying dead on your living-room floor. She is then charged and later acquitted after a thorough court case. Some time after you ask her about the scenario and discover that she shot the intruder before he pointed his gun directly at her. When you press her on the issue, she simply states that she was frightened by the man who just crashed through the door wielding a gun and shot him dead.

Would you report your wife and/or would you leave her?

 

[papasmerf]

Hypothetical question for you....

You are out being a womanizing slime ball one night when an armed intruder breaks into your home. When you return you find the police questioning your wife and the intruder lying dead on your living-room floor. She is then charged and later acquitted after a thorough court case. Some time after you ask her about the scenario and discover that she shot the intruder before he pointed his gun directly at her. When you press her on the issue, she simply states that she was frightened by the man who just crashed through the door wielding a gun and shot him dead.

Would you report your wife and/or would you leave her?

You sure she would not say " I thought it was my husband"

 

[The LoLRus]

Hypothetical question for you....

You are out being a womanizing slime ball one night when an armed intruder breaks into your home. When you return you find the police questioning your wife and the intruder lying dead on your living-room floor. She is then charged and later acquitted after a thorough court case. Some time after you ask her about the scenario and discover that she shot the intruder before he pointed his gun directly at her. When you press her on the issue, she simply states that she was frightened by the man who just crashed through the door wielding a gun and shot him dead.

Would you report your wife and/or would you leave her?

Ha!!!

Get ready for one of the most hypocritical replies in the history of the internet!!

 

[sibannac]

Hypothetical question for you....

You are out being a womanizing slime ball one night when an armed intruder breaks into your home. When you return you find the police questioning your wife and the intruder lying dead on your living-room floor. She is then charged and later acquitted after a thorough court case. Some time after you ask her about the scenario and discover that she shot the intruder before he pointed his gun directly at her. When you press her on the issue, she simply states that she was frightened by the man who just crashed through the door wielding a gun and shot him dead.

Would you report your wife and/or would you leave her?

Actually she would be acquitted in this case, there is nothing to report here. As for leaving her I might consider it after what she's done because I'm a womanizing slime ball. Perhaps the next shooting might be easier for her to do.

 

[fuji]

Would you report your wife and/or would you leave her?

Here's another one: Your wife drives home drunk. Would you report her and/or would you leave her?

These sorts of "spouse commits a crime" questions are interesting and have complex answers but I don't think they bear directly on the topic of this thread.


I agree with s, though, the "crashed through the door holding a gun" creates a reasonable apprehension of a direct threat. Still if you rephrased it to "wife caught a burgler prowling around in the house, snuck up and shot him from behind" it would still not bear on this thread directly. Plainly it's a crime--do you report your wife when she commits a crime? Hard to answer.

Maybe you want to start a new "what would you do if your wife committed a crime" thread.

 

[fuji]

Ha!!!

Get ready for one of the most hypocritical replies in the history of the internet!!

Or not.

 

[Aardvark154]

I agree with this. I was coming up with illustrations to demonstrate the point. Real world situations would be different and what's important is to apply the principle.

What I saw others doing on the thread was making claims like as soon as anybody is in their home they can be shot no matter what, etc., which is wrong.

Fuji you don’t' see that there is an almost automatic reasonable apprehension of death or grievous injury when an armed intruder refuses to leave your house? I'm not talking about some strange scenario where the “intruder” is calmly sitting on a stool at your bar with the gun sitting on the bar. Rather an armed intruder who has just forced their way into your house.

In the real world so long as you haven't shot a retreating "intruder" in the back in cold blood indeed you do pretty much have the right to kill an armed intruder in your house. Just make sure to have your story straight.

Moral of the story, don't break into other peoples houses while armed.

 

[fuji]

Fuji you don*t' see that there is an almost automatic reasonable apprehension of death or grievous injury when an armed intruder refuses to leave your
house?

No I don't. Do you?

The intruder has to threaten you in some way: They try and approach you, they move suddenly, they are pointing a gun at you, or it's the split second after they just crashed through the door holding a gun. In all those cases there is an action which is threatening.

If the intruder is just standing there doing nothing ignoring you, or arguing you, but is not making any move to threaten you, then no you cannot shoot them.

 

[Aardvark154]

Seth no judge in Canada is going to read that to mean you can shoot first and ask questions later. You must attempt the least violent means possible of removing the trespasser. You can then escalate the use of force as necessary to remove him.

If you try and construe this to mean that you can simply murder someone who does not instantly comply with your request you are going to find yourself in a cold, concrete jail cell.

