A question on the right to self defense

[fuji]

It is 1 second total to draw and take out the 5 balloons. I'm not sure about reaction times, but think it takes some time to realize what has happened, sum it up, and make the decision to shoot, and shoot. Think by then it would be too late.

You can't pre-emptively shoot everyone you encounter just because they might turn out to be quick draw mcgraw.

Your right to defend yourself has to be put in balance with the rights of other people not to be shot by you.

 

[fuji]

KBear your example is tantamount to saying that if you are riding on the subway and you see someone that you decide looks a little shifty that you should have the right to pre-emptively attack them before they attack you--even though they have done nothing yet other than look shifty.

Or maybe you think that store keepers who see someone shoplifting should have the right to shoot the thief dead on the spot on the off chance that when they confont them they will turn out to have a gun.

You can't go around pre-emptively murdering people just because you suspect there's a chance they might be a threat.

 

[KBear]

You do not point a gun at someone just because they are in your house,....

Earlier you said you could shoot the unarmed intruder if they moved towards you and you ran out of space to back up. So, at some point you would have to point the gun at them. At what distance can you point the gun at the intruder and shoot?

It's not a matter of what you would suggest... if you fire and kill the intruder and the police discover that you had a clear path to an outside door (assuming no one else in the house) you are likely to find yourself in trouble.

Suggest is the wrong word. Should be, I would not be backing up.

The best way to survive a gunfight is to avoid it. But if I could take cover, and shoot the guy as he came through the door, think that would be a more survivable option for me then running outside and exposing my back to him. But I would try to avoid the gun fight if possible.

 

[KBear]

KBear your example is tantamount to saying that if you are riding on the subway .

Agree, cant go about shooting funny looking people on the subway.

Think you forgot in this scenario though. The lady is at home with her family, and the intruder with a gun at the ready in his hand has broken into the lady's house. At what point, what distance, can the lady blow the armed or unarmed intruders brains out?

Think you have already said that the lady must let the intruder know where she is, and that she has a gun.

 

[papasmerf]

Fuji is giving good advice from what is a strictly legal perspective. He however is neglecting the reality of the situation.

Fuji what is your stance on an individual owning a gun?

 

[fuji]

Fuji what is your stance on an individual owning a gun?

I am in favour of people owning ordinary long guns, and against people owning handguns and automatic weapons. I do think that guns should be properly registered and tracked to ensure that they stay in legal hands.

 

[fuji]

Earlier you said you could shoot the unarmed intruder if they moved towards you and you ran out of space to back up. So, at some point you would have to point the gun at them. At what distance can you point the gun at the intruder and shoot?

I think I've given you the tools to answer that question for yourself at this point. Minimum force necessary in the face of a credible threat after having exhausted all reasonable alternatives.

 

[baci2004]

It's not a matter of what you would suggest... if you fire and kill the intruder and the police discover that you had a clear path to an outside door (assuming no one else in the house) you are likely to find yourself in trouble.

Similarily if your escape route was filled with chairs and boxes and stuff then you likely wouldn't be in trouble.

All comes down to what the exact scenario is, but it still is "use the minimum force necessary". Otherwise bouncers could throw rowdies down the stairs instead of escorting them off the premises and not face any consequences.

We are NOT required to retreat in our own homes in Canada when threatened. We are however required to use proportional force (force continuum)when facing a threat as stated in this thread a million times.

The problem is, actually it's only a problem for Fugi but I digress, is that there isn't a law for every single facet of every single possible scenario. Which is why we have judges and juries, and why people are still allowed to think for themselves....at least the ones who still can. The reality is if police arrive at a private residence and there is a dead person with a gun in hand and that person doesn't live there the home owner will walk. There isn't a judge or jury that wouldn't see a gun toting man as a threat. Only bored internet trolls who live to argue semantics do.

 

[fuji]

The problem baci is that in the real world things are not so clear--information is spotty and sketchy and coloured by emotions. The laws and rules we have are designed to make sure people make cautious, conservative decisions before doing something that has the repercussions of ending a life.

In an internet forum you get to say "a man with a gun does X" but in real life is it a gun? Or a flashlight? Or a wrench?

By applying the minimum force necessary only in the face of a credible threat after having exhausted all available alternatives you greatly reduce the probability of shooting the wrong person by mistake.

If you could somehow guarantee that you would only shoot hostile intruders with guns as soon as they jiggled your door handle that would be one thing--but in the real world you can't know whether that's a hostile intruder with a gun, or a neighbourhood kid playing pranks ringing your doorbell, or whatever.

The law has it right in this case. It doesn't always, but in this case it is the correct course of action, not merely the legal course of action.

It requires you to hold off on the most extreme, lethal responses until you have clarity, and that is for a very, very good reason.

 

[The LoLRus]

By applying the minimum force necessary only in the face of a credible threat after having exhausted all available alternatives you greatly reduce the probability of shooting the wrong person by mistake.

Why dont you shut the fuck up, Fuji!! (OK, so I been drinking a little, who hasnt these days??)

You really think you have time to apply "minimum force necessary" in a split second when faced with a burglar????!!!!!!!!!!!!
WTF are you, stupid???!!!

 

[fuji]

Until you are faced with a potentially life theatening situation

I have been in several life threatening situations.

If someone breaks into my house, I have every right to fear for my life and use whatever means are at my disposal to protect my life.

Cloes, but not quite right. Your right to do any of those things is limited to the minimum amount of force necessary.

Instead of putting more and more laws onto law abiding citizens, they should start doing something about those breaking the laws.

In fact if you really do shoot anyone who enters your home regardless of whether they are a threat to you or not then plainly you would be the one breaking the law and I am all for seeing you serve serious jail time if you behave as criminally you say you would.

 

[fuji]

You really think you have time to apply "minimum force necessary" in a split second when faced with a burglar????!!!!!!!!!!!!

You've added the notion that this is a split second decision to the scenario. Certainly courts have been understanding of the pressures people face when making split second decisions and you might well make a reasonable case in that situation.

You would still have to show that in that split second you had a reasonable fear for your safety, as opposed to an irrational paranoid fear.

On the other hand the scenarios described here so far have not been split second situations--people calmly advancing, people jiggling door handles, and so forth, in those situations you have time to think and react. We've got the case of someone sneaking up on a burglar and murdering them--hardly a split second decision.

I do agree that if the events call for a split second decision then the courts will give you wide lattitude.

When you stop drinking you might apologize for your rudeness as well.

 

[The LoLRus]

When you stop drinking you might apologize for your rudeness as well.

Esco says from a galaxy far away that he apologizes

Cheers

 

[sibannac]

Very interesting Fuji.....

Until you are faced with a potentially life theatening situation, I would bite my tongue. If someone breaks into my house, I have every right to fear for my life and use whatever means are at my disposal to protect my life. If I happen to be cleaning my guns when someone breaks in, I will not hesitate to use them. Whether its a baseball bat, a nail gun, a sword, knife or anything else that's usable as a defensive weapon, it will be used.

Remember, the homeowner knows where all his defensive tools are, the criminal does not and if you put that fear into criminals that there is a possibility they could be seriously injured or even killed breaking into a house, they will have second thoughts about doing it.

Instead of putting more and more laws onto law abiding citizens, they should start doing something about those breaking the laws. Your response is typical of that of a bleeding heart.

Well I wouldn't get that carried away here. While you are right about the reasonable fear for your safety, Canadian Law throws in this ability to retreat to safety.

We don't have the homestead laws that Texas does were pretty much anything goes if you trespass on a persons property. It's kind of like Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again that is the mindset of Texans. However in Canada you have to be aware of the limits to force you can use.

Fugi is making some valid points however he is going way to far in one direction while your post takes it too far in the other direction.

The section of the Canadian Criminal Code that covers this is the following:

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.,

Section a is what you are talking about, section b covers causing harm before the break in (can't shoot through door because you think you are about to be robbed) and section c forces you to think about a reasonable way to retreat from the situation. If you cover all this then you can kill the son of a bitch.

 

[fuji]

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.

 

[sibannac]

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.

Covered under Sec.35 a, b, and c of the Criminal Code that I posted in my last post. Under that you are only somewhat right. In the first part of your scenario, it would be OK to shoot the intruder if they simply took a step forward and refused your demands to leave provided you had no simple way to retreat. The law only requires a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous injury - it makes no mention that the suspect must have a weapon before you can deal with the situation. To cover all bases I imagine that the suspect in your cases committed an overt act, such as smashing into the premise.

BTW reasonable apprehension is a very low standard. It goes without saying no matter how this goes down there will be a LEO investigation and perhaps a trip to judge and jury to sort this out.

The second part you are right - you can't shoot the guy in the back because clearly 35a and 35b come into play

 

[iprint]

Better to be judged by twelve then carried by six!

 

[fuji]

The law only requires a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous injury - it makes no mention that the suspect must have a weapon before you can deal with the situation.

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.

I think we largely agree.

 

[fuji]

Better to be judged by twelve then carried by six!

I have read of a number of cases of people who believed this, who believed the reverse after shooting their own children by mistake.

 

[hickorysticks]

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.

His intent may be merely to commit theft.

LOL LOL

Who said anything about "sneaking up on him"?? Him being the intruder whom has just broken in my home and is holding or pointing a gun at me/my family?
LOL -- Friendly recommendation: common sense goes a long way... even when arguing on an online escort review forum.

Even if a gun wasn't "pointed" at me, the mere fact of the person holding a gun, after breaking and entering into my home is indicative of their intentions. Should we be talking about a lolly-pop in the invader's hand... ah, well perhaps I might hold a slightly less aggressive imagination.