- Location
- Southern Ontario
By the way, we have survived TWO home invasions and we live in a good neighborhood. Anyone breaking in here in future is leaving feet first.
Appartment Defence Pistol?
- Thread starter Slowbalt
- Start date
- Location
- Southern Ontario
Please, please please... do not give incorrect advice that is so critical. You may NOT use lethal force simply because you have shouted you are under arrest... that is absurd. You are entitled to use only sufficient force as a rational human being would use in like circumstances to thwart the attack.
As far as police are concerned I have not read too often about police shooting a suspect resisting arrest. It is not done.
There are limits imposed by the law. Did you, for example, know that once you holler 'you are under arrest' you thereafter owe a duty of care to ensure that no harm comes to the perp? DuH?
Did you know that the perp, having stolen your property, owes you duty of care to ensure that no harm comes to the property?
Did you know that should you lose something that is picked up by someone else... a diamond ring for instance, that this person owes youa duty of care to ensure that nothing happens to the ring that you lost... they can be held accountable for not doing so and be made to replace the ring?
The law should not be trifled with and if you are not a lawyer you should state that you are not a lawyer and that this is a matter of opinion only... as in this case.
On the other hand... come in my front door at 3 a.m. and you are going to make friends with my 9 iron like I say..... as I will assume that you have evil intent. And that's fair game.
the difference being the police won't have to lose thousands of dollars in court costs because some bloodthirsty crown refuses to acknowledge you rights.
You are correct torontogunguy, I am not a lawyer. I can however read quite well, and you obviously didn't look at the link I posted.
Here is the meat of it, taken directly from CC.
265. (2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including ###ual assault, ###ual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated ###ual assault.
266. Every one who commits an assault is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence...
Therefore, as soon as the thought comes, "My God! I am, or someone under my protection is being, assaulted!" one should always shout, "You are under arrest!"
Shouting that out transforms the situation. It is no longer one of self-protection (which is allowed by the Criminal Code, but only by way of the weak protections offered to the victim by CC s. 27, 34 and 35). Shouting "You are under arrest!" transforms the situation into one in which the arresting person is protected by the stronger protections of CC s. 25. Unless the criminal then submits peacefully to arrest, the criminal will probably be guilty of resisting arrest, violating CC s. 270(1)(b) (emphasis added):
270. (1) Every one commits an offence who...
(b) assaults a person with intent to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of himself or another person...
What protections apply to a person who is arresting someone under CC s. 494?
CC s. 25 (emphasis added) says, in part:
25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
(a) as a private person...is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose...
25. (3) ...a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection (1) in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless he believes on reasonable and probable grounds that it is necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or any one under his protection from death or grievous bodily harm.
Study that sequence carefully. CC s. 494 authorizes one to arrest anyone found committing an indictable offence, anywhere, or any criminal offence on, or in relation to, one's property. It also provides the same protections to the arresting individual that it provides to a police officer.
CC s. 265 defines "assault"--the most likely reason for making an arrest--broadly, and brings a criminal guilty of assault (by the actual or threatened use of force) into the CC s. 494(1)(a) "indictable offence" zone, allowing arrest wherever the offence is taking place.
Where one is trying to arrest someone for a property offence (attempted theft, vandalism, etc.), CC s. 270(1)(b) upgrades that offence into the CC s. 494(1) "indictable offence" zone if the criminal resists arrest by threatening or using force against the arresting person.
Then CC s. 25(1) justifies one who does, or tries to, make an arrest through or partly through the lawful real or threatened use of force. It authorizes the use of force in "doing what he is required to do (arresting the criminal) and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose (arresting the criminal)." Therefore, CC s.25 apparently authorizes the use of whatever force is necessary to complete the arrest.
Then CC s. 25(3) says one cannot use force of a kind likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless* it is necessary to protect either one's self or a person under one's protection from "death or grievous bodily harm." One cannot shoot someone who is stealing hubcaps, but one can arrest him. If he resists arrest violently enough to cause reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm, the use of deadly force may be justified.
Those protections apply to a person who is trying to make an arrest. The provisions that protect one who is simply acting in self-defence are weaker:
This is what I based my opinions upon. I see no where it mentioning that I must babysit the perp. In fact it gives me, and anyone lawfully assisting the same protection under the law as LEO gets under the same circumstances.
Could you post a link where it says I must babysit my arrestee?
When you say "Please, please please... do not give incorrect advice that is so critical. You may NOT use lethal force simply because you have shouted you are under arrest... that is absurd. You are entitled to use only sufficient force as a rational human being would use in like circumstances to thwart the attack."
You are simplifying things too much. I didn't say that you could start shooting after saying 'you are under arrest'. I said it allows the use of whatever force is neccisary. If they assault you, you may use appropriate force to defend yourself, dictated by the amount of resistance or threat you encounter from your detainee.
It's all up to them, my friend.
Here is the meat of it, taken directly from CC.
265. (2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including ###ual assault, ###ual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated ###ual assault.
266. Every one who commits an assault is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence...
Therefore, as soon as the thought comes, "My God! I am, or someone under my protection is being, assaulted!" one should always shout, "You are under arrest!"
Shouting that out transforms the situation. It is no longer one of self-protection (which is allowed by the Criminal Code, but only by way of the weak protections offered to the victim by CC s. 27, 34 and 35). Shouting "You are under arrest!" transforms the situation into one in which the arresting person is protected by the stronger protections of CC s. 25. Unless the criminal then submits peacefully to arrest, the criminal will probably be guilty of resisting arrest, violating CC s. 270(1)(b) (emphasis added):
270. (1) Every one commits an offence who...
(b) assaults a person with intent to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of himself or another person...
What protections apply to a person who is arresting someone under CC s. 494?
CC s. 25 (emphasis added) says, in part:
25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
(a) as a private person...is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose...
25. (3) ...a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection (1) in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless he believes on reasonable and probable grounds that it is necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or any one under his protection from death or grievous bodily harm.
Study that sequence carefully. CC s. 494 authorizes one to arrest anyone found committing an indictable offence, anywhere, or any criminal offence on, or in relation to, one's property. It also provides the same protections to the arresting individual that it provides to a police officer.
CC s. 265 defines "assault"--the most likely reason for making an arrest--broadly, and brings a criminal guilty of assault (by the actual or threatened use of force) into the CC s. 494(1)(a) "indictable offence" zone, allowing arrest wherever the offence is taking place.
Where one is trying to arrest someone for a property offence (attempted theft, vandalism, etc.), CC s. 270(1)(b) upgrades that offence into the CC s. 494(1) "indictable offence" zone if the criminal resists arrest by threatening or using force against the arresting person.
Then CC s. 25(1) justifies one who does, or tries to, make an arrest through or partly through the lawful real or threatened use of force. It authorizes the use of force in "doing what he is required to do (arresting the criminal) and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose (arresting the criminal)." Therefore, CC s.25 apparently authorizes the use of whatever force is necessary to complete the arrest.
Then CC s. 25(3) says one cannot use force of a kind likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless* it is necessary to protect either one's self or a person under one's protection from "death or grievous bodily harm." One cannot shoot someone who is stealing hubcaps, but one can arrest him. If he resists arrest violently enough to cause reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm, the use of deadly force may be justified.
Those protections apply to a person who is trying to make an arrest. The provisions that protect one who is simply acting in self-defence are weaker:
This is what I based my opinions upon. I see no where it mentioning that I must babysit the perp. In fact it gives me, and anyone lawfully assisting the same protection under the law as LEO gets under the same circumstances.
Could you post a link where it says I must babysit my arrestee?
When you say "Please, please please... do not give incorrect advice that is so critical. You may NOT use lethal force simply because you have shouted you are under arrest... that is absurd. You are entitled to use only sufficient force as a rational human being would use in like circumstances to thwart the attack."
You are simplifying things too much. I didn't say that you could start shooting after saying 'you are under arrest'. I said it allows the use of whatever force is neccisary. If they assault you, you may use appropriate force to defend yourself, dictated by the amount of resistance or threat you encounter from your detainee.
It's all up to them, my friend.
Last edited:
I resisted even reading this post for some time but with some time to kill I gave in and read it .
WOW , are most of these post's completely wacked !!
A couple are right on the ball .
IMO ( not a lawyer ) IF you are going to use any force ( gun/bat/golf club/pepper spray/etc..) to confront an attacker or to defend life and limb you need to realize a dead attacker will not and cannot modify the truth to suit their needs . If they live they will lie there arse's off to screw you over , their injuries will cost you everything you have ever worked for or will ever work for .
Should you choose to defend your life with non firearm weapons at least realize that the attacker very well may be bigger and better trained in hand to hand combat than you . Also , should you decide to defend your self with an unloaded firearm or a less leathally loaded firearm you stand a greater chance of becoming a statistic . In the case of the unloaded shotgun though , you may get selected for a Darwin award .
WOW , are most of these post's completely wacked !!
A couple are right on the ball .
IMO ( not a lawyer ) IF you are going to use any force ( gun/bat/golf club/pepper spray/etc..) to confront an attacker or to defend life and limb you need to realize a dead attacker will not and cannot modify the truth to suit their needs . If they live they will lie there arse's off to screw you over , their injuries will cost you everything you have ever worked for or will ever work for .