Fuji, you keep reading this as a scenario of the intruder calmly sitting on a chair in your living room which their firearm holstered, and discussing the Intertropical Convergence Zone when the home owner just whips out a gun and kills them. Needless to say that is murder.

The rest of us seemingly are writing of a scenario where the armed intruder has weapon in hand and has just illegally entered the house.

In the later scenario the only effort you really need to take is "warn them to leave" If you are a decent law abiding person (and you are able to) you should call the police. If they fail to obey your command to leave and you feel threatened - why should you not (again get your story straight) . . .


Again also this is TERB a place for enjoyment, not a blog for Criminal Law Lawyers.

 

[fuji]

Fuji, you keep reading this as a scenario of the intruder calmly sitting on a chair in your living room which their firearm holstered, and discussing the Intertropical Convergence Zone when the home owner just whips out a gun and kills them. Needless to say that is murder.

The scenarios presented have ALLOWED for that interpreation. The claim has been made that even in that case you can shoot an intruder. I have always agreed that if the intruder is behaving in a way that is threatening that you can shoot them.

I am disputing that you can automatically shoot them just because they are in your house with a gun.

It really depends quite a lot on the situation.

The rest of us seemingly are writing of a scenario where the armed intruder has weapon in hand and has just illegally entered the house.

Even with the weapon in hand you cannot automatically shoot them. If, for example, you are standing behind them with your gun pointed at their head while they are facing away with their gun pointed at the floor you cannot shoot.

In the later scenario the only effort you really need to take is "warn them to leave" If you are a decent law abiding person (and you are able to) you should call the police. If they fail to obey your command to leave and you feel threatened - why should you not (again get your story straight) . . .

There is a HUGE difference between "fail to obey your command to leave" and "threaten you".

If you shout at them to freeze and they do you can't shoot.

If you then order them to leave and they do NOT, but they also do not make any threatening move, you cannot shoot.

If instead of obeying your order they begin to turn towards you or raise their gun or make some sort of sudden move then of course you shoot.

 

[seth gecko]

It all goes back to the fur trade--it worked better with central organization under conditions of peace, order, and good government, where personal safety depended primarily on strong trading alliances and with institutional/military solutions to conflicts. The ranching that formed the basis of the early United States was a much more decentralized, individual activity that spawned a belief in the merits of individual life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, where an individual and his gun were more or less the only thing protecting the homestead from bandits and varmints.

Our different histories have led to different laws and different attitudes around how violent conflict is to be resolved.

At any rate you certainly can defend your home from intruders in Canada. You can use whatever force is required either to arrest them and hold them for the police if they have committed a serious crime, or in other cases to evict them from your property forcibly.

Unlike in the United States, however, you are strictly limited to using the least amount of force possible under the circumstances.

The only point I am making is this really:

If you've got the intruder under your gun, and theirs is not pointed at you, so that you have the drop on them, under Canadian law you cannot shoot them. In that case you have the upper hand and you have certainly got a less violent alternative available--namely ordering them to freeze and drop their weapon. Similarly if they turn and run shooting them in the back is going to be frowned on--you had the option of letting the police deal with them later.

I am simply denying the claim made on this thread by multiple posters that as soon as someone is in your house with a gun you can shoot them. It's not true. In some cases it's true but in most cases there are less violent means available to you.

Not to argue the point anymore, but is it true or isn't it? You've contradicted yourself so many times in this thread that you've now started contradicting yourself with your next sentence. And instead of dancing around the question, as is your proven style, why don't you try to answer Baci's question with a simple yes or no?

 

[KBear]

In this scenario, I’d just shoot the armed intruder as he broke though the door, or as he stood there, with no warning, with me hidden behind cover. Hardly sporting I know.

Think fuji wants to take on the armed intruder in a more fair fight, mono a mono, like a real man. To see the look of fear in his eyes, the beads of sweat, and wait for the guy to flinch before dropping him with a hail of hot lead.

 

[Aardvark154]

No I don't. Do you?

The intruder has to threaten you in some way: They try and approach you, they move suddenly, they are pointing a gun at you, or it's the split second after they just crashed through the door holding a gun. In all those cases there is an action which is threatening.

If the intruder is just standing there doing nothing ignoring you, or arguing you, but is not making any move to threaten you, then no you cannot shoot them.

Legaly yes you are entirely correct. However, in the really world how often does that happen? Further I doubt it would get that far an intruder breaks in you say halt they don't ("I felt threatened") and you kill them.

