REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

LeanNsupreme · 12-06-2009, 11:18 AM

This is a very interesting subject, of course its against the law to kill someone who broke into your house, but where do the fine line fall? How easy would it be to say that he/she came at me and attacked with a said weapon? I would think it would be very easy to say that the person came at me with a baseball bat or a knife from inside my kitchen, i guess so long as it wasnt an obvious overkill i don't see how someone could get into a whole lot of trouble, discuss..

CorneringArtist · 12-06-2009, 11:50 AM

Well, some states in the US have that "castle law" where if anyone who trespasses can have lethal force used on them on the grounds that their safety was put into jeopardy, allowing justifiable homicide.

Personally, I would defend my own home as to drive off the trespasser, but of course that puts mine and my family's safety at risk. Police officers here would probably say not to try something like that for the same reason.

zulutango · 12-06-2009, 12:04 PM

The Canadian court systems are way different from the US ones. There are no "make my day "laws here and the system favours the crooks over the homeowners. There have been numerous cases where the home/business owners have defended themselves against robbers and armed robbers, only to find THEMSELVES being charged. Case in popint is the Port Alberni storowner who shot a robber who was armed with a gun & was threatening his wife...paralyzed one of them, and stiillcould be looking at charges for using his gun in self defence. You may only use as much force as the court later decides was needed, to defend yourself. Most time they rule that basically you should have permitted yourself to be robbed, rather than harming someone who was robbing you. It is the Canadian legal way.

Gnomes · 12-06-2009, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zulutango

the system favours the crooks over the homeowners.

I remember that thread somewhere about a repeated thief stealing something from this chinese store in TO. The Shop keeper and some employees chased down the crook, held the thief until cops come in inside a van. The Shop is now charged with kidnapping, assault, and concealing weapon (box cutters in their pocket).

omega_cc · 12-06-2009, 01:10 PM

wow. really?

zulutango · 12-06-2009, 01:15 PM

That is true. In the legal system now.

InvisibleSoul · 12-06-2009, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeanNsupreme

This is a very interesting subject, of course its against the law to kill someone who broke into your house, but where do the fine line fall? How easy would it be to say that he/she came at me and attacked with a said weapon? I would think it would be very easy to say that the person came at me with a baseball bat or a knife from inside my kitchen, i guess so long as it wasnt an obvious overkill i don't see how someone could get into a whole lot of trouble, discuss..

It might be easy to claim it, but the evidence at the scene better back your story up, otherwise you'd be going down for murder one.
Posted via RS Mobile

Rich Sandor · 12-06-2009, 02:41 PM

When I was taking my security training at the justice institute, I was told that if you 'accidentally' use excessive force when fighting off a home invader, you best bet is to plant a weapon on their body and say they were trying to kill you.

I'm not saying that's what you should do, but like zulutango said, it shows how F'd up our legal system is, if that's what you have to do to protect yourself. And even then you would likely be going to court to defend your actions.

Soundy · 12-06-2009, 03:12 PM

...or just make sure the body is never found.

sebberry · 12-06-2009, 04:23 PM

I would just prefer to let myself get beaten, stabbed or possibly shot only to see my assailant given a 6 month jail term for breach of peace or something

sebberry · 12-06-2009, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zulutango

The Canadian court systems are way different from the US ones. There are no "make my day "laws here and the system favours the crooks over the homeowners. There have been numerous cases where the home/business owners have defended themselves against robbers and armed robbers, only to find THEMSELVES being charged. Case in popint is the Port Alberni storowner who shot a robber who was armed with a gun & was threatening his wife...paralyzed one of them, and stiillcould be looking at charges for using his gun in self defence. You may only use as much force as the court later decides was needed, to defend yourself. Most time they rule that basically you should have permitted yourself to be robbed, rather than harming someone who was robbing you. It is the Canadian legal way.

