Venandi

Again, that's not actually the issue here. With a bit of research and common sense most people can navigate it. There are two issues here that bug me (actually there are a bunch of them but I'll only mention two) 1. The prosecution aspect - we've discussed it a bit here but haven't gotten into the weeds with it. Suffice it to say it can really ruin your day financially, personally and professionally. 2. The fact that virtually anything is deemed a weapon once it is used as a weapon. That means the can of soup you carried to work on the bus and the bear spray you walked out of the house with at 2am. Intent is a thing here... you have to be careful what you say. Here's what I mean (and I'm not suggesting that anyone lie about it either): You go outside at 2 am with bear spray and find someone stealing equipment out of your shed. He rushes the only exit which is now directly in front of you, you hose him down, make an arrest without warrant since you witnessed an indictable offence, the police arrive and cart the bad boy away. Now here's a possible question in the form of an elicitation: "Good job on that arrest sir, looks like it went smoother than most of mine do, good thing you took that bear spray out with you eh?" ----You're in a state of shock here and forgot to note the wind direction before unloading the spray, if you haven't done that it's not fun and it's definitely not the best time for this discussion but you think you're just having a friendly chat with a nice officer... but you actually aren't.---- YOU SAY: Thanks, ya... when I saw him there I brought it along just in case. Good thing eh? I SAY: "We have a bear and racoon problem here (we do by the way) and when I heard the noise that's what I thought it was." Note though, I wouldn't actually say that until the following morning after talking to a lawyer. In this case you are authorized to make an arrest and use what ever force is reasonable to effect it... but are you authorized to carry pepper spray in the course of making a deliberate arrest of someone you saw before you left the house? This is all infinitely variable and I'm not going to write a book here, it could actually be a 100 page thread and we've only scratched the surface of it. It really isn't a partisan issue at all, real people get caught up in this stuff and are hurt by it even if the pain is financial. Bad guys don't invade houses based on the political persuasion of the occupants, this can happen to anyone.

From what I've heard, most of these don't actually go to court, they're fairly cut and dried and the charges are dropped prior to the court date; that speaks to systemic integrity and IMO it needs to change. The point here... the one that keeps getting missed (and deliberately so IMO) is that the Crown knew there was no reasonable expectation of a conviction from the get go, they simply make you jump through the hoops at great expense as a deterrent to others. It will take a year to sort it out, you'll be dragged through the mud and all of your guns will be confiscated regardless of whether they were part of the scenario or not. The cost (and stress) of all this to an individual who may already be traumatized by the event speaks to prosecutorial integrity. That integrity, and/or the lack of it is what the issue under discussion is about. Deciding to defend yourself in court is almost as bad as spilling your guts to the police on fight night... but you do you, I'm rooting for ya.

Off topic a bit but I believe we'll see more in the way of home invasions in future: https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/homicide-investigation-underway-after-one-person-found-dead-in-vaughan?itm_source=news These are targeted attacks, nothing random about it, they are scoped out in advance and they want you to be home. IMO this approach is generally safer and more effective for the bad guys, they pick the time / place and you will be the one to show them where the money, jewelry etc is. After that they'll be on their way again in quick time. It appears to me that they now work in organized (and practiced) teams employing dynamic breaching techniques and copy the CQB principles of surprise, violence of action, and use of overwhelming force. Maybe just me, but I would expect to see foreign national teams of these folks rotated in and out of the country. That's what I'd be doing... we have created the perfect storm here to make that approach attractive to the bad guys. I'm not going to get into the weeds on home defence here but there certainly are things that you can do within the law and IAW current regulations if you chose. The other option (again IMO) is total cooperation. It's no time for a uniquely Canadian display of passive aggressiveness. You are either all in or you aren't... either is fine by hybrid stuff is likely to get you hurt. This could be an entire thread and then some. Now... get "busty" there Flybaby and down-vote this sucker.

Sounds like thirsty work alright, certainly not for the faint of heart. Take the breath of courage and soldier on... you're winning.

Well, it's important to keep bust...

No, it isn't. The fact you think it is reaffirms why we should have a look at the current laws and any Crown tendencies toward overly harsh prosecutorial actions after the fact. A situation like this might just qualify as the worst experience of someone's life and I think we need to cut them a bit of slack. Ya... your milage may vary but the point is most people aren't as smart as you. As to the drama, there will be at least 3 cars there and the place will be lit up like Christmas. If you are a normal human being you will be shaky and almost certainly ill prepared for in-depth questioning by people who appear to be on your side but aren't necessarily. They will try to get information from you through elicitation (check that out).... it's a deliberate technique and you should watch for it. In any case, you do you... but I'd suggest that spilling your guts at the scene is likely to make your situation much worse than if you had waited and consulted a lawyer before giving a statement. You should expect to be charged because you (vey likely) will be as a matter of course, that's what this discussion is about and it's gone completely off the rails in an unhinged manner. In all cases your actions need to reasonable and measured... what would a reasonable person have done if they were in your situation? If you're older and infirm in any way that becomes a mitigating factor in the use of force. If a person comes at you with their fists you can hit him with the bat, you don't need to box with him... you can't hit him 75 times with it though because that's unreasonable. If a person armed with a crossbow appears about to use it you can use lethal force...you can't shoot him 10 times and appear reasonable though.... and you can't stab him 75 times after he stops moving either. Your sarcasm ends our conversation at this point, I'm not going to spar with you. I'm simply assuming you are a normal person facing a life threatening confrontation (perhaps) for the first time... but heh, maybe you're a ringer. The point is most people aren't: surprise, pain and violence of action tends to rattle them and they don't make the best decisions under that sort of pressure. I think they deserve to be cut some slack on the worst day of their lives... by hey, I'm a MAGAT, right Flybaby?

Welcome back Flybaby... got a meme for me?

No, it's a long standing issue that's hurt a lot of people just trying to get by on the worst day of their lives. Believe it or not, this is probably more of an issue for you than it is for me. I can navigate most of it just fine as is. The question is can you? I don't want to see you or (anyone else) financially devastated by a slip-up that occurs under extreme stress once in your lifetime. You seem to think that's not an issue here IMO. Here's the thing, I sarcastically mentioned the motorcycle gloves (above) but the question quickly becomes why did you put them on? Was it to protect you knuckles whilst serving up a beating or was it cold outside and they were the first ones you grabbed? Maybe you thought the noise you first heard was a racoon and you put them on to protect yourself from bites. LOL, take your choice, which one sounds better? Y'all going to think of this stuff when your hands are shaking, the house is bathed in flashing lights and the police dog is frothing at the mouth in the back seat? Are you suggesting that RCMP Det manning levels are at full strength in rural areas?

I live 35 minutes away from the nearest detachment, the response time in my area isn't their fault. The manning levels are someone else's... guess who.

I know... that's exactly why you need to think about this stuff before hand... you won't under pressure. Had to laugh at the combination of sentiments quoted above... you are exactly the reason most of us want to see the laws become less mirky. It's not to give you a free pass, it's to prevent the motorcycle gloves (with the reinforced knuckles) you put on from being considered a weapon akin to brass knuckles. Do you get what I'm saying here or is it totally lost in translation.

Before doing that you probably should, thinking clearly is one of the first things that goes astray when fear, pain and surprise conspire against you, fine motor skills are in the same file folder. Well worth having it clear in your mind (beforehand) what your obligations, rights, and limitations are during arrest without a warrant... that's all part of chasing someone who is attempting to escape. Catching them is the fun part and if you don't see it that way don't give chase. Conversational exchanges should be limited to: "STOP. YOU ARE UNDER ARREST... GET ON THE GROUND AND YOU WON"T GET HURT. Don't worry though, you'll forget all about that too. No. But here's an interesting tidbit to wash your sarcasm down with. The courts consider police to be the "guardians of society," meaning they aren't actually there to protect you as an individual. It's an important distinction that arose out of such things a peace bonds. With a coded response time of 45 minutes to an hour (for me anyway), you will be on your own until they show up. And when they do, don't automatically assume that they're on your side...

Cool... Flybaby just contributed a few drops of blood to a contentious thread on self defence laws and malicious prosecutions in Canada. With only 4 clicks he solved Herb's copper deficiency and provided dramatic foreshadowing of the liberal values that will prove instrumental in preserving the status quo for years to come.

No, the real point transcends the headline and whatever facts are determined to be relevant WRT to the case proper. Its value lies in bringing a long standing issue into national focus; that's all. The discussion here is wildly partisan over something that isn't partisan at all and the issue deserves better. It's not about conservatives wanting to shoot trespassers in the back with 00 buckshot. Suggesting that it is qualifies as nothing more than Robo-noise and Flybaby tears to sensible people with valid concerns about this. Canadian self defence laws are mirky at best, everything is a weapon once it's used as a weapon and carrying that can of soup in cloth bag for defensive purposes is legally problematic... carrying your lunch to work isn't. At present, knowing the difference and being able to articulate it after the fact (under stress and in the face of deliberately leading questions) has a huge effect on how you'll be treated. If you're carrying a can of soup to fend off crazies randomly stabbing people on the bus while out on bail for randomly stabbing people on the bus then you had better say it's your lunch.... hitting someone with your lunch in a self defence situation is A-OK in Canada. Hitting them with "tactical, assault style mushroom soup isn't. Now, if you really want to get into the weeds, defensive canes that are used defensively is a fun topic. Don't pull the pin on that one though, it's a whole new thread, Herb will hatch multi coloured kittens on the living room rug and be forced into buying a walker to prove he's not a conservative.

As I read through the posts here I see that some folks truly don't see the problem in need of a fix and won't even acknowledge that there's some vindictiveness and heaping helping of "behaviour modification" inherent with enforcement efforts. Yes, self defence is legal in Canada and so is arrest without a warrant, in fact more people should be doing it but you have to be mindful of the pitfalls and have the ability to view a stressful situation with a level of calm and clarity most simply can't muster when immersed in it for the first time. If you happen to be someone who does we have a job waiting for you. If you haven't thought about these sort of scenarios ahead of time, you are very likely to run into trouble when pressed. If you have at some length, you will constantly and forever play a curious form of "what if" game in your mind when out and about. As I said earlier, if nothing else of value comes out of this thread do not give a statement to the police when pressed for details immediately after an event of this nature while your hands are still shaking... and don't think they won't be shaking either. Talk to a lawyer first and don't allow the police to pressure you into not doing that. If you want to take a deeper dive into this read "No More Mr Nice-guy" by Barry Holland. It's based on Canadian law and very likely to open a few eyes unless they're firmly and deliberately glued shut. Barry is a pretty interesting guy and he manages to make a fairly dry subject fun to read. He's also the sort of person who reinforces a pretty basic notion, the most dangerous guy in the room is almost never who you think it is.

NO... that's not the point here. PP is trying to address the self defence (and overzealous prosecution) issue in its entirety which is widely acknowledged as being problematic. Reducing this to one single event and judging a broken set of laws based on the outcome is to entirely miss the point of what he's trying to accomplish.

OK, I lied but this is it... I promise. Here's an example of the overlap between conveyance and hunting regulations (whether it's hunting season or not). It happened to me last year: I went to the 3D archery range during daylight hours and planned to be home before sunset. I was driving the jeep and had a flat tire on the way home, changing it took longer than I expected and my choice of jacking location was poor. At full extension the flat came off OK but I couldn't quite slip the fully inflated spare onto the hub. I was in the process of digging down the inch I needed (with a stick) when a kind gentleman stopped and offered me a shovel. Back on the road home but it was now 35 minutes after sunset and civil twilight was over. Had a police officer stopped at the scene my bow which I was legally transporting 5 minutes earlier instantly turned into a weapon by virtue of it being 31 minutes after official sunset. Had I covered it with a blanket, that would have been OK as it would be considered "cased." Had I unstrung it, that would have been OK too. It would instantly have morphed into a piece of wood with string attached and the arrows would have become pointy sticks with feathers on them. I didn't even think of that until after I got home though. A simple thing but had it gone sideways, I would have been charged, all my guns would have been seized and the case would have been dismissed a year later at significant expense. I could entertain y'all at some length with this stuff... fear not, I won't. One things for sure though, I'm not smart enough to make this stuff up.

You don't seem to get this but I certainly acknowledge that you think you do. I doubt any scenario driven hypotheticals or actual past situations I could offer will change your thinking on it. Although statistically unlikely, this situation (an early morning home invasion by someone armed with a crossbow) could happen to anyone. I'll offer a final thought for anyone unlucky enough to experience something similar. After the event you will likely be distraught, shaken and in a state of shock. That is no time for making statements to the police even though they'll try to get one from you. Don't do it... you'll do yourself no favours by complying. Talk to a lawyer before you do and have the lawyer present during the interview. Here's another... If you own firearms you can pay a modest fee as a retainer for group coverage up to a specified amount depending on the plan you opt for. Be assured that the police are not experts in firearm regulations including storage and conveyance... If you own firearms I really think it's a mistake not to have this, it has saved a number of folks from financial ruin caused by what (in my opinion) amounts to little more than the malicious prosecution you are likely to opine doesn't even exist.

Very true and not commonly understood. in the absence of experience with such things, surprise and pain changes everything. Rational thinking and fine motor skills are the first thing that get lost. People who routinely shoot ALPHAs at the IPSC range at 25 meters will completely miss a charging bear at 12 feet. Often the case with many police officers too, they aren't the weapon handling experts most people think, for many it's just part of the job and a qualification once a year. Not much different than a military cook in theatre. I'm not knocking cooks here BTW, in fact I really (REALLY) hate hearing people say things like "I was only a cook." As a PS, there are books on such things, for any serious martial artist or anyone with a passing interest in the phenomena I'd recommend a book called "Meditations on Violence." The Herbs of the world should take a moment, read the Fox's post 10 times and put partisan BS aside... this can easily effect you too and as it stands now, it will (not can but definitely will) ruin your whole day and then some.

That has always been the case particularly with "arrest without a warrant" (what used to be called citizens arrest. The main difference between a sworn officer and you (we and us) is that they can make an arrest for the suspicion someone has committed an indictable offence... you and I have to witness the offence. Police officers are held to the same standards when it comes to the application of excessive force. This is one of the things I like about Aikido techniques... that front leg roundhouse kick to the left temple looks bad on video. The issue here isn't actually the law IMO... it's the eagerness of the Crown to prosecute any and all instances of self defence and even the use of reasonable force (pain compliance for instance) during the course of arrest without without a warrant. It seems to be intended as a deterrent, the charges are virtually automatic and the dismissals mostly the same... it comes at a cost to the individual though. That needs to stop. As an aside, I fear the danger of letting gun crime (and especially random knife assaults) run rampant in places like Toronto is that otherwise law abiding people will feel compelled to carry protective weapons that they don't even want to. Most don't even understand the existing laws well enough to have a reasonable and defendable story at the scene of the crime after the fact, big mistake IMO. That can of soup in the small cloth bag isn't a defensive weapon... it's your lunch. And don't be fooled for a single second, the cops will try and catch you up if the story is weak. The conversation can go something like this: "Good thing you had that can of soup, this is a rough neighbourhood." You reply yes, it's unfortunate that I have to carry this to and from work every day." The next thing you'l hear is "put your hands behind you back for me please." Here's another for instance: Excuse me sir is that a "kubotan" on your key chain?" If you say yes, that makes it a defensive weapon, the proper answer is "I don't know what that is but this is a window breaker in case I have to rescue a kitten from a locked car on a hot day. It was gift from a friend who is a cat lover just like me." This is the sort of nonsense I think PP wants to address... I predict most of the comments here attacking it will be partisan in nature.

I make them out of cedar but most of the commercially available ones back in the day were.... the wood is dipped now as opposed to being subjected to pressure with (gasp) toxic chemicals. Even back then (for people who didn't want the expense of cedar), I'd make the tops out of untreated wood. On that note though, one of my pet peeves is that you can't get (things like) pressure treated 5/4 decking anymore and it shows.... some boards need replacing after 7-8 years on ground level decks that absorb moisture from below. A false economy and horridly wasteful IMO, especially in a world were Herbs are trying to save the planet... all that was needed was common sense. Another pet peeve is the limitation on deet in mosquito repellants here I think it's about 35% or so now.. People were slapping 95% deet on babies in the city so it's banned now. Those leading the charge on this (the Herbs of the world) will say "nobody needs 95% deet." I say, "get your chainsaw and follow me to da swamp... I'll make you a believer." I stocked up before the ban. While I'm on a roll here, might as well mention appliances built to fail after 10 years, there are mountains of them at the recycling centres. Replacing a compressor costs more than a new fridge and Herb doesn't even bat an eye at the waste. My fav though is the war against plastic bags in grocery stores. just behind those swinging doors (where Herb never looks) are pallets wrapped in acres of shrink wrap... ask any forklift operator. I could go on at length but I'll spare you... it's a land of make believe. While Robo is coordinating with 195 separate countries to get a deal on emissions that will prevent forest fires, Herb is busy pumping raw sewage into the costal waters off BC and eating oysters on the half shell. Not sure which of those efforts is the most insane but the competition for first place is fun to watch.

Still licking ketchup off that pressure treated picnic table eh?

Don't give up, you're winning...

And it happened the instant "elbows up" turned into "pants down".

They say there's someone out there for everyone... in his case I think it's a psychologist.

How about one of your's: ^Pure DRIVEL. Birds of a feather share DELUSIONS together…