.
Registered User
.
Registered User
I'm pretty sure that's not the case, but perhaps it is in the term "brandish". As far as I know, it's not illegal to carry a rifle in Canada. I *believe* one can actually walk right down the street with one. (If this is incorrect, someone please direct me to the actual written law). It's just when you point the weapon at someone, perhaps THAT is considered brandishing. But at the end of the day, it's your word against the criminal so I wouldn't be too concerned.Originally Posted by Gestalt
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
The law is purposely ambiguous, but unfortunately that ambiguity is what confuses the public and makes them worried they will be charged if they do something it turns out they weren't supposed to. But here's a fact: The law allows you to use as much force as is necessary to protect yourself. This means if someone breaks into your house, it's dark and you can't see much, if you shoot them you just say you were scared for your life and thought they might have a weapon, and you will not be convicted. So many people think that you aren't allowed to do that here, and that simply isn't the case. If, however, they can prove that you were not in fear for your life THEN you will get in trouble. The law was not written with the intention of keeping people from doing what they had to do... instead, it was written to ensure people didn't do what they DIDN'T have to do.
The remaining problem, however, is that the police may still charge you. Now, that might not seem like a big deal if you are going to be let off, but that doesn't mean you won't be responsible for paying for your defense - which can cost a shit ton of money.
At the end of the day, you do what you NEED to do. This doesn't mean going hog-wild on someone's head with a baseball bat if they are breaking into your car, and it doesn't mean shooting someone in the back when he bolts from your house in the middle of the night. But it DOES mean using whatever force is required to keep yourself safe.
And honestly, as much as I'm keen on defending my home, myself, and my family, I think I might have difficulty living with myself if I took someone's life simply because I was pissed they broke into my car or stole the empties from the side of my house.
I had this exact conversation with a cop who was attending a community association meeting when I lived in Calgary. He stated that contrary to belief, if you feel threatened you "open up on that motherf*er". (His exact words).
One last thing, but don't quote me: You are also allowed to use whatever force is required to stop a crime from being committed. And we are all capable and empowered by law of making a citizens arrest when necessary, and fleeing that arrest is a crime. Therefore (in my logic), if you DO find someone breaking into your car you can place them under citizens arrest. If they flee, they are no longer breaking into your car but they ARE committing a crime by fleeing your arrest. Therefore, logic dictates you can do whatever is necessary to keep them from fleeing; of course, if it is not deemed excessive.
Something to think about.
A dog is, by nature, a pack animal and will protect the pack if it feels it can. You don't need to train a dog to be a guard dog, and I feel that ones that ARE trained to be a guard dog are generally more aggressive than those which were not. I can guarantee that if someone broke in to my house they'd require hospitalization the moment my dog viewed him as a threat, and yet my dog is the sweetest animal around humans anyone could hope for. But if that did happen, I'm pretty sure the courts would be pretty forgiving. I'd like to see a single Canadian case where a dog bit an intruder and was euthanized for it.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Last edited by Kloubek; 02-28-2018 at 03:46 PM.
Registered User
Im not talking about some acreage 5 steps from Okotoks, im talking about a house on a 1/4 section of land with no neighbors visible.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
If someone is shooting people in a place like that (where many others heard) then the cops should be pretty close and thats not really a rural area then in my books.
Last edited by revelations; 02-28-2018 at 04:07 PM.
Registered User
I don't think it would happen.
But I would support the law only with the condition that if you shoot the intruders, it has to be mandatory that one of the bullets has to be in their ass and you have to hog tie them whilst waiting for the police to arrive.
Registered User
Dogs are a possibility, but in order to be effective, you need the right kind of dog. This costs a ton of $ in terms of breed, training ($$$$), and long term costs like food and health care ($$$$$$$). My company got into the "tactical canine" business in Afghanistan, you're looking at tens of thousands to purchase, train, and keep just a single dog on hand. You can "self train" your dog, but it'll never be up to snuff to truly secure your property, plus if such a poorly trained dog bites and nomnomnoms someone, and it turns out you didn't have it trained by a pro, hello large lawsuit, even with a trespasser. Having a dog take down a threat is one thing, begin able to call him off is completely another. This needs to be considered for civilians using furcoat razerblades for defense tools.
I don't discount recommending dogs, I'd have at least one or two myself if I was on a rural property far from L/E support, but these days $ is tight, and they do cost - a lot. A lot more than other defensive options, by far.
What Revelations is suggesting is what it could come to, a combination of massive crime rates, low RCMP numbers per zone on patrol, and a very angry and frustrated group of victims who are getting nothing but BS from their government. "We're putting lots of $ into L/E and prevention and will release the plans in a few weeks". Bahahaha. Good one.
Last edited by Gman.45; 02-28-2018 at 04:45 PM.
Registered User
Shut the fuck up, loser.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show QuoteEveryone here knows you like to talk big but you'd never have the balls to say it anywhere else.
You're far from shooting someone and burying a body, big man. Why don't you take your big talk and slink back where you crawled out from?
Registered User
No. That’s up to the feds, for one thing, and the right of people to defend their property doesn’t supersede the inherent unreasonableness of using lethal or serious force to do so. Castle law isn’t even a given in a lot of states and even in those where it exists, it’s still not exactly cut and dry.
Our laws with respect to use of force are sufficient, and IMO like anything else it’s up to people to understand and apply it properly. Further to that, the courts and system respect that people don’t necessarily know that and are put into some awful situations, so they also use reasonable tests when comparing a citizens use of force to say, the police or a member of the military, where it’s about being put in the same situation and what another person with the same training, knowledge, skill, etc, would do.
Just can’t see it happening.
---------------------------------------------------
Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.
Registered User
What you’re getting at is based on outdated pseudo science though.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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.
Registered User
Why would a guard dog be in your house. Shit my country family barely let their pet dogs in the house.
Registered User
Property, point still stands lol.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Registered User
The only gripe with the laws is how many variables there are Or how everyone interprets the laws differently. Rob Breckenridge had a lawyer on his show that showed a perfect example of the laws being dealt with differently. This lawyer quoted a case out of Ontario where a farmer got a year in jail for shooting warning shots over some thieves heads but at a recent trial in sask for Gerald Stanley the judge said it was reasonable for Stanley to shoot a few warning shots off.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show QuoteNo. That’s up to the feds, for one thing, and the right of people to defend their property doesn’t supersede the inherent unreasonableness of using lethal or serious force to do so. Castle law isn’t even a given in a lot of states and even in those where it exists, it’s still not exactly cut and dry.
Our laws with respect to use of force are sufficient, and IMO like anything else it’s up to people to understand and apply it properly. Further to that, the courts and system respect that people don’t necessarily know that and are put into some awful situations, so they also use reasonable tests when comparing a citizens use of force to say, the police or a member of the military, where it’s about being put in the same situation and what another person with the same training, knowledge, skill, etc, would do.
Just can’t see it happening.
For the most part I think the laws are good. We dont need people blasting off guns at every stranger near their house..
The shoot first mentality shared by many online is disturbing.
Registered User
no responsible gun owner would give a stupid response like that.... they should take away the pal of any idiot who thinks it's open season on a thief.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show QuoteShut the fuck up, loser.
You're far from shooting someone and burying a body, big man. Why don't you take your big talk and slink back where you crawled out from?
The lack of respect to our gun laws or self defence laws is disturbing. Or perhaps people are so dumb they don't know the rules of engagement.....
Most here probably don't own many guns to begin with.
Registered User
No kidding. But I think it’s lack of understanding/ignorance.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
If you could callously whip out a gun and shoot another human without a second thought or remorse regardless of the situation you’d be a psychopath.
Last edited by J-hop; 02-28-2018 at 08:44 PM.
Registered User
Phil said it perfectly when he said people really need to understand the law and understand your rights. Most are too ignorant to bother with that...This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I agree someone must have serious issues if they get so emotional over another person being arrested that they say they'll shoot any thief.
Registered User
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show QuoteI think that's overthinking it a bit. He just didn't like that he got called out but that's what happens when you say stupid shit.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Seth stopped by to show us he's a big man but statistically he's got a lesser chance of shooting/burying a thief than finding his own testicles.
Stay tuned as I'm sure he'll be back to regale us with more tales of the things he's too big of a pussy to actually do.
Registered User
Serious question, my wife is tiny, <5'This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show QuoteNo. That’s up to the feds, for one thing, and the right of people to defend their property doesn’t supersede the inherent unreasonableness of using lethal or serious force to do so. Castle law isn’t even a given in a lot of states and even in those where it exists, it’s still not exactly cut and dry.
Our laws with respect to use of force are sufficient, and IMO like anything else it’s up to people to understand and apply it properly. Further to that, the courts and system respect that people don’t necessarily know that and are put into some awful situations, so they also use reasonable tests when comparing a citizens use of force to say, the police or a member of the military, where it’s about being put in the same situation and what another person with the same training, knowledge, skill, etc, would do.
Just can’t see it happening.
If someone like 6'3" broke into our house, what could she use to defend herself that wouldn't put her in jail?
Sig nuked by mod.
Registered User
Does it really matter about size? Though visually more imposing, an experienced fighter at 5'10 would kick his ass.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
It not about what she could use. Its about the situation. Did he advance on her and give her no choice in fear of her life? Then she could take him out with whatever she pleases.
Did he walk in the door, see someone then turn around to leave? Probably couldnt use a nerf gun without it potentially being considered assault.
All you need to do is justify the force used. (And convince the court of that justification).
As for the "dogs not being a pack animal", Shop, that simply not true. Abandoned dogs roam the streets in packs all the time around the world. Dogs have been known to attack in packs. And the alpha/beta hierarchy followed by dogs has absolutely been proven.
And if you think my dog wouldnt protect us in the event someone came in and attacked my family, you are woefully mistaken. Accounts of dogs defending their families are so countless its laughable anyone would suggest otherwise. Yes I agree its out of fear, but that fear is a result of the dog being afraid for the safety of itself and its family.
Registered User
A lot to discuss there but no, alpha theory in dogs has long since been discredited. Dominance theory, alpha mentality (gotta love owners that still alpha roll their dogs), positive punishment actually never had any scientific basis and is currently only taught by non-certified trainers. CCPDT is the only recognized ‘governing’ body for trainers in North America and if you teach that nonsense you can’t be certified by them as only science based methods can be taught.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
A lot of the dominance ideas were based on analogs to wolves which was mostly from work done by David Mech. David later recanted a good chunk of his work because his ideas around dominance theory were based on data collected in a highly unnatural environment (captive wolves in close quarters) and actually opposed what has been more recently studied in nature. Drawing analogs from wolves is also not even an appropriate thing to do anyways.
Dogs don’t form cohesive packs like wolves do, read up on it a bit. The packs you would see in say Mexico are extremely disjointed and would resemble something closer to a Black Friday shopper mob than a wolf pack.
It’s actually pretty interesting when you start looking at the differences between current canids. Wolves, dogs and coyotes are all extremely different socially.
Anyways enough on the tangent, what about them thar gunz!!!
Last edited by J-hop; 03-01-2018 at 01:30 AM.
Registered User
Agreed, but what happens is that the "thief" ends up not being a threat to just the property he's after once he's confronted by the property or home owner. Obviously engaging someone with possibly lethal fire over a stolen flatscreen is ridiculous, but when that threat is in your home or property, typically on drugs or in withdrawal(even more dangerous), the potential for violence against those in the home increases incredibly.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show QuoteNo. That’s up to the feds, for one thing, and the right of people to defend their property doesn’t supersede the inherent unreasonableness of using lethal or serious force to do so. Castle law isn’t even a given in a lot of states and even in those where it exists, it’s still not exactly cut and dry.
Our laws with respect to use of force are sufficient, and IMO like anything else it’s up to people to understand and apply it properly. Further to that, the courts and system respect that people don’t necessarily know that and are put into some awful situations, so they also use reasonable tests when comparing a citizens use of force to say, the police or a member of the military, where it’s about being put in the same situation and what another person with the same training, knowledge, skill, etc, would do.
Just can’t see it happening.
Put it to you this way - L/E in Canada uses car blockades all the time and has stitched up the occupants of the vehicle as it comes towards it - how is that different than stitching up a threat in your home if he moves towards you in any way? Yes, backshooting threats over property is not in the use of force tree, nor should it be, but any threatening moves or refusals to leave or any verbal threats of violence used against you, we should be able to engage under the exact same criteria L/E has used in the past, particularly in a low light condition engagement where you can't see if the threat in your home has a weapon unless by the chance the lights are turned on or you have skill in using lights in a CQB situation.
Registered User
http://thestarphoenix.com/news/crime...duplex-policexThis quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Size makes no matter. The last thing you will be doing at 3am is trying to measure someone in the house in the dark.
If you as a woman are alone in a dwelling, you have the right, and (most importantly) backing case law, to use deadly force against an intruder. Obviously shooting them in the back isnt what you want though - but basic weapons training is a good thing too.
Posting Permissions
Quote
