A question on the right to self defense

sibannac

New member
May 9, 2009
248
0
0
fuji said:
In the real world you lack the information to be sure that the person you've shot and killed is the bad guy. LEO will give you a rough time if:

a) The guy turns out to be an undercover cop performing his duties
b) What you thought was a gun wasn't
c) Especially if in b the "bad guy" turns out to be a neighbourhood kid
d) Especially if in b the "bad guy" turns out to be your kid

The problem with shooting someone who is not a clear, immediate threat to your well being is that you likely are operating in a state of fear with limited information and you may exagerrate the nature of the threat and imagine things that aren't there.

When you then surprise the intruder with a bullet in the face you may recognize that face as one of your own just as you squeeze the trigger beyond the point of no return.

Even if it does turn out to be a "bad guy" if what you thought was a gun turns out to be a flashlight you have just murdered someone who was only really guilty of the relatively minor crime of breaking and entering versus your much more serious crime of murder.

There are reasons why the law is what it is, they are good moral reasons. In this case the law has it correct.
I think if you read what I said in it's entirety and not take it of context you would find that I mentioned:

a) door being breached

b) no place to retreat

You mention that "MAYBE' the guy has a flashlight - the law doesn't differentiate here. If you have a REASONABLE fear it doesn't matter, the act of smashing the door down would put Reasonable Fear on the table.

You also mentioned a undercover LEO. It is doubtful that they would smashing your door down unless they wanted your ass bad for something it is most likely you know why and it would be announced to you anyways.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
sibannac said:
I think if you read what I said in it's entirety and not take it of context you would find that I mentioned:

a) door being breached

b) no place to retreat
No, perhaps you need to reread your own post. Your case is that the door handle is being "jiggled" by a guy with what you think is a gun, the door is one that "could be" breached, and so you shoot him. Go directly to jail.

You mention that "MAYBE' the guy has a flashlight - the law doesn't differentiate here. If you have a REASONABLE fear it doesn't matter, the act of smashing the door down would put Reasonable Fear on the table.
I disagree. Smashing down the door does not mean you have a reasonable fear that he is going to attack you. He may merely be trying to break and enter. He may not even know you are inside.

Now if you had reason to believe he DID know you were inside and that he was coming to attack you--say he is known to you, and had just called you to say he was coming over to kill you, that would be different.

You also mentioned a undercover LEO. It is doubtful that they would smashing your door down unless they wanted your ass bad for something it is most likely you know why and it would be announced to you anyways.
Maybe they got the wrong house.
 

sibannac

New member
May 9, 2009
248
0
0
fuji said:
No, perhaps you need to reread your own post. Your case is that the door handle is being "jiggled" by a guy with what you think is a gun, the door is one that "could be" breached, and so you shoot him. Go directly to jail.



I disagree. Smashing down the door does not mean you have a reasonable fear that he is going to attack you. He may merely be trying to break and enter. He may not even know you are inside.

Now if you had reason to believe he DID know you were inside and that he was coming to attack you--say he is known to you, and had just called you to say he was coming over to kill you, that would be different.



Maybe they got the wrong house.

I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing. At no point did I say you shoot through the god damn door simply because your scared.

As for maybe they got the wrong house - again you are arguing for the sake of arguing. In almost all cases LEOs would identify themselves before putting themselves in harms way. I have a little faith that their training and professionalism would prevail over any stupid scenario you create. Once the LEOs identity is known then were is the reasonable fear - no there isn't one - so really you are just being annoying here.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
fuji said:
No, perhaps you need to reread your own post. Your case is that the door handle is being "jiggled" by a guy with what you think is a gun, the door is one that "could be" breached, and so you shoot him. Go directly to jail.



I disagree. Smashing down the door does not mean you have a reasonable fear that he is going to attack you. He may merely be trying to break and enter. He may not even know you are inside.

Now if you had reason to believe he DID know you were inside and that he was coming to attack you--say he is known to you, and had just called you to say he was coming over to kill you, that would be different.



Maybe they got the wrong house.
You sound more and more like a ambulance chaser with each post.

I did not know you were a bottom feeder.
 

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,740
70
48
The original question was on the right to self defense. Here are the appropriate sections in the Criminal Code of Canada. Please refer to CC section 41.2 and 34.2.b. Sections 34-37, 40 & 41 make for interesting reading.

I'm not a lawyer, but it's seems pretty clear to me. Fuji, you seem to be arguing over semantics, or maybe just because you enjoy being the center of attention. You can make all the little scenarios you wish regarding the right to self-defense, but the CC has it fairly well defined.

I hope that no-one who replied within this thread ever has to make the decisions we've discussed here, for even though you may very well likely not be charged for killing the intruder, you may suffer emotional or psychological trauma from the experience afterwards. Fuji, I especially hope that YOU are never faced with having to protect yourself or your loved ones.

This thread is CLOSED!!!!!!
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,750
3
0
fuji said:
I disagree. Mere refusal to leave is not in and of itself a threat to your life. At that point he has committed criminal trespassing, and you have a right to physically remove him from your property if he won't go willingly but that is far short of a right to shoot him dead.

Until you have some specific reason to believe he is about to physically harm you, you have no grounds to fire even a warning shot.

In fact if you fire an illegal warning shot then most likely *he* gains legal grounds to use lethal force against you, as at that point he has reasonable grounds to fear that you are a threat to his person.

To wit, if you shoot at someone who is trespassing on your property and then they return fire killing you my guess is that they wind up getting convicted for trespassing, but they beat the murder charge by claiming self defense.
At the point at which they refuse to leave you shoot them. Constable he was jumping up screaming about he was going to hurt me and refused to leave I felt in fear of my life.

Perhaps not the greatest idea out in your back forty - but inside your house? I think I’d take my chances with the Courts.

Of course I am not advising anyone to perjure themselves - then again armed intruder or my family.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,750
3
0
Moraff said:
Especially if you've already called the cops at one of the earlier steps. Let them take care of it.
Obviously if you don't feel in fear of your life and the Police are going to shortly arrive. . . But if you do and they aren't - the fact that intruder is refusing to leave your house which he has entered without permission - I see good odds of your being acquitted.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,750
3
0
fuji said:
Those who believe that a mere property crime is in and of itself a threat. Plainly those breaking and entering also belong in jail, but on a much less serious charge.
You have to be kidding us, an armed intruder breaks into your house and refuses to leave and you find that less serious than "punishing" a person who feels threatened and kills said armed intruder in their own house!
 

tboy

resident smartass
Aug 18, 2001
15,969
2
0
64
way out in left field
As for what may or may not be a gun, go back and read the original post, it specifically states:

1 - A man you do not know in your vicinity buys a gun
2 - The man walks by your house several times with gun in hand
3 - The man walks onto your property
4 - The man test your back door handle to see if it's locked
5 - The man enters your house
6 - The man shoots at you but misses
7 - The man shoots and hits you

As for it being a neighbourhood kid, or my kid, that is IMPOSSIBLE as the example specifically states: "a man you do not know"

While you are clouding the issue, why not just say:

"An invisible dog transports into your livingroom and proceeds to lick your hand"
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
fuji said:
Maybe they got the wrong house.

You are right

I will be sure to ask the guy standing in front of me with a gun if he is sure he has the right house. I would then go on to inform him he has not been denied of any rights before I put a bullet through him.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,750
3
0
fuji said:
You are certainly entitled to confront him but sneaking up on him and killing him would be murder plain and simple absent any particularly threatening behavior on his part.
Who said sneaking up on him. You have to warn him to leave (if you for what ever reason think it was a mistake on his part, otherwise warn him he is under arrest and the police are on the way) somehow I don't think such a person is just going to calmly wait for the police.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,750
3
0
seth gecko said:
The original question was on the right to self defense. Here are the appropriate sections in the Criminal Code of Canada. Please refer to CC section 41.2 and 34.2.b. Sections 34-37, 40 & 41 make for interesting reading.
Self-defence against unprovoked assault

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.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 35.

Provocation

36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 36.

Preventing assault

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.


Defence of dwelling

40. Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 40.

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.
 

bigtymer

Member
Aug 31, 2004
61
3
8
I lived in Delaware for a while for work...the law there is that at #3 (armed or not)...fire at will!!! It did happen once!! The homeowner saw a guy he did not know step on his property (the stranger was unarmed). He gave him one warning, then put two in his chest and one in his head. Police mopped up and went straight to lunch. No repercussions to the homeowner. Down there, carrying a sidearm is not illegal....... as long as its visible. Many citizens in Delaware make a point to carry sidearms in public. I knew one guy who put his gun on the second he got home. He more or less did it to drive home the point, "This is my property, and no one will mess with me in my own backyard." I can't imagine what the laws are here?!?!?!
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Aardvark154 said:
At the point at which they refuse to leave you shoot them.
You can't shoot someone for refusing to leave. You can shoot someone only if they are a threat to you. You can force a trespasser out of your home but only using the minimum amount of force necessary--presumably that is far short of lethal force.

Constable he was jumping up screaming about he was going to hurt me and refused to leave I felt in fear of my life.
Better hope the forensics and your story agree.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
bigtymer said:
I can't imagine what the laws are here?!?!?!
Far less savage. Aardvark posted them above--you can only use force to defend yourself from a real threat of harm, or to remove a trespasser from your property. In both cases you must use the minimum force necessary.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,750
3
0
fuji said:
You can't shoot someone for refusing to leave. You can shoot someone only if they are a threat to you. You can force a trespasser out of your home but only using the minimum amount of force necessary--presumably that is far short of lethal force.
One of the reasons for disagreement here is that you make two assumptions: that the Police response time will be quite short, and that the intruder despite being an armed intruder is for whatever reason quite rational as well as peaceable.

Yes legaly you cannot shoot someone for refusing to leave. And if the Toronto Police will be there with bells on in two minutes. . . now on the other hand if the police are twenty + minutes away the man refuses to leave. . . . you may well be justified in using deadly force.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,750
3
0
fuji said:
In both cases you must use the minimum force necessary.
However, the minimum amount of force may well be deadly force. The law does not require you to risk your life.

It does require you to give warning.
 

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,740
70
48
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.]



Now Mr. Fuji, I'll type v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y so maybe, just maybe you can follow this: An ARMED INTRUDER resists my attempts to have him leave my property, thereby committing an UNPROVOKED ASSAULT (along with, as you so quaintly deemed it, a "minor property crime" of breaking in). Since said INTRUDER was holding a GUN, which is well known to most people to be a DEADLY WEAPON, I would have REASONABLE APPREHENSION of DEATH from the intruder as he PURSUES HIS PURPOSES. As I cannot make the ARMED INTRUDER leave and am APPREHENSIVE of DEATH due to his actions, I would have REASONABLE GROUNDS to believe that unless I take defensive action I cannot OTHERWISE prevent my death (or that of my sleeping family members), so it would be JUSTIFIED if I caused the INTRUDERS DEATH in repelling his assault.

Now, that's not so hard to understand, is it Fuji?


Holy crap....it's true!!! Arguing on the Internet IS like the Special Olympics. I'm going to disqualify myself from the competition (because I'm not retarded). You go for the gold, Fuji. Go for the Gold!!
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
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.
 

Moraff

Active member
Nov 14, 2003
3,648
0
36
sibannac said:
I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing. At no point did I say you shoot through the god damn door simply because your scared.

As for maybe they got the wrong house - again you are arguing for the sake of arguing. In almost all cases LEOs would identify themselves before putting themselves in harms way. I have a little faith that their training and professionalism would prevail over any stupid scenario you create. Once the LEOs identity is known then were is the reasonable fear - no there isn't one - so really you are just being annoying here.
You have valid points on the likelihood of the intruder being a police officer, however fuji is correct in that the act of the person breaking into your house doesn't automatically equate to a threat to your life.

As for arguing for the sake of arguing, wasn't the original point of the thread to have a discussion about a given scenario?
 
Toronto Escorts