Printable View
You actually believe that a police officer can shoot someone for breaking into a car? Just stroll up to a petty thief and execute them?Quote:
Originally Posted by line052
I'm starting to understand how some of your political beliefs have been formed.
"Most cases?" I trust this is based on your exhaustive survey of case law, and is not simply a claim made off the top of your head?[QUOTE=Bushmoose;1053769] OMG! Is that the best you can come up with? Its a word?
[/QUOTE]
The fact that you don't understand the distinction contained in the words "robbery" and "burglary" -- that you think this is just a word, and has no meaning -- is telling.
Robbery is a crime of violence; burglary is not. A person who steals a thing by stealth -- that is, a burglar -- does not present a threat to life and limb, and so it is not reasonable to kill or maim him, because this is not proportional force. A robber, on the other hand, steals by violence, so it is reasonable to meet that violence with a proportional level of violence.
This is why armoured car guards can go armed: they face armed robbery and are permitted to meet the threat to life and limb with force. They are not permitted, however, to shoot a fleeing thief in the back to protect the bank's property.
A homeowner can arm himself to meet a burglar, anticipating that theft by stealth could turn into theft by violence when he confronts the thief. But he can't shoot the thief unless that actually happens.
In point of fact, the Criminal Code does indeed prohibit deadly force with firearms. The offence is called "murder" -- you may have heard of it. Indeed, the Criminal Code expressly prohibits so much as pointing a firearm at a person, whether the firearm is loaded or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Elsewhere (s. 35, if you want to look it up), the Criminal Code creates a defence to any criminal offence if that offence is committed in defence of property and certain criteria are met, the last of which is that the act must be reasonable in the circumstances, i.e. proportional.
So, for the benefit of those struggling with the structure of the law, using deadly force with a firearm is an offence, but protection of property is a potential defence. To make that defence, you will need to establish that the level of force was proportional in the circumstances.
If the thief uses violence then shooting him might be proportional. But in the absence of violence, to suggest that killing a person is proportional to the loss of an Xbox is not going to be a winner. My remark that shooting an unarmed man will get you in trouble stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
I have not made an exhaustive survey of case law. But I am familiar with some interesting studies of self-defence law, in which people are presented with a set of facts and asked whether a person had acted in legitimate self-defence. Each of these studies found that most people's ideas of what is and is not legitimate self-defence adheres to the framework of English common law. Based on that, I'd say your claim here is out to lunch.
Also, two things about jury nullification:
1) nobody can prove it has happened, because the only thing the jury tells the court is guilty or not guilty.
2) it does not change the law.
Very few laws are passed as a result of national referendums. Also, please note that the present law of self-defence in Canada reflects the self-defence framework of centuries-old English common law. This is not some modern innovation.Quote:
Originally Posted by line052
It is not legal to use deadly force to protect property for the simple reason that the victim is not judge and jury, and theft is not a capital offence. This is not a difficult concept. The idea is older than Canada itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
I am continually dismayed by the number of people who think a human life is worth less than the price of a television, or that they should be permitted to make that judgment of a person who has offended against them.
A point that was mentioned earlier in this thread wasa "Let them take it, your insurance company pays anyway" - great argument until you insurance company either raises your rates to the point that it is unaffordable or outright denies coverage due to repeated claimes.
"Property theft should not be punishable by death" . Someone brought this up on another forum. They are not simply stealing your property. These dirtbags are stealing your life. How many hours did you work to pay for what you have? How many hours did you work to pay the taxes that go to pay for the costs associated with trying these dirt bags in a court of law? Those are hours that you will never get back. They are not just simply stealing your stuff, they are stealing your life. There needs to be a major reset to our justi.... I mean legal system. If we had a justice sytem the rancher in Okotoks would have received a handshake from the Queen's Cowboys not a criminal charge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M_P
Exactly my thoughts on this subject!
An Xbox ? but how about a boat/motor / trailer/ plus equipment that is worth 30 to 40 thousand or more? let me tell you some would be very upset to have something like that stolen that they would never see again , unlike a motor vehicle that is usually found unless it is stripped for parts or shipped out of the country.
There is a person in s On. that has 3 boats stolen within one year, twice from inside his garage when no one was home , his insurance co. will no longer insure him.
Welsh that was a wonderful post, very informative, for those that can-will absorb it. M_P the majority of the country ,is very glad your opinion is in the minority.
Jaycee upset yes, very. Upset enough to kill someone for a boat, no.
You would have powers of arrest. You also are protected from civil or criminal repercussions if you use only the amount of force necessary to make that arrest.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
I'm not clear on how you arrive at the idea this is proportional.Quote:
Originally Posted by M_P
Let's suppose I work 16 hours and, with the wages I earn, buy a television. And let's assume that I dislike my job so much, and my co-workers, that these hours of my life are utterly lost to me, and their only value is represented in that television.
Now let's suppose that a 20-year old man attempts to steal that television, and I shoot and kill him. Let's make the simplifying assumption that his life expectancy is 70 years, so 50 years of his life have been taken, or 438,000 hours. Since he spends a third of his life sleeping, we'll reduce that by one third. We'll also generously assume that, like you, he spends a further third of his time doing something he hates with people he hates. This leaves us with 146,000 hours taken away by you.
Do you really think a few hours of work on your part are somehow more valuable than an entire life?
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
and there it is !!Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
That's the core of the problem (and one that has been hashed over many times this forum) ...because those with a more Liberal leaning tend to think they should decide what is right and wrong for the rest of the population.
Over 50% of the US states don't belief that should be the case. The law in those states allows for those who don't agree with your thinking to defend their property. They've entrenched the right for everyone to be able to respond with what they deem to be appropriate force to protect their property. In a true democracy, especially one that expounds freedom, that is how the law should be written. Provide a legal option for both sided of the coin.
The person making that decision is the guy who arms himself and goes into someone home a 2:00 in the morning...Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh