I am not sure why people think that there is no self defence law in Canada. As stated before, S.34 allows for self defence against an attack.
S. 27 also states:
Quote:
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).
Section 37 states
Quote:
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.
So if we look at Section 34. Subsection 1
Quote:
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.
The main element to consider here is the intent. Say someone attacks you with a knife and you use another weapon such as knife or a bat to repel the attacker and you kill the attacker. As long as the person did not intent to kill the attacker, self defence in subsection 1 would be made out. There was no intent to kill and reasonable force was used.
Alternatively, subsection 2
Quote:
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causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and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.
This subsection allows for people to basically use deadly force. In this case if someone pulls a knife on you and the assailant is attacking you and you believe that you will sustain injuries that would result in grievous bodily harm or death, and the only way to prevent it is to kill the assailant, you would have a defence.
Section 27 is also very important in that one can use as much force as is reasonably necessary to prevent the commission of an offence.
I agree that the law should be less restrictive and allow more latitude with regards to personal defence and property defence especially with regards to break and enters and home invation. But I definately to not agree with statements like " A true self-defense clause would allow for a person to use any and all force required to cease an attack on their person or property."
Last edited by jolinar of malkshor; 01-06-2008 at 08:43 PM.
My brother's house was broken into last spring and he asked the police officer what he could've done if he was home at the time, the officer told him you can do whatever you need to if your life is threatened.
Personally if I heard someone breaking into my home, i'd risk the chance at jail time as opposed to losing my life... Down deep we all have the primal instinct to protect our lives.
I'm just commenting on the suggestion that he'll summarily nailed to the wall by the legal system if he didn't make it a fair fight.
I've had a cop explain this to me before, it is true. I remember because I thought it was one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Basically for some dumb reason in Canada, if someone attacks you, you have to match the force, NOT exceed it. The knife vs gun example was used by the police officer himself, so it is a sound example. For some dumb reason in Canada if someone pulls a knife on you, and you shoot him for it, you will be charged with manslaughter at the VERY least. I argued the sense of this law with the officer, he simply stated " it's the law, not my opinion."
For some dumb reason in Canada if someone pulls a knife on you, and you shoot him for it, you will be charged with manslaughter at the VERY least. I argued the sense of this law with the officer, he simply stated " it's the law, not my opinion."
That cop the other day put 6 slugs from a M16 in a guy with an umbrella.
Just so everyone knows, this is a 2 1/2 year old thread.
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
I've had a cop explain this to me before, it is true. I remember because I thought it was one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Basically for some dumb reason in Canada, if someone attacks you, you have to match the force, NOT exceed it. The knife vs gun example was used by the police officer himself, so it is a sound example. For some dumb reason in Canada if someone pulls a knife on you, and you shoot him for it, you will be charged with manslaughter at the VERY least. I argued the sense of this law with the officer, he simply stated " it's the law, not my opinion."
Dude you do realize you are quoting a post 2 and a half years old?
Ya I heard about that, kinda funny actually(I believe they are calling it a suicide by cop case) I'm not 100% sure but I do believe that cops(especially on duty) have a different set of rules then the average person that is randomly being attacked. Seeing as they SHOULD have better judgement with their better understanding of the law + training in such situations.
Dude you do realize you are quoting a post 2 and a half years old?
haha, didn't notice no. A friend was looking at the thread so I clicked the link and was reading, didn't notice the dates on the thread. The point still stands however!
I've had a cop explain this to me before, it is true. I remember because I thought it was one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Basically for some dumb reason in Canada, if someone attacks you, you have to match the force, NOT exceed it. The knife vs gun example was used by the police officer himself, so it is a sound example. For some dumb reason in Canada if someone pulls a knife on you, and you shoot him for it, you will be charged with manslaughter at the VERY least. I argued the sense of this law with the officer, he simply stated " it's the law, not my opinion."
That's not true. The use of force doctrain says you match force with reasonable force. So in your case, if someone pulls a knife on you, it's perfectly fine to shot them. A knife is a lethal weapon, so is a gun. I have RCMP use of force training, so I am familiar with the use of force wheel
If someone tries to punch you, you can't shoot them, that's not a reasonable response to a punch. But if they grab a sharp ended umbrella, you may have a case if you shoot them, as the umbrella could be being wielded as a deadly weapon, if he's trying to spear you, for example.
It's all about responding with reasonable force - That's what the law asks for. the court cases then happen over whether or not the force used was reasonable.
That's not true. The use of force doctrain says you match force with reasonable force. So in your case, if someone pulls a knife on you, it's perfectly fine to shot them. A knife is a lethal weapon, so is a gun. I have RCMP use of force training, so I am familiar with the use of force wheel
If someone tries to punch you, you can't shoot them, that's not a reasonable response to a punch. But if they grab a sharp ended umbrella, you may have a case if you shoot them, as the umbrella could be being wielded as a deadly weapon, if he's trying to spear you, for example.
It's all about responding with reasonable force - That's what the law asks for. the court cases then happen over whether or not the force used was reasonable.
That's not true. The use of force doctrain says you match force with reasonable force. So in your case, if someone pulls a knife on you, it's perfectly fine to shot them. A knife is a lethal weapon, so is a gun. I have RCMP use of force training, so I am familiar with the use of force wheel
If someone tries to punch you, you can't shoot them, that's not a reasonable response to a punch. But if they grab a sharp ended umbrella, you may have a case if you shoot them, as the umbrella could be being wielded as a deadly weapon, if he's trying to spear you, for example.
It's all about responding with reasonable force - That's what the law asks for. the court cases then happen over whether or not the force used was reasonable.
What about if someone comes at you with a pointed stick, or a banana?
That's not true. The use of force doctrain says you match force with reasonable force. So in your case, if someone pulls a knife on you, it's perfectly fine to shot them. A knife is a lethal weapon, so is a gun. I have RCMP use of force training, so I am familiar with the use of force wheel
If someone tries to punch you, you can't shoot them, that's not a reasonable response to a punch. But if they grab a sharp ended umbrella, you may have a case if you shoot them, as the umbrella could be being wielded as a deadly weapon, if he's trying to spear you, for example.
It's all about responding with reasonable force - That's what the law asks for. the court cases then happen over whether or not the force used was reasonable.
No it's not, as the cop explained you are missing the wording. If someone pulled a knife on me and I shot him, that would be using excessive force, excessive meaning NOT reasonable. The way they see it, if you have a gun you have other options then just flat out shooting him dead.
This isn't my personal opinion, this is what a police officer has told me. So really I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying that a police officer himself said this.(also you seem to have misread the example, the example criminal PULLED a knife on you. Not attacked you and tried to kill you with it). The example the cop used was that he only pulled it on you and demanded money for example. If he actually began attacking you then what you said is true from what I understand(though I'm not sure), but assuming he doesn't flat out attack you, then shooting him is not " reasonable force " and you will most likely be charged.
It's all well and good you have some training with reasonable force response, but first off does that apply to everyone in any situation? Or are you an actual RCMP officer? 2nd regardless of the answer to the first, you aren’t a lawyer from what I understand. Something that is deemed reasonable force is really up for the courts to decide in the case of a death, not the police or the RCMP(from what I understand).
I'm not 100% sure but I do believe that cops(especially on duty) have a different set of rules then the average person that is randomly being attacked. Seeing as they SHOULD have better judgement with their better understanding of the law + training in such situations.
