support for eddie Maurice's self defense case Please read...

[Steve_B]

C-26. Read it, understand it, and you’ll find it is relevant in all three cases and provides for the protection of life and property. You’ll also then understand why all of these end up in court as it is up to the judicial system to determine whether or not the force used was proportional. You are absolutely correct about precedent which is why these always end up before the courts.

Read it. Yes, agree it’s definitely relevant. (And probably a shocker to many Canadians.)
I won’t hold my breath for a precedent finding lethal force was reasonable to protect property... but hope springs eternal.

[TT1900]

Read it. Yes, agree it’s definitely relevant. (And probably a shocker to many Canadians.)
I won’t hold my breath for a precedent finding lethal force was reasonable to protect property... but hope springs eternal.

There never will be. It is explicit that lethal force is not justified in defence of property alone. When defence of property turns into defence of persons then it may be justified if proportional.

The following summarizes C-26 nicely and explores situations where the two are intertwined:

https://lop.parl.ca/About/Parliament...s=1&Language=E

[Cameron SS]

Eddie Maurice was on CBC Radio (Edmonton) this morning. Did anyone else here hear his comments? He advocates that home owners should be allowed by law to effectively protect themselves and their property...

Fortunately the Criminal Code already agrees. The problem isn't the law.

The problem is how these cases are handled after the fact. Maurice should never have been charged in the first place. Police should have named and shamed the intruder, and rather than advocating home owners be defenseless cows awaiting slaughter, they should have sent a clear message to criminals that crime doesn't pay, and that if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes.

C-26. Read it, understand it, and you’ll find it is relevant in all three cases and provides for the protection of life and property. You’ll also then understand why all of these end up in court as it is up to the judicial system to determine whether or not the force used was proportional. You are absolutely correct about precedent which is why these always end up before the courts.

This would be true, except that Maurice's case didn't go to court. Neither did Gilbert Budgell's. Seems like the police and crown are perfectly capable of determining that a crime wasn't committed without the help of the judge.

There never will be. It is explicit that lethal force is not justified in defence of property alone. When defence of property turns into defence of persons then it may be justified if proportional.

The following summarizes C-26 nicely and explores situations where the two are intertwined:

https://lop.parl.ca/About/Parliament...s=1&Language=E

Actually Section 35 of the criminal code, defense of property, is silent on what use of force may be authorized. Just as Section 34 defense of the person, all it says is that you must act reasonable. Neither 34 or 35 limit or prescribe the use of lethal force.

Further, Section 25 and Section 27 of the criminal code also apply, in that every citizen has the right to arrest anyone they find committing or about to commit an indictable offence. IN attempt to effect the arrest, you are authorized to use as much force as is necessary to effect that arrest.

The import thing about the amount of force that is reasonable and necessary for the purposes of protecting persons or property, is that it is up to the criminal to determine how much force is required. The criminal gets to choose whether or not to abandon the crime, the attack, or the theft. If the criminal attacker is determined and persists, they are entitling their victim to a greater use of force.

If anyone is upset about how much force a victim had to use to protect themself or their property, it is the criminal that is to blame, not the victim.

The presumption of innocence applies to self defense cases, or at least it should, just as with any other case. The crown has to prove that a victim acted demonstrably unreasonably, or used demonstrably excessive force, in order to get a conviction. As it should be.

IN both the Maurice and Budgell case, the crown stated "it was unlikely they would get a conviction". This goes to show you the mind set of the crown. What they should have said is that there was no evidence to substantiate the charges in the first place.

[GreenBob]

Correct, he should have never been charged.

Cheers,

[TT1900]

Actually Section 35 of the criminal code, defense of property, is silent on what use of force may be authorized. Just as Section 34 defense of the person, all it says is that you must act reasonable. Neither 34 or 35 limit or prescribe the use of lethal force.

You are correct, the criminal code is silent on what use of force is authorized however the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that lethal force is not permissible to protect property. Look into the R v Gunning [2005]. If it turns into a self-defence situation, which I believe likely to happen when confronting criminals, then you may do what needs doing.

I completely agree the criminals are at fault and the presumption of innocence is paramount. However, when a life is taken expect things to get messy particularly when special interest groups are involved.

Glad it's worked out for these gentlemen and none are locked up.

[GreenBob]

How long before the POS goes from breaking into vehicles and into house to support his habit? Or how long before someone gets raped or murdered?

Cheers,

[VinnyQC]

How long before the POS goes from breaking into vehicles and into house to support his habit? Or how long before someone gets raped or murdered?

Cheers,

You are a LOT more likely to be raped or murdered by someone you know than during a housebreak. Worry about your weird uncle or your depressed ex-husband, they're the most likely perp.

That being said, you seem to be supporting the killing of thief, and not even because they steal, but because they might one day rape or kill. Don't start crying when you hear anti-guns people go out there saying that we should take away all guns because "how long before someone gets shot?".

[Autolite]

Don't ask autolite to understand the law. The guy openly threatened to kill me with a machete on this very public forum.

Sorry, but your reading comprehension issue is not mine nor anyone else's problem...

[Autolite]

How long before the POS goes from breaking into vehicles and into house to support his habit?

I remember reading about an RCMP Sgt who says that we "should feel sorry" for the criminals who carry out property crimes to support a drug habit. He said such criminals do not deserve to do time. It does not inspire confidence in the police nor their determination to get this under control...

[Cameron SS]

You are correct, the criminal code is silent on what use of force is authorized however the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that lethal force is not permissible to protect property. Look into the R v Gunning [2005]. If it turns into a self-defence situation, which I believe likely to happen when confronting criminals, then you may do what needs doing.

I completely agree the criminals are at fault and the presumption of innocence is paramount. However, when a life is taken expect things to get messy particularly when special interest groups are involved.

Glad it's worked out for these gentlemen and none are locked up.

Interesting about the Gunning case.

With regards to the current discussion, the most important part of R V Gunning is found at paragraph 26. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc.../2228/index.do

It is common ground between the parties that the intentional killing of a trespasser could only be justified where the person in possession of the property is able to make out a case of self-defence: see R. v. Baxter (1975), 27 C.C.C. (2d) 96 (Ont. C.A.), at pp. 114‑15; R. v. Clark (1983), 5 C.C.C. (3d) 264 (Alta. C.A.), at pp. 272‑73; R. v. Bacon, [1999] Q.J. No. 19 (QL) (C.A.), at para. 24. Mr. Gunning does not raise self-defence in respect of the shooting; he raises the defence of accident. Rather, the defence of property is raised in justification of his use of the shotgun prior to its discharge.

All parties actually agreed that you can use lethal force in defense of property ONLY if you can prove self defense. Now that may seem counter intuitive, and anyone who has read the current version of the criminal code is tempted to think that defense of self and defense of property are two clearly distinct situations. They are..now.

In 2000 when the original event happened, they weren't. Here is the archived version of the criminal code from 2003. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a.../P1TT3xt3.html The Justice Laws website does not have online archives back to 2000, but it the relevant sections were not amended in the meantime.

At the time, it was clear that lethal force was only to be used as a last resort, regardless of whether talking the person or the property. In order to prove self defense you had to actually prove that you tried and failed at lesser means, or that the situation was so dire that you couldn't try.

Specifically with regards to property, if you tried to prevent theft, recovery property, or evict tresspassers, you weren't allowed to use lethal force at all, unless the criminal actively resisted or used force to continue the theft after you tried to evict them without lethal force, after which time it would be deemed to now be a self defense issue, whether or not there was an actual threat to the person. If a criminal passively without force evaded your attempts to evict them peacefully, this would be deemed an assault, at which point, having been 'assaulted', you could use greater force and eventually lethal force to remove them from the property, in the name of self defense. It really was poorly worded, and self defense cases were always a mess, and it wasn't uncommon to see lots of issues with judicial instructions etc as you see in Gunning.

Regrettably, Gunning did not argue self defense (because of a brutally incompetent judge who told him in advance it wouldn't work, despite the fact that it was a jury trial). Had he of argued self defense, which he clearly could have, it would have been a very different case. In either case the Supreme Court actually side with the accused, and tossed his convictions.

You should also know that because our self defense laws were completely re-written in 2013, the case is essentially of very little value in informing today's self defense and defense of property cases.