Could Alberta Ever Get a Castle Law?

[phil98z24]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

According to the laws regarding citizens arrest- No if you see someone vandalizing a storefront as a common citizen it is unlawful to detain the person.

What they meant by risk being charged was basically that there are a few situations where that is legal but in the simple incident of you with no one around coming across someone defacing a storefront it is unlawful for you to detain them.

As the C.O.P group found out there were a plethora of situations where they’d be charged

Too many people that go vigilante without knowing the legal implications. Like that moron that chased down a would be car jacker and beat the guy with a bat.

Mischief under is actually hybrid and you can lawfully perform a citizens arrest for that.

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Mischief under is actually hybrid and you can lawfully perform a citizens arrest for that.

Fairly certain for the arrest to be lawfully in a hybrid crime the crime has to be chosen to be tried as indictable. If it isn’t then the citizens arrest is unlawful. Vandalism under $5000 as I understand unless under very specific circumstances is tried as a summary offense, therefore deeming your arrest unlawful and opening you up to being charged and/or sued.

Whether a citizens arrest is deemed unlawful at the time of the arrest or after the fact is irrelevant to you.

Point is Gestalt making the blanket claim that as a citizen you can detain anyone you see committing a crime is absolutely false.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Fairly certain for the arrest to be lawfully in a hybrid crime the crime has to be chosen to be tried as indictable. If it isn’t then the citizens arrest is unlawful. Vandalism under $5000 as I understand unless under very specific circumstances is tried as a summary offense, therefore deeming your arrest unlawful and opening you up to being charged and/or sued.

Whether a citizens arrest is deemed unlawful at the time of the arrest or after the fact is irrelevant to you.

Point is Gestalt making the blanket claim that as a citizen you can detain anyone you see committing a crime is absolutely false.

You are incorrect in your Dual/Hybrid offence assumptions and Gestalt is incorrect that 100% of offences in the CCC are arrestable by mere citizens.

Again, it is NOT up to you as a citizen to determine "hey this dude is causing wilful damage and its a dual offence, but I believe that given this guys history it will be treated as indictable, therefore I have the power to arrest".

You see crime - even to someone else's property - in many cases (not all) you have the powers of arrest.

[phil98z24]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Fairly certain for the arrest to be lawfully in a hybrid crime the crime has to be chosen to be tried as indictable. If it isn’t then the citizens arrest is unlawful. Vandalism under $5000 as I understand unless under very specific circumstances is tried as a summary offense, therefore deeming your arrest unlawful and opening you up to being charged and/or sued.

Whether a citizens arrest is deemed unlawful at the time of the arrest or after the fact is irrelevant to you.

Point is Gestalt making the blanket claim that as a citizen you can detain anyone you see committing a crime is absolutely false.

I agree that not every crime is something anyone can arrest for. Hell, the police can’t arrest people for every crime unless there are very specific criteria met.

However, the choice of how a hybrid offence is tried has no bearing on arrest powers. If it did, not only would it make it impossible for people who aren’t the police to make arrests, but also make it incredibly difficult for police to make arrests because summary offences must be found committing. The law is set up that way to allow people who aren’t law enforcement to detain people they find committing common and serious crimes, and protect them from liability.

[phil98z24]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You are incorrect in your Dual/Hybrid offence assumptions and Gestalt is incorrect that 100% of offences in the CCC are arrestable by mere citizens.

Again, it is NOT up to you as a citizen to determine "hey this dude is causing wilful damage and its a dual offence, but I believe that given this guys history it will be treated as indictable, therefore I have the power to arrest".

You see crime - even to someone else's property - in many cases (not all) you have the powers of arrest.

All of this. It would be impractical and quite frankly, completely unreasonable to put citizens into a position of liability when helping enforce the law in very common crimes that include anything from property damage all the way up to someone trying to kill someone else.

It’s all good. Unless a person were to do something egregious, I highly doubt much would come of it, if at all. The law actually does a pretty damn good job protecting people from doing what some may consider a civic duty, or in some cases, their job as a peace officer, etc, where they don’t have full arrest powers but often find themselves exposed to such situations.

[e31]

Thinking to myself the other day about a "Castle Law" in the most literal sense. After 10 mins of researching it turns out that fortified buildings are illegal too; but I would imagine that prosecutors would be slightly less dickish about building codes than firearms related violations. What's reinforcing my doors is of no concern to anyone.

The City should be alright with allowing me to cower behind my drawbridge and moat right?

The general takeaway here is that unsafe communities and a concerned population are good for business (if you're a bureaucrat).