Should you choose to defend your life with non firearm weapons at least realize that the attacker very well may be bigger and better trained in hand to hand combat than you . Also , should you decide to defend your self with an unloaded firearm or a less leathally loaded firearm you stand a greater chance of becoming a statistic . In the case of the unloaded shotgun though , you may get selected for a Darwin award .
You are correct. Only sufficient force as is necessary to thwart the attack. The hard part is disproving that you had no other choice but to shoot the suspect, and that shooting the suspect was the only option of force available to defend myself and/or my family. Dead guy with knife in hand would be pretty tough to argue in favor of less lethal or non lethal means. Couple that image with your statement of "fearing for your life and/or the life of your family." and your lack of professional training in hand to hand or other tools and there's not much chance a jury is going to convict you of anything.
TDC
- Location
- Southern Ontario
Please do NOT misunderstand my post; it is meant as opinion only as my knowledge of the law is not, in fact ,intimate at all. My point was simply that hollering "you are under arrest" does indeed change the character of the situation (in the old days I believe one had to place a hand on the B/G's shoulder while making the statement but I could be wrong). It not only changes the rights and resonsibilities of the B/G being arrested, but it also places new responsibilities on the party doing the arresting if I am not mistaken and that is a somewhat more elaborate set of responsibilities as to the care and custody of the arrested party. Again, I am not a lawyer and I do not have access to comprehensive case law nor familiarity with same. I would expect that it may be in statute law as well though....
In any event. Regardless of being placed under arrest or not, botht he B/G and the G/G have rights and responsibilities and my point was that both should know and understand them as they will come back to haunt otherwise.
Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as well and it is my understanding, for instance, that in a number of states (if not federally stateside) somewhat caught in the act of committing arson is subject to the use of lethal force without warning as arson is considered such a despicable criminal offense. Heresay? I don't know to be sure, but it was picked up in a handgun self defense course taught by a reputable firm.
For my part? Anyone indicating to me that they intend grievous bodily harm is fair game for the use of lethal force. Period. Once the threat of grievous bodily harm is terminated so is my right to use lethal force to end the assault. So I am not about to shoot anyone fleeing from the scene. It also happens to fit in with my own personal moral values. If you have already committed grievous bodily harm, however, my moral values say that you are fair game. And I am going to stop you no matter what it takes in order to prevent it from happening down the street when you hijack a car to get away. I will use lethal force if necessary to arrest and detain you. Hence, your hollering "you are under arrest" may fit in just right with the scenario described.
In Canada, we must be very careful of what we say and do. The right to self defence is under attack and is still relatively young as far as case law is concerned. It is not a given, quite yet. But we are getting closer every day.
In the USA on the other hand, the right to self defence is a constitutional right and upheld by the Supreme Court of the land. Bravo! So it should be IMHO. Anyone who is a member of the NRA stateside will be getting their newsletters with examples of how simple couples and people save their own lives by being armed and able to defend themselves while waiting for the police to arrive. The latest FBI statistics are very very scary indeed. I believe the stat is that less than 5 percent of 911 calls for life threatening situations are responded to in under 15 minutes.
In Michigan, a prominant politician was recently the subject of an assault (he and his wife) and only by the grace of god was spared their lives. He is now vehemently pro-gun and self defense. In fact, our good friend Mayor Rudi Guliani of New York, who was always a staunch anti gun activist, subsequent to 911, became a staunch supporter of the second amendment and the right of the people to defend themselves by bearing arms.
I believe that we are ultimately headed to an armed society and I, for one, am pleased. An armed society is a polite society. Violent crime rates drop dramatically as a result. Not conjecture but rather, plain cold fact, provided by the government themselves.
My home is surrounded by glass and central station monitoring; I will still go to sleep with a coach gun sitting near at hand, stored legally but as close to ready to go as is legally possible. Anyone coming in my front door at 3 a.m. unannounced can expect to leave feet first. I have had the pleasure of experiencing not one but TWO home invasions in recent years and I can tell you that it is but for the grace of God that I am still around to tell the tale. And just the fact that you buy ammo at Walmart or wherever where the ammo record book is left sitting around unlocked by teenagers who are open to bribes of $50 a page is sufficient for me to think that anyone looking for .223 rifles or whatever need only check the book in their local store. What a dumb ass idea that was!
Regards to all
Food for thought. That's all. I'm not saying I am right nor wrong. But lots of food for thought.
In any event. Regardless of being placed under arrest or not, botht he B/G and the G/G have rights and responsibilities and my point was that both should know and understand them as they will come back to haunt otherwise.
Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as well and it is my understanding, for instance, that in a number of states (if not federally stateside) somewhat caught in the act of committing arson is subject to the use of lethal force without warning as arson is considered such a despicable criminal offense. Heresay? I don't know to be sure, but it was picked up in a handgun self defense course taught by a reputable firm.
