A few self-defense questions

[Shibumi 2]

Yoda you are 100% wrong. In Canada the Supreme Court has already ruled that you have the Common Law Right of Self Defense and even have the Right To use a concealed weapon for that purpose. But it better be real self defense, because you will be charged. The Supreme Court actually cited this right under the Magna Carta. So yes the Magna Carta is still in force in Canada as well. If you want to read the transcripts of trial in 2004, I saved them.

The problem with this is that you will be put on trial (by the police and the Crown Attorney) and if it is <u>deemed</u> (by people who sit in judgment without any way of knowing the reality of the situation) that you used "excessive force" then you will be charged with a crime.

If the intruder has a bat or a club and you shoot them you have used excessive force. A gun does not equal a bat and you will have to account for every <u>split</u> second of what took place and related moment by moment movements, communication both verbal and body language, tell your own thoughts and justifications for those thoughts moment to moment and speculate on the motives of the intruder (who's motives will be defended by your potential accusers) and what that person <u>may</u> really have been up to which may not be anything akin to what the potential victim thought!


It is a stacked deck and it is heavily in favour of the perpetrator.

Sorry but the example of a bat wielding intruder being shot is not automatically deemed excessive force. You might have a hard time explaining away how you had a loaded gun to shoot the intruder with but trust me...if he has a bat and you point a gun at him and he keeps coming you can shoot him.. I would suggest the double tap method. Also bear spray is legal in Canada. It just has a lower percentage of irritant in it than stuff I use at work.

[fourhorses]

Eowyn

be carried by six or be judged by twelve .....

[Godwin]

True enough Godwin. In any type of training , to maintain the leval of conditioning is of great importance. That would not matter if it be obedience , search and rescue or protection. By a 'manstopper' , are you meaning a killing dog, I was thinking more of a bite and hold dog , on command only.
My dog of choice is a Dutch Shepherd, then a Airdale then a Boxer. All proven working dogs, family dogs.
Finding a good breeder is the difficult part. A trainer, well there a alot of Schutzhund Clubs around these days.
Just my prefered method of personal protection is all. I will state , should anyone take to this , always put the bite suit on , or sleve and let a dog go at you. Just to know what it will feel like.

By manstopper I simply meant a dog with sufficient character and power to stay in a real fight with a man trying to hurt the dog to prevail and force the offender to surrender.


The DS is a a good working breed with good credentials in Holland. Perehaps too much dog for many people.

I a surprised that you think a perslon can expect to find decent quality workers in the other two breeds, And I don't agree that schuthund trained dogs or schutzhund clubs are the answer to personal protection.

I am also doubtful about your suggestion that people put on a sleeve, unless they are genuinely interested in training.


I agree a good and well trained dog is a significant asset but most people have neither the circumstances to house such a dog nor the personal abilities or commitment to live with and care for such a dog.

[canyadoit]

Godwin, in my way of thinking, schuthund is a way to be exposed to protection work , not the only way , nor the answer.
The DS is one hand full of a dog , but my fav. I also belive a good dog is were one finds it. Airdales I have seen working, hard hitters.

I also strongly belive , if one works a dog up for protection, one must know what the dog can do , thus puting on the sleeve. The raw power of the hit must be felt, to belived. To understand protection dog is not a game.

Most dogs are not tested in a 'real' fight with a human. After all most will not have thier dog beaten with a club with the intent to hurt the dog.

My DS was good with the light stick, but failed miserably when hit with a heavy club. All in all still a good dog, a natural knee dog. She would still fire up, place herself in 'harms way'. She did show her 'colors' in a real life situation.
I do strongly agree the dog is beyond most folks commitment. As it is shamefull to see how most dogs are not even had work to obey simple commands.....
As I stated, my personal preferance.
If I may ask, what dog do you have or prefer? You strike me as one who knows what they speak of. A pleasure to speak with you on this topic Thanks for the input.
With respect , mike

[Godwin]

Godwin, in my way of thinking, schuthund is a way to be exposed to protection work , not the only way , nor the answer.
The DS is one hand full of a dog , but my fav. I also belive a good dog is were one finds it. Airdales I have seen working, hard hitters.

I also strongly belive , if one works a dog up for protection, one must know what the dog can do , thus puting on the sleeve. The raw power of the hit must be felt, to belived. To understand protection dog is not a game.

Most dogs are not tested in a 'real' fight with a human. After all most will not have thier dog beaten with a club with the intent to hurt the dog.

My DS was good with the light stick, but failed miserably when hit with a heavy club. All in all still a good dog, a natural knee dog. She would still fire up, place herself in 'harms way'. She did show her 'colors' in a real life
situation.
I do strongly agree the dog is beyond most folks commitment. As it is shamefull to see how most dogs are not even had work to obey simplecommands.....
As I stated, my personal preference
If I may ask, what dog do you have or prefer? You strike me as one who knows what they speak of. A pleasure to speak with you on this topic Thanks for the input.
With respect , mike

Interesting conversation for me. Free dominion-- topics from Gods to dogs.

I think we we were coming at the topic a little differently. I was thinking of the person who wanted to buy a trained dog or a dog that someone would train for them. You were thinking more of a person becoming involved in the training and understanding the process. That's preferable but not always probable.

If you buy a trained dog thinking it is a manstopper when it is really just sleeve happy, trouble could await you.


I like Dutch shepherds out of dogs working in the dutch police dog program.

And Gsds from some French working lines. But these , like DS would be high energy dogs that have to be worked consistently. And neither would be good for a rank amateur.

Fora personal dog that is content with a lower activity level a good Rott is a nice dog. Finding one that had correct temperment and was not
an oversized tub of lard -- that's another question.

Cheers

[Edward Kennedy]

For a dog that is easily trained, affectionate and loyal, good with kids, and intelligent, a Bouvier has em all beat.

I had one from a pup, she would attack on voice or gesture command, but never exhibitted aggresive behaviors with children. Many nights I would be awakened by her getting up at intervals, and walking through the house room to room, checking on the children, then coming back to our bedroom.

She was one of the best dogs we ever had.

[free_life2]

The only bad guy to ever enter my property met my German Shepherd ......... the bad guy got 50 + stitches and my dog got 10 days impound....actually I broke him out 3 days early .......... shhhhhh no one is suppose to know.........

[Edward Kennedy]

The only bad guy to ever enter my property met my German Shepherd ......... the bad guy got 50 + stitches and my dog got 10 days impound....actually I broke him out 3 days early .......... shhhhhh no one is suppose to know.........

My dogs only have to growl to awaken me and alert me to intruders and then the shotgun comes out. Nuff said.

[MikeNB]

A firearm is a much safer protection tool than a dog when in the hands of a properly experienced user because it wont act on its own and attack an innocent.

[Machiaveli]

Hi everyone,

I've only been in Canada a few years (I'm originally from Wisconsin) and am not yet familiar with its laws regarding self-defense; from what I can tell to say that they are not straightfoward is probably an understatement. I am a small woman living in a city with a high crime rate and have already been in some questionable situations, and I'm starting to realize how important it is to know what I am legally entitled to do to protect myself. I hope you all don't mind me asking-I figured it'd be easier to figure it out this way. So here are my questions:

Are all weapons aside from firearms (which I understand are restricted to hunting, collecting, and sporting) such as knives, slingshots, clubs and bats, bow and arrow, etc. illegal to use on someone when their sole purpose is self-defense?

Is it illegal to use non-weapons against someone who is attacking you or who has forcibly entered your home, such as sharp or blunt objects?

Is there any set standard for what counts as reasonable force? Would the victim's size and strength in relation to the attacker or intruder be taken into account? If you are attacked and must act immediately, doing whatever you can, can you use a great deal of force or strike in a specific area knowing it could be deadly to the attacker, and is it easy to prove that you had to do it?

Thanks!

As a Law Student,

maybe i can brush up on my memory and offer some legal information (This is purely information once again, and not factual advice, if you seek advice, I recommend seeing a Lawyer)

The criminal code recognizes self-defense in Article 34 (R. v. Cinous)

In my (non legal) opinion these are the points to remember
1- The incoming threat of attack or assault must be real and imminent
2- One must use only as much force that is needed to repel the attacker.
3- If one has the option of fleeing safely or running to the authorities, one should exercise that one first.

Also, theres a slight difference between 34(1) and 34(2).



The Mentioned Article is below

Self-defence against unprovoked assault
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Extent of justification

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).

Self-defence in case of aggression
35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if
(a) he uses the force

(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and

(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(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.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 35.

Provocation
36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 36.

Preventing assault
37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

Extent of justification

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 37.