The tone of your post suggests that you would like to see self defense laws relaxed somewhat?

nns · 12-06-2009, 05:13 PM

America has done few things so well as the Stand Your Ground-type laws. I greatly envy them in this sense, their 2nd amendment, and concealed-carry licenses.

stewie · 12-06-2009, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zulutango

You may only use as much force as the court later decides was needed, to defend yourself. Most time they rule that basically you should have permitted yourself to be robbed, rather than harming someone who was robbing you. It is the Canadian legal way.

so when it comes down to a store robber pointing a gun at the clerks head, and the stock boy in the back sees it all happen, grabs the gun from the back managers room, and ends up shooting the robber killing him, is that considered using only enough force to save a life?

what are you supposed to do? get robbed and possibly shot? or use minimal force...piss him off, and still end up getting shot?

twitchyzero · 12-06-2009, 08:43 PM

moral of the story?
lock your doors at home at all times and don't run a grocery store if you live in canada.

hirevtuner · 12-06-2009, 10:22 PM

This is what i will do

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-QHTXwqjfM

zulutango · 12-07-2009, 06:40 AM

Most street Police would like to see the Canadian Criminal Code re-written and updated to reflect what is happening today. In some areas the victims have far less rights than the criminals that victimize them. At times it can seem like nobody is held accountable for their actions and there is an excuse for every illegal action.

Mugen EvOlutioN · 12-07-2009, 07:40 AM

seriously who are the morons that make up these laws.

I get robbed at my house, my family's life may be in danger. First thing first, is to remove any possible weapons the robber may have, and put him down! its hard to control the exact force when ppl panics, you dont know your strength when you are being pushed to the limite. With that said, getting sued backwards for being the vicitim is seriously HILARIOUS. Like seriously?

Somebody in our justice system needs to wake up and have some common sense, it doesnt take a genius to figure out who is the victim and who is the freak that should get shot at.

This is when America's laws rules!

GLOW · 12-07-2009, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zulutango

Case in popint is the Port Alberni storowner who shot a robber who was armed with a gun & was threatening his wife...

what if the crook decided to attempt to rape his wife as well, is that grounds to do what you need to do to protect your family? or b/c the criminal is raping her, and not killing her, you cannot do anything, and should let her be raped? this is a serious question btw. i'm interested in how the criminal code would look at this

wing_woo · 12-07-2009, 08:48 AM

The criminal code is a joke. If you are impaired or high, you can get off the hook saying that you weren't in control of your actions. Then in Abbotsford (or somewhere out there, can't really remember), the guy drives into a sushi restaurant and kills some people. He's apparently not accountable cause he has alcohol withdrawal or something and didn't know what he was doing. That's a freakin' joke. I was told (don't know if it's true or not), but if someone trespasses on your property with the intention to break into your house and slips cause you didn't shovel the snow, you can get sued. Of course, no idea if that's true or not.

Mugen EvOlutioN · 12-07-2009, 11:47 AM

^

the shoveling your driveway part i believe that is TRUE

CA_FTW · 12-07-2009, 11:49 AM

I dont see how a judge that rules the Home owner/store owner guilty can sleep at night..

thats ridiculous..

silk · 12-07-2009, 02:19 PM

watch law abiding citizen..somewhat related to canadian system

stewie · 12-07-2009, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CA_FTW

I dont see how a judge that rules the Home owner/store owner guilty can sleep at night..

thats ridiculous..

well that one i can understand...but only to a certain degree...if you know your going to have people over and your drive way is full of ice...salt it...but if someones trying to break into your house and slips on your slippery stairs....he should go f*ck himself!

far to many people do this at stores....have a friend drop a jar of olive oil on the ground...30 seconds later the other friend goes down that aisle takes a nasty fall and sues big time...

hmmm....

anyone wanna go to safeway with me?

Soundy · 12-07-2009, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zulutango

Most street Police would like to see the Canadian Criminal Code re-written and updated to reflect what is happening today. In some areas the victims have far less rights than the criminals that victimize them. At times it can seem like nobody is held accountable for their actions and there is an excuse for every illegal action.

Not true!

The victims are being held accountable for protecting themselves.

Soundy · 12-07-2009, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zulutango

Case in popint is the Port Alberni storowner who shot a robber who was armed with a gun & was threatening his wife...paralyzed one of them, and stiillcould be looking at charges for using his gun in self defence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GLOW

what if the crook decided to attempt to rape his wife as well, is that grounds to do what you need to do to protect your family? or b/c the criminal is raping her, and not killing her, you cannot do anything, and should let her be raped? this is a serious question btw. i'm interested in how the criminal code would look at this

Quote:

Originally Posted by zulutango

You may only use as much force as the court later decides was needed, to defend yourself.

That's the part of it that's really ridiculous - someone who wasn't there, deciding later what the victim "should" have done, in the heat of the moment, under extreme duress, and at least the belief that his life and the lives of his family were in danger.

"Excuse me, I know you want to kill me with that bat, and I have a gun hidden behind my back that I can use to defend myself, but Imma take a minute here and just call up a judge to find out what I'm supposed to do. Could you just hold that thought?"