Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
i understand that...but the guy was about to mow down his wife if i am understanding the story correctly.
I also am under NO illusion that the Canadian self defense laws are almost useless in comparison to the USA.
All that being said....i am asking what the law expects someone to do in such a situation. Are they just supposed to watch loved ones stay i harms way and hope nothing happens and that police get there to take care of everything in time?
Just a REALLY bad law to have on the books.
The kid lost some teeth? Oh well, perhaps he shouldnt of been stealing stuff to begin with and then attempt to smash his car through a door that this guys wife was on the other side of.
Mind boggling.
|
The facts, from what we can piece together in the various articles, aren't entirely clear. It sounds like the home owners came home to find a car in their driveway and lights on in the house. The parked behind the mysterious car to prevent its escape (perhaps part of the problem right there). Then it sounds like they went into the house and found the place to be ransacked. The wife was in the garage calling 911 while the husband went outside to confront the perp. The perp was ramming the car behind him attempting to escape, presumably. Husband's lawyer said husband feared the perp was going to drive forward through the garage where his wife was and thus smacked the perp with the hatchet. Twice.
A bunch of sections of the Criminal Code might be applicable:
Quote:
|
Use of force to prevent commission of offence
27. Every one is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary
(a) to prevent the commission of an offence
(i) for which, if it were committed, the person who committed it might be arrested without warrant, and
(ii) that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of anyone; or
(b) to prevent anything being done that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done, be an offence mentioned in paragraph (a).
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.
Extent of justification
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.
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.
|
The common theme is that these defences are only available where the defendant, in this case the husband, uses no more force than is reasonably necessary. I'm guessing the burglar's face was pretty gruesome by the time the homeowner was done pounding on him and the extent of his injuries lead the police officers to the conclusion that excessive force was utilized.