[soloracer]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What you’re getting at is based on outdated pseudo science though.

Studies on feral dogs have shown repeatedly dogs don’t form cohesive packs like wolves.

Breeding practices over 10,000+ years have been focused around the single premise of selectively breeding out aggressive behavioural traits towards humans.

What I meant about being more likely to be in court fighting a euthanisia is that to have an effective gaurd dog you need to train aggression towards humans, it doesn’t come naturally unless your dog is unbalanced/fearful. If you do so you have a higher chance of your dog biting a kid (for example) than you ever would having it defending your house in the extremely low chance that you have an aggressive intruder.

I am sure this dog must have been "trained" then.....

http://people.com/crime/dog-shot-saved-owner-burglary/

[gwill]

the rcmp held a town hall meeting near biggar sask for home owners to ask questions on what is allowed and what isnt. They refused to answer if warning shots were allowed to be fired as there are way too many variables to that question.

Meeting got super heated when the rcmp told home owners to call them if there is any issues.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

the rcmp held a town hall meeting near biggar sask for home owners to ask questions on what is allowed and what isnt. They refused to answer if warning shots were allowed to be fired as there are way too many variables to that question.

Meeting got super heated when the rcmp told home owners to call them if there is any issues.

They arent wrong about the gray areas of the law - thats what law enforcement in Canada is all about. You need to be very specific when asking questions and then you might get specific answers. The case of the occupant in Ontario whose house was being fire bombed comes to mind - he shot warning shots and was still charged with a garden variety of weapons offences (as would be expected).

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They refused to answer if warning shots were allowed to be fired as there are way too many variables to that question.

I think the standard answer to this is that if you are firing a gun, it better be to stop the threat to you (reactive). Being proactive probably is a poor choice in the eyes of the law. The government needs its citizens to rely on them.

[Kloubek]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I am sure this dog must have been "trained" then.....

http://people.com/crime/dog-shot-saved-owner-burglary/

Oh, I just dropped my conversation with him. Accounts of such are plentiful, but according to him, you need to train a dog to protect because it doesn't care about protecting it's family. Bullshit.

Anyway, I think we can see that when it comes to what you can or cannot do in regards to a crime, it's pretty grey and hard to know the details so maybe it's a better idea just to let the cops handle it; I imagine they'd suggest the same. On the other hand, I think we've established here that we DO already have a castle law of sorts in place, whereby you can defend yourself in your home if required. As I said, I'm fine with the law being complex and purposely ambiguous. It probably protects people from trying to act like heroes because they don't know if they are lawfully allowed to, and it keeps drunk or drugged up people from getting killed because they were under the influence and did something stupid. Heck - Robert Downey Jr. walked into someone's house under the influence. Good thing he wasn't killed or we would have lost another mediocre actor.

At the end of the day, we don't live in America. There are seldom home invasions unless you are a target of your own doing. We don't have such intense crime problems (generally speaking) that we are likely ever face a life-and-death situation due to someone else. If your life isn't in danger and you question to yourself if what you are doing is lawful, you are probably better off not doing it.

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I am sure this dog must have been "trained" then.....

http://people.com/crime/dog-shot-saved-owner-burglary/

I think we are defining “gaurd dog” differently is the problem.

A guard dog in my eyes would be to keep people out and would act aggressively against anyone it didn’t know in its yard/house. If you’re dogs doing this and you haven’t intentionally trained it you’ve got a problem.

[killramos]

Plenty of dog breeds naturally dislike new people and are territorial.

German Shepard Dogs are one such breed off the top of my head. Just having one in the home and they instinctually protect their space and their people.

Now reliably predicting exactly what that dog will do and being able to control it? Different story.

[ZenOps]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/case-s...imes-1.1539046

Its worth noting that you are not allowed to shoot a gun over the heads of people fishing on your land in your private fishing pond (if there is such a thing, which technically in Canada there is not) One guy did, and got a year in jail.

R v. Frank Meszaros Yes, that's the law.

This is a gigantic reason why Billionaires do not put doomsday bunkers in Canada, your rights to defend property are less than zero.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/case-s...imes-1.1539046

Its worth noting that you are not allowed to shoot a gun over the heads of people fishing on your land in your private fishing pond (if there is such a thing, which technically in Canada there is not) One guy did, and got a year in jail.

R v. Frank Meszaros Yes, that's the law.

This is a gigantic reason why Billionaires do not put doomsday bunkers in Canada, your rights to defend property are less than zero.

Confirmed legit zenflops post. Meds kicked in yo.

