• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
177
Points
680
Jarnhamar said:
If someone was in my house at 3am and they're obviously not in duress I wouldn't care.  Stealing a playstation can escalate to assault, rape or murder pretty quick. My families well being is worth more than someones sob story or drug habit.

And I agree that we should have the right to use deadly force to protect our families, but if I switch the light on, and see the guy walking through my living room, I'd give him the chance to leave peacefully instead of just shooting him. If he starts walking away peacefully, but is still holding my TV/Playstation/Box of jewellery, again, I'm not going to shoot him.
 

Rick Goebel

Member
Donor
Reaction score
7
Points
230
SeaKingTacco said:
Nope. In Canada, you may not use deadly force to protect property. If you injure or kill someone who is breaking into your house, you had better be able to convince the investigating police force and the local crown attorney that you feared for your own life and the life of you family members, or you are most likely going going to court and maybe to jail. You may even get sued by the perp. As was noted upthread, that threat has to immiment- if the bad guy starts to run away, carrying your tv, you cannot shoot him in the back. You are no longer at risk of bodily harm or death, when he is running.

That is my understanding of how the CCC is currently written. I await correction by FJAG!

I think that the jury is important to, at least in Calgary in the 80s:

"In April, druggist Steven Kesler sold his pharmacy in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Recently described by the Calgary Herald as "a legend in the area for nearly 20 years," Kesler had become nationally renowned in the wake of an attempted robbery of the pharmacy in November 1986, the third such attempt that year.

Two masked men entered the drugstore shortly before 3 p.m. on November 8, 1986. One, armed with a gun, went to the back of the store where Kesler's wife Mary (also a pharmacist) was dispensing drugs. The other man, Timothy David Smith, confronted Kesler at the front counter, whereupon Kesler grabbed a shotgun, chased Smith out of the establishment and down the street, and fired a single blast that found its mark. Smith fell to the ground unconscious, still clutching the $115 he had taken. He later died at a local hospital.

Kesler returned to the store, where he exchanged gunfire with the second suspect. Neither man was injured during the shootout, but when the robber ran to his car in an escape attempt, Kesler followed and began pummeling him with the shotgun. Police soon arrived and carted the battered felon to jail.

Kesler was charged with second-degree murder for killing one of the robbers. But he received tremendous public support (more than $35,000 was raised to help pay his legal bills) and was acquitted by a jury. Four hours after the verdict he was back at work in the pharmacy, where a ragged hole made by a shotgun blast adorns a wall to this day."

The quote is from https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Remembering+a+legend.-a0110620348.  Note that the man killed was "out of the establishment down the street".
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
294
Points
880
Rick Goebel said:
I think that the jury is important to, at least in Calgary in the 80s:

"In April, druggist Steven Kesler sold his pharmacy in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Recently described by the Calgary Herald as "a legend in the area for nearly 20 years," Kesler had become nationally renowned in the wake of an attempted robbery of the pharmacy in November 1986, the third such attempt that year.

Two masked men entered the drugstore shortly before 3 p.m. on November 8, 1986. One, armed with a gun, went to the back of the store where Kesler's wife Mary (also a pharmacist) was dispensing drugs. The other man, Timothy David Smith, confronted Kesler at the front counter, whereupon Kesler grabbed a shotgun, chased Smith out of the establishment and down the street, and fired a single blast that found its mark. Smith fell to the ground unconscious, still clutching the $115 he had taken. He later died at a local hospital.

Kesler returned to the store, where he exchanged gunfire with the second suspect. Neither man was injured during the shootout, but when the robber ran to his car in an escape attempt, Kesler followed and began pummeling him with the shotgun. Police soon arrived and carted the battered felon to jail.

Kesler was charged with second-degree murder for killing one of the robbers. But he received tremendous public support (more than $35,000 was raised to help pay his legal bills) and was acquitted by a jury. Four hours after the verdict he was back at work in the pharmacy, where a ragged hole made by a shotgun blast adorns a wall to this day."

The quote is from https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Remembering+a+legend.-a0110620348.  Note that the man killed was "out of the establishment down the street".

Yes and in a different province or time he could very well have gone to jail, not to mention a very large legal bill.
 