For my part? Anyone indicating to me that they intend grievous bodily harm is fair game for the use of lethal force. Period. Once the threat of grievous bodily harm is terminated so is my right to use lethal force to end the assault. So I am not about to shoot anyone fleeing from the scene. It also happens to fit in with my own personal moral values. If you have already committed grievous bodily harm, however, my moral values say that you are fair game. And I am going to stop you no matter what it takes in order to prevent it from happening down the street when you hijack a car to get away. I will use lethal force if necessary to arrest and detain you. Hence, your hollering "you are under arrest" may fit in just right with the scenario described.
In Canada, we must be very careful of what we say and do. The right to self defence is under attack and is still relatively young as far as case law is concerned. It is not a given, quite yet. But we are getting closer every day.
In the USA on the other hand, the right to self defence is a constitutional right and upheld by the Supreme Court of the land. Bravo! So it should be IMHO. Anyone who is a member of the NRA stateside will be getting their newsletters with examples of how simple couples and people save their own lives by being armed and able to defend themselves while waiting for the police to arrive. The latest FBI statistics are very very scary indeed. I believe the stat is that less than 5 percent of 911 calls for life threatening situations are responded to in under 15 minutes.
In Michigan, a prominant politician was recently the subject of an assault (he and his wife) and only by the grace of god was spared their lives. He is now vehemently pro-gun and self defense. In fact, our good friend Mayor Rudi Guliani of New York, who was always a staunch anti gun activist, subsequent to 911, became a staunch supporter of the second amendment and the right of the people to defend themselves by bearing arms.
I believe that we are ultimately headed to an armed society and I, for one, am pleased. An armed society is a polite society. Violent crime rates drop dramatically as a result. Not conjecture but rather, plain cold fact, provided by the government themselves.
My home is surrounded by glass and central station monitoring; I will still go to sleep with a coach gun sitting near at hand, stored legally but as close to ready to go as is legally possible. Anyone coming in my front door at 3 a.m. unannounced can expect to leave feet first. I have had the pleasure of experiencing not one but TWO home invasions in recent years and I can tell you that it is but for the grace of God that I am still around to tell the tale. And just the fact that you buy ammo at Walmart or wherever where the ammo record book is left sitting around unlocked by teenagers who are open to bribes of $50 a page is sufficient for me to think that anyone looking for .223 rifles or whatever need only check the book in their local store. What a dumb ass idea that was!
Regards to all
Food for thought. That's all. I'm not saying I am right nor wrong. But lots of food for thought.
I think we are both on the same page, and of like mind. I believe anyone reading my postings here would be foolish not to confirm my thoughts, and opinions for them selves before acting with their intent.
Of course there are the exceptions, aren't there?
As I am relatively new to this whole game, I still have so much to learn, but I am learning very fast that the whole legal system is majorly screwed up. This makes me even more sure that I must get all the training, and knowledge I can acquire to protect myself legally, and physically. I do hope everyone else here feels the same.
Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear!
Sorry to hear about your place being compromised. I know how that would make me feel. I feel sorry for the next idiot who tries it. ;o)
Of course there are the exceptions, aren't there?
As I am relatively new to this whole game, I still have so much to learn, but I am learning very fast that the whole legal system is majorly screwed up. This makes me even more sure that I must get all the training, and knowledge I can acquire to protect myself legally, and physically. I do hope everyone else here feels the same.
Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear!
Sorry to hear about your place being compromised. I know how that would make me feel. I feel sorry for the next idiot who tries it. ;o)
Just use a SKS with bayonet (not against law, locked gun w/o loaded). Who can beat you except he has gun
Yeah, whatever....
TDC
..
.
.
.
<---- The best first line of defense
Gives me time to execute my second stage if it even gets to that. And no I wont be calling the dog off....Ever.
Woman and children can handle them with a bit of training and exposure, honest, fearless, ruthless and loyal. The ammo is cheap, non-restricted (except in Gheytario).
.
.
.
<---- The best first line of defense
Gives me time to execute my second stage if it even gets to that. And no I wont be calling the dog off....Ever.
Woman and children can handle them with a bit of training and exposure, honest, fearless, ruthless and loyal. The ammo is cheap, non-restricted (except in Gheytario).
Last edited:
Just had a pretty weird question pass through my mind... If someone was to sleep with a shotgun shell belt ( spare me the comfort issues ), and shotgun unloaded and locked nearby, would that be illegal ? ( Not really holding my breath on that one but... )
i beleive you are allowed to have a firearm handy for
predetor control. definition of "preditor" theres the 4 and 2 legged kind!!!!!!!!!!!!! you could use a 10,000 volt
oil furnace ignition transformer hooked up to your door
knobs and steel widow bars. turn it on when u leave and go to bed.
i'll bet u forget to turn of just once.
