[Newsbot]

Title: Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act.
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2011-11-23 13:25:50
Canadian

[DrCaleb]

The big change: "Section 35(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." is removed. You no longer have to retreat from your own home!

Added to Section 35 is "(d) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.". So pretty much a 'get out of jail' clause. No more 'proportionate response' My home gets broken into by someone I suspect is out to do me harm? ......"On the floor, asshole".

[Robair]

Conservative party of Canada

Pro: next time we catch somebody stealing gas out of one of the farm slip tanks, we can defend our property with the 12 ga.

Cons: By the time they are done with the wheat board, we may not have a farm to defend.

I agree with this change, but Harper can still pound sand.

[Tricks]

WIN! Off to get me license.

[BartSimpson]

Wow. Good for Canada!

[jeff744]

Bout damned time, hopefully this bill stays nice and limited to just this area.

[ShepherdsDog]

still can't shoot someone in the back trying to run away. You fire a warning shot, tell them to stop and turn around or you'll shoot them. Once they've done that, then you get closer and plug the bastard and claim they were coming at you. Also keep in mind dead men tell no tales and can't sue you. less paper work for the police too.

[jeff744]

ShepherdsDog wrote:

still can't shoot someone in the back trying to run away. You fire a warning shot, tell them to stop and turn around or you'll shoot them. Once they've done that, then you get closer and plug the bastard and claim they were coming at you. Also keep in mind dead men tell no tales and can't sue you. less paper work for the police too.

And if he happens to have been conveniently holding a gun that turned out to be fake, who would know better?

[ShepherdsDog]

They turned and came at you, it was dark and you didn't know. They could be totally unarmed and you'd still be justified in defending yourself because you couldn't see if there was a weapon or not.

[1Peg]

Robair wrote:

I agree with this change, but Harper can still pound sand.

lol

[1Peg]

Tricks wrote:

WIN! Off to get me license.

Right behind you!

[Curtman]

Life is precious not property, that's what insurance is for. Another step backward by the chicken little party to increase violence rather than decrease it.

Shortly after we moved into our old house in the West End, 6 years ago the neighbours told us about the guy who used to live there. Poor guy tried to stop the gangsters from stealing his car. He spent 6 months in the hospital, and had to sell the house.

Then there's my friend Jeff who was shot in the face with a sawed off shotgun way back in 1997 when he tried to stop the gangsters from stealing $60 from the Family Foods on Arlington where he worked.

It's not worth it, and our government shouldn't be encouraging vigilantes.

[ShepherdsDog]

Quote:

Another step backward by the chicken little party

Your response sounds like a chicken shit argument...meh no big shocker. You'll change your tune if it's you and yours who are threatened.

[Canadian_Mind]

Curtman wrote:

Life is precious not property, that's what insurance is for. Another step backward by the chicken little party to increase violence rather than decrease it.

Shortly after we moved into our old house in the West End, 6 years ago the neighbours told us about the guy who used to live there. Poor guy tried to stop the gangsters from stealing his car. He spent 6 months in the hospital, and had to sell the house.

Then there's my friend Jeff who was shot in the face with a sawed off shotgun way back in 1997 when he tried to stop the gangsters from stealing $60 from the Family Foods on Arlington where he worked.

It's not worth it, and our government shouldn't be encouraging vigilantes.

So what about when someone breaks into your house? What if he is there to do more than just steal the television? What if they came to kill you, and rape your wife and children? Sure the vast majority of the time this isn't the case, but people should be lawfully allowed to defend themselves from a perceived threat. And if some poor chum who broke into your house to steal your piggy bank gets a bat to the back of the head or buckshot in the chest because you perceived him as a threat and weren't 100% ready of his weapons stake, sucks to be that poor chum. It should be his risk when he decides to break and enter, not yours.

And really, it's not like the government is actually giving people the ability to be vigilantes, it is just bringing clarity to what is a very convoluted and confusing set of laws. R.O.E.s for soldiers in combat are incredibly simple and easy to follow, and they make sense. I don't understand why the same rational couldn't be applied to self-defence and citizens arrest laws.

[jeff744]

Curtman wrote:

Life is precious not property, that's what insurance is for. Another step backward by the chicken little party to increase violence rather than decrease it.

Shortly after we moved into our old house in the West End, 6 years ago the neighbours told us about the guy who used to live there. Poor guy tried to stop the gangsters from stealing his car. He spent 6 months in the hospital, and had to sell the house.

Then there's my friend Jeff who was shot in the face with a sawed off shotgun way back in 1997 when he tried to stop the gangsters from stealing $60 from the Family Foods on Arlington where he worked.

It's not worth it, and our government shouldn't be encouraging vigilantes.

And you would prefer a system that would get you arrested for defending yourself?