[Edward Kennedy]

Hi everyone,

I've only been in Canada a few years (I'm originally from Wisconsin) and am not yet familiar with its laws regarding self-defense; from what I can tell to say that they are not straightfoward is probably an understatement. I am a small woman living in a city with a high crime rate and have already been in some questionable situations, and I'm starting to realize how important it is to know what I am legally entitled to do to protect myself. I hope you all don't mind me asking-I figured it'd be easier to figure it out this way. So here are my questions:

Are all weapons aside from firearms (which I understand are restricted to hunting, collecting, and sporting) such as knives, slingshots, clubs and bats, bow and arrow, etc. illegal to use on someone when their sole purpose is self-defense?

Is it illegal to use non-weapons against someone who is attacking you or who has forcibly entered your home, such as sharp or blunt objects?

Is there any set standard for what counts as reasonable force? Would the victim's size and strength in relation to the attacker or intruder be taken into account? If you are attacked and must act immediately, doing whatever you can, can you use a great deal of force or strike in a specific area knowing it could be deadly to the attacker, and is it easy to prove that you had to do it?

Thanks!

As a Law Student,

maybe i can brush up on my memory and offer some legal information (This is purely information once again, and not factual advice, if you seek advice, I recommend seeing a Lawyer)

The criminal code recognizes self-defense in Article 34 (R. v. Cinous)

In my (non legal) opinion these are the points to remember
1- The incoming threat of attack or assault must be real and imminent
2- One must use only as much force that is needed to repel the attacker.
3- If one has the option of fleeing safely or running to the authorities, one should exercise that one first.

Also, theres a slight difference between 34(1) and 34(2).



The Mentioned Article is below

Self-defence against unprovoked assault
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Extent of justification

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).

Self-defence in case of aggression
35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if
(a) he uses the force

(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and

(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(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.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 35.

Provocation
36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 36.

Preventing assault
37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

Extent of justification

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 37.

Thank you.

[canyadoit]

great topic dogs, I truly enjoy working with the dog, myself. Everyone has thier preferance.
I have seen two breeds in a league of thier own , these are full ATTACK dogs. The first I saw live, the second only in film, made my blood run cold.
the first Black Russian Terrier
The second , Caucasian Ovcharka. The number one dog on the Berlin wall.
I did look into the wolf-hybrid, for protection from bear and cougar. To large for myself, do not know anyone who has one and I am unsure how the live stock would act arround one.
When I get settled out here, I do know a Dutchie is the breed for me
I must sate,... this Free Dominion site, is truly free , thanks everyone

[canyadoit]

Machiaveli a question if I may , purely informational .
Were dose the law stand on dogs used for protection? As in a defensive role.
I do know when I lived in Hamilton ,my laywer informed me that a beware of dog sign was not a good idea to post in my window. Something to do with having prior knowledge of , lets say a 'problem' with the dog.
Thanks for your time and consideration in advance.

[Machiaveli]

Machiaveli a question if I may , purely informational .
Were dose the law stand on dogs used for protection? As in a defensive role.
I do know when I lived in Hamilton ,my laywer informed me that a beware of dog sign was not a good idea to post in my window. Something to do with having prior knowledge of , lets say a 'problem' with the dog.
Thanks for your time and consideration in advance.

While Criminal Law isn't my field of study, and (once again, purely informational, not advisory - I have to write this: Please see a lawyer for real advice) I don't see anything in the Criminal Code that would prohibit one from defending oneself or one's property with a guard dog.

As a matter of Fact, many businesses do it - I've seen some car rental franchises carry some mean dogs in their lot at a night. However i would assume that one would be in trouble if they do not stop their dog's aggression once the threat has been eliminated or for example not calling the proper authorities right away.

However, one can still be liable in civil court for the behavior of their dogs.

As for the sign, in my (non-legal) opinion, I believe it has much to do with foreseeability in tort law, (negligence). Such a sign could swing in and against your favor as warning incoming visitors demonstrates diligence on your part, but on the other hand (and I think this is what the lawyer was mentioning) it in part establishes that it was foreseeable for you that your dog could attack someone.

Also, I have read many cases where trespassers and even thieves who injured themselves on the job (I.E stealing) on someone's property sued the property owners for such things and won.

[dbw]

Many years ago I had a Bouvier and a shitzu(sp). The Bouvier was protective but the interesting thing was the hearing the shitzu had......absolutlely incredible...it was the early warning system and would alert the Bouvier.