Rocky Mountains

Full Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
Defense of Person
    34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
        (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
        (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
        (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
Factors
    (2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
        (a) the nature of the force or threat;
        (b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
        (c) the person’s role in the incident;
        (d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
        (e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
        (f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
        (f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
        (g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and
        (h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
No defence
    (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

Defence of Property
    35 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
        (a) they either believe on reasonable grounds that they are in peaceable possession of property or are acting under the authority of, or lawfully assisting, a person whom they believe on reasonable grounds is in peaceable possession of property;
        (b) they believe on reasonable grounds that another person
            (i)is entering or has entered the property without being entitled by law to do so,
            (ii) is about to take the property, is doing so or has just done so, or
            (iii) is about to damage or destroy the property, or make it inoperative, or is doing so;
        (c) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of
            (i) preventing the other person from entering the property, or removing that person from the property, or
            (ii) preventing the other person from taking, damaging or destroying the property or from making it inoperative, or retaking the property from that person; and
        (d) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
No defence
    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person who believes on reasonable grounds that they are, or who is believed on reasonable grounds to be, in peaceable possession of the property does not have a claim of right to it and the other person is entitled to its possession by law.
No defence
    (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the other person is doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

You can apply self defense to counter force or threat of force.  It's pretty straight forward.  That's why, after everyone charged goes through punishment by process, they have been found not guilty.  You can use force to defend property but the bugaboo "reasonable in the circumstance" will likely bite you in the ass.  Putting a 9mm hole in someone for stealing your tv is likely excessive, although for stealing $100,000 in gold might not be but I wouldn't count on it.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,694
Points
1,060
Lumber said:
And I agree that we should have the right to use deadly force to protect our families, but if I switch the light on, and see the guy walking through my living room, I'd give him the chance to leave peacefully instead of just shooting him. If he starts walking away peacefully, but is still holding my TV/Playstation/Box of jewellery, again, I'm not going to shoot him.

If you have a gun why wouldn't you at least try to detain him at gun point and call the police so he doesn't go on to rob or assault someone else?


 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
177
Points
680
Jarnhamar said:
If you have a gun why wouldn't you at least try to detain him at gun point and call the police so he doesn't go on to rob or assault someone else?

Yea, I could try that, but if he ignores me and keeps walking away, I'm not going to shoot him.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,763
Points
1,060
Jarnhamar said:
If you have a gun why wouldn't you at least try to detain him at gun point and call the police so he doesn't go on to rob or assault someone else?
The problem being is that if he's not armed or a deadly force threat, you've now used a deadly force threat to apprehend. If you pull a gun on a fist fight, unless the guy is way bigger than you, I'm willing to bet you'd be in the wrong.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,694
Points
1,060
Lumber said:
Yea, I could try that, but if he ignores me and keeps walking away, I'm not going to shoot him.

Are you thinking some of us are going to champion putting shotgun slugs in someones back for taking a video game? I'm going to guess if we go back over the last 3746 posts in this thread we won't find anyone saying this is an okay thing to do in Canada.

PuckChaser said:
The problem being is that if he's not armed or a deadly force threat, you've now used a deadly force threat to apprehend. If you pull a gun on a fist fight, unless the guy is way bigger than you, I'm willing to bet you'd be in the wrong.

Possible. Pulled this up quick.
Preventing assault.
The crown has the burden of disproving at least one of the elements of the defense beyond a reasonable doubt:
[1]force was for the purpose of preventing an assault on self or person under his protection.
[2]no more force than necessary to prevent assault or repetition having regard to the nature of assault to be prevented
[3]the force was proportionate to the danger threatened.
I'm not a lawyer but I think I could make a good argument that someone who went to the length of breaking into your house could very well be armed and a threat.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
177
Points
680
Jarnhamar said:
Are you thinking some of us are going to champion putting shotgun slugs in someones back for taking a video game?

No no no; god no! I think we're trailing off from the original point, which was simply a question on my part: 1. In Canada, no deadly force to protect property; in America, Yippee ki-yay, touch my property and I have the right to blow your head off. Is this correct? And I was just saying that I agree with Canada's take on it. I'm not using force that's strong enough to take someone else's life unless my life (or my families) is legitimately in danger.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
731
Points
1,060
Jarnhamar said:
If someone was in my house at 3am and they're obviously not in duress I wouldn't care.  Stealing a playstation can escalate to assault, rape or murder pretty quick. My families well being is worth more than someones sob story or drug habit.

This! You're not going to have much time or space inside your house to make this decision. To me the intruder has already proven their bad intentions.

 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
731
Points
1,060
Lumber said:
I'm not disagreeing that this situation seems unjust and that there appears to be details missing.

However, what I'm asking is:

1. When the police laid these charges, did they consciously apply an official policy/strategy developed between law enforcement and the Crown Attorneys' Office to hammer people involved in gun related crimes with the goal of causing so much duress that the accused caves and signs whatever plea bargain the Crown wants; or
2. When the police laid these charges, did they simply apply existing legislation, precedent, and law enforcement policy that perhaps states that when there is evidence of weapons involvement in a crime, they must apply all charges that could possibly be derived from the facts of their investigation.

Re-reading what I just wrote, I realize the difference is small, but it's a matter of motive. In situation 1, the policy and crown attorneys are demonstrating malice toward gun owners, and in the other, they are simply doing their jobs as police officers.

I ask, because the last few posts in this thread imply that malice is exactly what the police are demonstrating, and I'm not denying it, I'm simply asking for non-anecdotal proof.

I feel like if there is no official written policy to do what everyone is implying is being done, then someone at the shitty end of this stick would have had grounds at some point to put forward a charter challenge and stop this un-sanctioned practice.

In my experience the police/crown throw everything at you and hope it sticks whether you are in fact guilty or not. it's up to you to present your defence
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,880
Points
1,160
There will be no written policy to that effect, but "verbal" instructions. The Ian Thompson case shows this effect in action, as well as the individual charged with careless storage after it took thieves 3 days to jackhammer into his vault. Then there was the Silvercore firearms school fiasco, although I expect that was more personal vendetta by certain individuals in positions authority. I got to read the FOI results from the RCMP and CBSA about the seizure of firearms coming into the country with a permit for resale. To be fair CBSA handed over documents that made them look bad, the RCMP blanked out anything that would make them look bad.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
177
Points
680
suffolkowner said:
This! You're not going to have much time or space inside your house to make this decision. To me the intruder has already proven their bad intentions.

So, if you heard a noise, came downstairs with your gun, and saw a figure moving in the dark, you'd just shoot them without warning?

Hope that isn't your daughter's boyfriend trying to sneak out...
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,694
Points
1,060
Lumber said:
So, if you heard a noise, came downstairs with your gun, and saw a figure moving in the dark, you'd just shoot them without warning?

Hope that isn't your daughter's boyfriend trying to sneak out...

If I heard a noise I'd just shoot through the door, or the floor, in the general direction of the sound. Then I'd grab a beer drink it and crush the empty can against  my forehead. 
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,880
Points
1,160
Lumber said:
So, if you heard a noise, came downstairs with your gun, and saw a figure moving in the dark, you'd just shoot them without warning?

Hope that isn't your daughter's boyfriend trying to sneak out...

Police did a “no knock” raid on a house in Alberta, the guy was involved at some level in the drug trade (pot as I recall), when they were breaking in, he told his wife to call 911, a plainsclothes officer came into the room and the homeowner shot him dead. The police charged him with murder, he claimed self-defence, believing it was his drug rivals and that the police were not clearly identified as such. The murder charge was struck down and the court accepted the individual acted in self-defence
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
961
Points
1,060
Same thing happened in Montreal, IIRC. No knock warrant, police didn't self identify, home owner shot and killed one at his bedroom door. Fear for life, family, no escape, armed assailant, ruled justifiable.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
177
Points
680
recceguy said:
Same thing happened in Montreal, IIRC. No knock warrant, police didn't self identify, home owner shot and killed one at his bedroom door. Fear for life, family, no escape, armed assailant, ruled justifiable.

I don't see anything wrong with this and am happy that in both cases they didn't get charged with murder.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,694
Points
1,060
I'm trying to apply for this job with the RCMP, just having a bit of difficulty finding the actual apply button. Maybe that's a sign  [:-[

http://calibremag.ca/rcmp-hiring-internet-firearms-investigator/
RCMP HIRING: “INTERNET FIREARMS INVESTIGATOR”


 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,688
Points
1,140
Jarnhamar said:
I'm trying to apply for this job with the RCMP, just having a bit of difficulty finding the actual apply button. Maybe that's a sign  [:-[

http://calibremag.ca/rcmp-hiring-internet-firearms-investigator/
RCMP HIRING: “INTERNET FIREARMS INVESTIGATOR”

Looks like it may be an internal to the public service posting.  Try searching from a DWAN terminal.  And if that doesn't work it's likely because the unit has already flagged your IP address and blocked you from applying.

Don't feel paranoid, though.... it's all legit. :Tin-Foil-Hat:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top