[Kloubek]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think we are defining “gaurd dog” differently is the problem.

A guard dog in my eyes would be to keep people out and would act aggressively against anyone it didn’t know in its yard/house. If you’re dogs doing this and you haven’t intentionally trained it you’ve got a problem.

Ok - but that wasn't the context in which we were talking about, was it? You're backtracking and changing the scenario. We were talking about castle law, and whether or not a dog would do anything if someone broke in to protect it's family.

What you are (now) talking about is dog that would defend the property as opposed to the owners, and that's an entirely different scenario. I would tend to agree with you in this case, but it's not quite that black and white.

I probably shouldn't say this publicly, but I'll let you know exactly how it would go at my house if someone broke in and we weren't home,
or he didn't perceive us as being in danger. (Note: I have several redundant layers of security at my place, which is the only reason I feel comfortable revealing this, so if anyone is thinking this is an invitation to bypass my security, you'd be sorely mistaken). I do this to show you how a dog *might* react to a situation, even though they are not trained as a guard dog.

First, the our dog would probably take his time to come downstairs as he tends to be rather unmotivated and is quite a horrible "alarm dog". He doesn't bark, and he doesn't give warning. This means the intruders will be deep in the house by the time he comes down. What happens at this point is up to the intruder, since my dog (and I suspect most) is very perceptive to "energy" and body language.

If the intruder were to have wide eyes, freeze, and act scared or like they aren't SUPPOSED to be there, my dog would run at them and jump at them when he gets there. At this point, he's not attacking... he's really just excited from the difference in energy and this is how I play with him. If the person runs, my dog would interpret that as play and probably run beside him outside - possibly jumping up a little from the excitement.

If the person was perfectly calm with a smile on their face, bent down and acted all nice to him, he'd give the intruder a lick on their throat and wag his tail, and then lead him around the house and point out the most expensive stuff we have to steal.

If the intruder decided to fight him, he'd realize from the first strike he was in a fight and you better make it a good one, as he naturally goes for the right hand first, for some reason. (I didn't train this whatsoever. He just does) And believe me - if he get a hold of it, you aren't going to be using again any time soon - if ever again. The Pitbull's clamping force is unreal and he destroys Kong products like they were a Dollarama squeaky toy.

So while my dog is a horrible guard dog in the stereotypical sense, whereby he doesn't give two shits about our house itself, he will absolutely defend himself and his family against a threat. And in the context of this entire thread, that's exactly what I would want him to do. I don't WANT to train him to be a guard dog or to train aggression into him - which is what you are talking about. You don't have to. A dog's devotion to its family is an inherent part of it's nature... whether or we agree on a pack structure or not. How a dog might react to any given situation largely depends on the dog.

[Buster]

Interesting thread - I find it odd how often people are impractical about these decisions. I guess I'm fortunate that almost everyone I am likely to encounter in a conflict situation has less to lose than I do. Do I get into road rage battles in my car? Hell no. I don't want my nice car damaged by your shitty car. Do I want to assault your sketchy drug addicted ass because you are stealing shit from my garage? Hell no. The perp dies, who the fuck cares? I die or am injured? That's a big loss of future potential and enjoyment for me, vs your shitty petty-crime pointless existence. It's like conflict resolution through snobbery. People are so poor (in general) at being able to identify non-proportional outcomes.

It's like the S-class phenomenon. Do you think that person in the s-class is going to try to beat you to the parking spot at the mall? Hell no. "Please take that spot. It's fine. My life is clearly going better than yours, and such minor squabbles are best left for the plebs."

[Kloubek]

Where's the like button? I love the S-class analogy Buster. True enough - those who have made something of themselves have less to prove, but not always. Sometimes it turns out that guy with the S-Class is in debt to his eyeballs because he wanted to create the PERCEPTION he made it. In fact, I'd figure many are in this category...

[Kloubek]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Mischief under is actually hybrid and you can lawfully perform a citizens arrest for that.

So Phil, I know this might be a little scenario-driven and unclear in the law, but can you please provide insight if you can as to my assumption that if you place someone under a citizen's arrest that the mere act of avoiding that arrest is a crime in itself, and as such you are "allowed" to use whatever force is required within reason to restrain that individual?

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So Phil, I know this might be a little scenario-driven and unclear in the law, but can you please provide insight if you can as to my assumption that if you place someone under a citizen's arrest that the mere act of avoiding that arrest is a crime in itself, and as such you are "allowed" to use whatever force is required within reason to restrain that individual?

Not "whatever" level of force, but equal level.