Normal people just don't break into people's houses while carrying firearms.

 

[Aardvark154]

There is a HUGE difference between "fail to obey your command to leave" and "threaten you".

If you shout at them to freeze and they do you can't shoot.

If you then order them to leave and they do NOT, but they also do not make any threatening move, you cannot shoot.

If instead of obeying your order they begin to turn towards you or raise their gun or make some sort of sudden move then of course you shoot.

And in this crazy hypothetical who on earth (provided you aren't shooting them in the back or from ambush behind doors) isn't going to say "they reached for the gun."

I agree in the real world there are a great many what if's - however, I doubt anyone is using TERB as a self-help manual on the right of self-defence.

 

[Aardvark154]

The only point I am making is this really:

If you've got the intruder under your gun, and theirs is not pointed at you, so that you have the drop on them, under Canadian law you cannot shoot them. In that case you have the upper hand and you have certainly got a less violent alternative available--namely ordering them to freeze and drop their weapon. Similarly if they turn and run shooting them in the back is going to be frowned on--you had the option of letting the police deal with them later.

With this I would entirely agree Fuji. The same would be true in most of the U.S.

 

[Aardvark154]

Aardvark omitted an important one - CC section 41.2:

DEFENCE OF HOUSE OR REAL PROPERTY
... / Assault by trespasser.
41.(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. [R.S. c.C-34, s.41.]

Now read the following

SELF-DEFENCE AGAINST UNPROVOKED ASSAULT
... / 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. c.C-34, s.34.]

Thanks for pointing out my omission, Seth.

 

[fuji]

Legaly yes you are entirely correct. However, in the really world how often does that happen?

None of these events are common in the real world: How often do armed intruders break into homes? It's rare.

Out of those rare cases how often does the home-owner surprise the intruder? Probably often enough.

Normal people just don't break into people's houses while carrying firearms.

Again the point of the law is that in the real world information is spotty and emotions are running high. The law forces you to err on the side of caution for a reason.

It is fairly probable that what you thought was a gun is something else, and what you thought was an intruder is your own son sneaking back into the house hoping you won't have noticed he snuck out to get drunk with his buddies.

The law is very practical and useful in this real world in this case. Those who shoot first and ask questions later are quite frequently going to regret having done so. The answer to the question not asked might have been "don't shoot dad it's me".

 

[fuji]

I am a firm beleiver that people kill people, not guns.

You're not far off--the most accurate version is this: "Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people."

Your version may play well in the deep south, but in Canada, where we subscribe to more collective values, the moment you fire off your weapon in the direction of a person other than in response to a reasonable apprehension of a direct threat to your person--well you are going to go to jail.

 

[Bear669]

Atta Girl!

Let me preceed my response by saying I was born and raised in the deep south of America......gun toting, war mongers that we are.....I have a concealed weapons permit, own several guns and support gun ownership for hunting, sport and personal safety.

Please don't attack me here, but I am a firm beleiver that people kill people, not guns. As with all other aspects of life involving risk (ie: sex, driving, alcohol).....education is the key to avoid misuse, abuse and health dangers and potential loss of life.

Having said that, shoot a warning shot into the air at #3, aim low through the door at #4 hoping for no more than a leg injury, shoot to kill at #5.

(I am a female caucasion of irish/german decent)

I think you have more guns than me, but I will say one thing I have gleaned from reading military history, police fact & fiction etc etc.

NEVER shoot to 'wound'. Its too hard to hit anything with a hand gun. Once you make the decision- shoot for the torso, and keep shooting until the bad guy is down & stays down.

 

[sibannac]

Let me preceed my response by saying I was born and raised in the deep south of America......gun toting, war mongers that we are.....I have a concealed weapons permit, own several guns and support gun ownership for hunting, sport and personal safety.

Please don't attack me here, but I am a firm beleiver that people kill people, not guns. As with all other aspects of life involving risk (ie: sex, driving, alcohol).....education is the key to avoid misuse, abuse and health dangers and potential loss of life.

Having said that, shoot a warning shot into the air at #3, aim low through the door at #4 hoping for no more than a leg injury, shoot to kill at #5.

(I am a female caucasion of irish/german decent)

- and this is why the New Orleans, well one of the reasons, is the murder capital of the Western World.

The truth of the matter is that most gun deaths are domestic related. The biggest problem for the average American citizen is that they have allowed the media and their politicians to scare them to death.