Appartment Defence Pistol?

IM_Lugger said:
I would think it depends on what the intruders intensions and actions were...If some unarmed broso just boke in to steel your plasma TV and you shot him, it would be different than if you shot an armed felon who broke in to steel yourt guns and kill you after...

I'm not a lawer, but I believe just because someone broke in your place it doesn't give you a legal right to shoot the BD, esp if your life isn't in danger.
Click to expand...

I agree with u . But if an armed man(knife) were to break in ur place and u d shoot him dead . Would u face any jailtime ? how about if he was holding a gun ?
 
IM_Lugger said:
I would think it depends on what the intruders intensions and actions were...If some unarmed broso just boke in to steel your plasma TV and you shot him, it would be different than if you shot an armed felon who broke in to steel yourt guns and kill you after...

an interesting thoughtline... I wonder at what point between the breaking glass and that feeling of your blood oozing would you establish there was an imediate threat to your or your family?

rule #1 of any gun is to assume it's loaded and to treat accordingly....rule number 1 of any intruder is to assume there is a weapon involved and to move to protect yourself and your family.

I do know what you mean though and I am not undermining your considertions but for me I have my 'home defense' plan of action established together with the 'line in the sand' where I take action at. Which to me means they can steal what they like down stairs but if after identifying that the house is occupied and they come upstairs then I would take actions to protect my family.

Jonsey
Click to expand...
 
IM_Lugger said:
I would think it depends on what the intruders intensions and actions were...If some unarmed broso just boke in to steel your plasma TV and you shot him, it would be different than if you shot an armed felon who broke in to steel yourt guns and kill you after...

I'm not a lawer, but I believe just because someone broke in your place it doesn't give you a legal right to shoot the BD, esp if your life isn't in danger.
Click to expand...

I agree too, and this should be pointed out in threads where people ask about "defense guns". Your life needs to be in danger for you to shoot, otherwise you weren't defending yourself, you were just punishing the guy for trying to steel your palsma TV.
 
Last edited:
the best home defense i think is a shotgun with shells filled with rock salt. You won't kill the guy but he'll be in to much pain to think of doing anything else but cry.
 
Mark_P said:
the best home defense i think is a shotgun with shells filled with rock salt. You won't kill the guy but he'll be in to much pain to think of doing anything else but cry.
Click to expand...

Read the entire thread, rock salt is a useless load and has no purpose in a defensive situation.

With regards to my comment about 9/11. I was in no way indicating that armed passengers would have prevented the final outcome. My intention was to draw the parallel between two plane loads of passengers who sat idle and failed to do something about their own safety, and those who feel the same tact would be effective for a home invasion.

Would I shoot to protect life and property? You bet I would. Do you tell the courts this? Not unless my legal counsel instructs me to. Some simple rules for engaging humans with lethal force. Getting arrested is almost certain. Say NOTHING until you have legal counsel. You are not obligated to answer anything without it. The only thing I've ever been instructed to say when asked why I shot someone. "I was in fear for my life and/or the lives of my family.." That's it. Let your legal counsel decide the rest.

TDC
 
M_A_T_T said:
I agree too, and this should be pointed out in threads where people ask about "defense guns". Your life needs to be in danger for you to shoot, otherwise you weren't defending yourself, you were just punishing the guy for trying to steel your palsma TV.
Click to expand...


Almost everything stated so far has been opinion, and conjecture about what a reasonable person thinks is the law.


A little research will bring you to the actual 'LAW'.


Criminal Code
PART I
Defence of Property
Defence of dwelling
40. Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 40.

Ok, so you can defend entry to your property, but not the theft of your 'stuff'


http://www.nfa.ca/content/view/261/199/

This guy knew what he was talking about! He breaks it down for common folk like us.

Learn, and live!
 
M_A_T_T said:
I agree too, and this should be pointed out in threads where people ask about "defense guns". Your life needs to be in danger for you to shoot, otherwise you weren't defending yourself, you were just punishing the guy for trying to steel your palsma TV.
Click to expand...

I don't think the assessment of a threat need be a difficult exercise, and I don't think it requires you to be lying dying on the floor of your own home to prove that you are in fact in danger. If an individual or group of individuals breaks into your home, they aren't there to do you any good. If you challenge them while armed with a firearm it is up to them what happens from that moment on. If you are worried about legal proceedings your head is in the wrong place and you could very well be killed. While we must be concerned with "over reacting" breaking into someones home is not a benign act, and the home owner/renter must be more concerned about his own life and the lives of his family members than the life of the assailant. What lead the bad guy(s) to break into your home is a story for another time.
 
The most important thing is to shout "You are under arrest!". From that point on, you are no longer acting in self defence, almost impossible to prove.
You are then protected as well as any LEO in your rights to arrest the trespasser. If they resist, you may use whatever necessary force to make the arrest, up to, and including lethality. If they resist arrest, or even say they will, you have been 'assaulted', and from there on, you can pretty much do what you need to.
You never will se a cop change his mind after he decides to arrest you. He can use whatever force needed to facilitate the arrest.
 
hmmmmmm so if i say you are under arrest to an intruder they have no right to resist...? i'm gonna have to check this out
 
Last edited:
DOOK said:
Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority.
Click to expand...

So you are allowed to stop them from entering by whatever means, but once they are inside what can you do?

And thanks for that link, I'll check it out after luch break.

Boomer said:
I don't think the assessment of a threat need be a difficult exercise
Click to expand...

Someone just in your home should be a threat enough, but not all burglars are armed. There was a Cat Burglar right around my area last Christmas hitting homes, including neighbours. In one of the last newspaper articles about it before he was caught with help from tips, it stated he stole replica/fake handguns from a resident, which tells me at first he probably wasn't armed. If you shot a guy you found in your living room and it turns out he was unarmed, it might not look good in court from what I've read on here.
 
Last edited:
M_A_T_T said:
Someone just in your home should be a threat enough, but not all burglars are armed. There was a Cat Burglar right around my area last Christmas hitting homes, including neighbours. In one of the last newspaper articles about it before he was caught with help from tips, it stated he stole replica/fake handguns from a resident, which tells me at first he probably wasn't armed. If you shot a guy you found in your living room and it turns out he was unarmed, it might not look good in court from what I've read on here.
Click to expand...


I'll say it again; breaking into someone's home is not a benign act. If someone breaks into your home you must assume he is armed. If you attempt to hold him at gun point, and he chooses to test your resolve, at least you will have the knowledge that it is better to be alive with legal difficulties than it is to be dead. When facing an intruder, that is not the time to be worrying how things might look in court. First you must survive, and then you can worry about legalities and other irrelevancies.
 
If you educate yourself as to Canadian law, you can protect yourself, and survive in court lawfully.
It's what the police do every day.
 
Boomer said:
it is better to be alive with legal difficulties than it is to be dead. .
Click to expand...


You have no difficulties once you are dead.:):):)


Seriously though,
Reading the comments on this thread just reinforces my thoughts. Never follow the free advice that is given to you on the internet,it will usually land you in trouble and will be of little use to you when you have to defend yourself in a courtroom.
 
Ballox said:
You have no difficulties once you are dead.:):):)


Seriously though,
Reading the comments on this thread just reinforces my thoughts. Never follow the free advice that is given to you on the internet,it will usually land you in trouble and will be of little use to you when you have to defend yourself in a courtroom.
Click to expand...

That was boomer's point. You must survive the home invasion before you can worry about the legal crap. Its easier to survive the legal game when the other side is dead. Ultimately, ensuring the intruder(s) is dead is the only way to ensure you will survive.

The advice you receive for free online is only food for thought. Its not necessarily the meal.

TDC
 
I am not a lawyer; but it is my understanding that the new "castle doctrine" in Canada indicates that anyone breaking into your home may be assumed to have intent to cause you grievous bodily harm and therefore youare entitled to use lethal force in repelling him. Once he decides to make good his escape and is departing you are no longer able to use force of any kind.. he is leaving.

Armed or not, anyone breaking into my home at night is going to discover why I lose every bet on the 9th hole due to my wicked slice with my 9 iron. Depending on my mood they will either not have children any longer or not be able to take any summer courses in future.

Statistics say that less that 15 percent of calls to police in north American are responded to within 5 minutes. And the police in Canada are apparently no longer mandated to protect you as a citizen, only to maintiain the good order and uphold the law of the land. Do yourself a favour and protect yourself. Really. But make sure you know what you are doing before blasting someone with a shotgun while they are delivering the milk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom