Need we arm Canada?

[bloodyminded]

I think that depends. If a person smashes my window, and I try to make a citizen's arrest, and others help me with that, then I agree with you. But if I try to make a citizen's arrest, and others oppose me, at that stage they are not only obstructing the law, but I must assume that should I fully exercise my right to make a citizen's arrest that they could hurt me, at that stage I ought legally be allowed to announce in a loud voice that I am going to attempt a citizen's arrest and will interpret any obstruction of my attempt as a potential threat to myself.

First of all, with people shouting and scuffling about, what if nobody heard your warning? You certainly couldn't prove it in court...and court is where you'd belong, whether you were correct or not, as soon as you've killed somebody.

Second of all, if some average Joe on the street informs me that he's making a citizen's arrest...and so has some right to kill me if i don't comply with him...well, let's just say I can foresee circumstances more complicated, in which he's way out of the jurisdiction of his knowledge and understanding.

That's why we train police officers, rather than giving them a badge and a weapon and saying, "off you go."

We're no longer dealing with an individual case, but an organized mutiny resulting in a breakdown of law and order.

In that case, the right to self-defense might indeed become more expansive and lenient. But if the property-owner misperceives the situation as worse than it is--which isn't difficult to imagine, certainly--what then?

Should an organized group cause a breakdown of law and order (i.e. an inability on the part of citizens and the police to defend their property within the regular constraints of the law), then the participants in this group forfeit all protection under the law for the duration that the breakdown lasts, with defenders of their property being expected to target any force, lethal or otherwise, strictly towards those intentionally obstructing his right to defend his property or make a citizen's arrest.

I can imagine your scenario, yes. My problem, as I said, is with eye-of-the-beholder-ism. Also, i wouldn't be too sanguine about ending a human life over some wrecked property, or because he didn't comply with my sudden, self-stated authority over him. Killing, let's agree, is serious indeed.

Edited July 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Machjo]

Then how do you propose that a property owner be able to defend his property when his own life is not in danger?

The right to maim but not kill? What about breaking bones? I don't mean any bone but specifically those required to wield a weapon, such as elbows, and of course with force used to a minimum whereby if breaking one bone eliminates a potential threat, that person is to be left alone with the property owner being required to move on to the next attacker as long as the rioters don't disperse?

Certainly we need at least a little more power than we have now to dissuade such riots.

[ToadBrother]

In that case, the right to self-defense might indeed become more expansive and lenient. But if the property-owner misperceives the situation as worse than it is--which isn't difficult to imagine, certainly--what then?

You got guys in black clothes and balaclavas coming at your window with crowbars and baseball bats. I think it's kind of hard to misconstrue the situation.

There aren't enough cops to keep storeowners and their property safe, and if the cops did start getting in the middle of these crowds of protesters, it would probably lead to even more violence. The basic argument here is "You're screwed. If some violent anarchist decides to kick in your window, that's tough."

[Machjo]

You got guys in black clothes and balaclavas coming at your window with crowbars and baseball bats. I think it's kind of hard to misconstrue the situation.

There aren't enough cops to keep storeowners and their property safe, and if the cops did start getting in the middle of these crowds of protesters, it would probably lead to even more violence. The basic argument here is "You're screwed. If some violent anarchist decides to kick in your window, that's tough."

And that's where I disagree. If some anarchist kicks down my window, I should have an inalienable right to try to make a citizen's arrest, and use lethal force if obstructed from doing so, even if only via threats, verbal or behavioral.

On that front, I'd say wearing a mask, wielding a makeshift weapon, hanging out in numbers, and smashing my window is a clear threat. As for making a citizen's arrest, of course I should have the obligation to give the guy a chance, announce that I'm arresting him, to please drop his weapon, o down on the ground and stay there until police arrive. Should he refuse to do so, I should have a right to approach him and use force to arrest him, and should he resist, or should others defend him or even stand by him, I should have a right to then consider him a danger, and so have a right to use lethal force against him and the others standing by him who should intentionally obstruct the arrest for as long as they continue to obstruct.

If I have a firearm, then perhaps the rules could be stricter, whereby I'd be allowed only to maim, aim for the arms or legs for instance. But if I have no firearm,then yes I should be allowed to use lethal force.

[Machjo]

And just appoint about people not hearing me over the noise as I announce my warning. If it's that loud, and they're swarming me and yelling at me, then that alone indicates highly aggressive behaviour.

[Machjo]

You got guys in black clothes and balaclavas coming at your window with crowbars and baseball bats. I think it's kind of hard to misconstrue the situation.

There aren't enough cops to keep storeowners and their property safe, and if the cops did start getting in the middle of these crowds of protesters, it would probably lead to even more violence. The basic argument here is "You're screwed. If some violent anarchist decides to kick in your window, that's tough."

Another point on this. One could argue that as long as you let them smash your window that your life is no in danger.

My argument would be that I ought to have a legal right to defend not only myself, but my property too. If we should extend the law that way, then I have a right to approach the group to make a citizen's arrest, and if it's clear that I cannot do so peaceably, then by all means I ought to have the right to use lethal force if I'm not armed with a firearm, or at least the right to maim if I do use a firearm, in my attempt to make the citizen's arrest. The point here being not that my life is imminently in danger, but that my right to make a citizen's arrest in such a case should be so fundamental that even if my life is not otherwise in danger, that I have a right to clear the way so to speak so as to allow me to make a legal and peaceful citizen's arrest of the person who smashed my window. In such a case, the people I'd be attacking would not necessarily be the one who'd smashed my window, but rather those obstructing me from making a peaceful citizen's arrest.

[Remiel]

I seem to recall having heard that if you are a trained fighter, you can actually be charged with use of a weapon if you use your skills to attack or injure someone. I thought that the distinction was nuts, but whoever I was speaking with seemed to be adamant that this was the case.

[bloodyminded]

You got guys in black clothes and balaclavas coming at your window with crowbars and baseball bats. I think it's kind of hard to misconstrue the situation.

Sure, if you imagine the situation in discrete elements, movie-style. I'm talking about a complex, chaotic situation.

And more to the point--more importantly--I"m talking of the profound possibility, even probability, of the property-owner making a catastrophic error in judgement. I have trouble imagining that this wouldn't often happen.

There aren't enough cops to keep storeowners and their property safe, and if the cops did start getting in the middle of these crowds of protesters, it would probably lead to even more violence. The basic argument here is "You're screwed. If some violent anarchist decides to kick in your window, that's tough."

It is tough, and I don't mean that cavalierly. But actions have consequences; this applies every bit as much to a person ostensibly defending his property. If you hurt the wrong person, you are a criminal. Period. Claiming you killed the wrong guy is not a justification; only a sentence redcued from second-degree murder to manslaughter or gross negligence causing death.

I don't trust ordinary citizens to take the law into their own hands, except when the situation is perfectly nice and clear..

If I see a person approaching my storefront with a crowbar, I will try to stop him. That's justifiable. But it's not hard to envision scenarios where this is less clear.

And anyone who kills somebody approaching their storefront with a crowbar...well, that person is a murderer; is waaay worse than the thug with the crowbar; and I hope he enjoys his prison cell.

[ToadBrother]

And anyone who kills somebody approaching their storefront with a crowbar...well, that person is a murderer; is waaay worse than the thug with the crowbar; and I hope he enjoys his prison cell.

I don't buy it. Someone in a mask approaching your property with a crowbar is clearly intent on doing something bad. We can argue all day about appropriate force, but trying to make a violent goon sound like a saint compared to a storeowner strikes me as very wrongheaded. I wouldn't exactly cry tears if every single Black Bloc member ended up with a bullet in their skull.

[Remiel]

I wouldn't exactly cry tears if every single Black Bloc member ended up with a bullet in their skull.

What would you do?

[Muddy]

I am going to assume that the vast majority of Canadians are law abiding pretty good folk. What we do need is to stop telling people to NOT take the law into their own hands or they will be charged. Thugs destroying property or attacking the vulnerable must not be tolerated. We must emphasize our duty as citizens to keep law and order. To be a help to our police forces. Yes I said Force! Not service. We must re empower ourselves. The likes of Chief Blair,McGuinty and Mayor Miller are to politically correct and namby pamby to protect the good citizens. Thugs have ruled the night. Now the creeps are emboldened under the guise of public protests to ransack and pillage. To long have minority groups, Tamils, been allowed to block streets in Toronto and so called Native groups to get away with anarchy. We must empower Canadians to help our police Forces to keep the peace and protect the vulnerable.

[ToadBrother]

What would you do?

Grab a crowbar and return the favor. If the cops won't protect my property (that is why we pay these guys), then under the old notions of Common Law (which have sadly been put aside so cops could gain the monopoly on force) I feel myself entitled. If someone wants to haul me into court because I've gave some masked goon with a weapon a concussion, then so be it.

Edited July 2, 2010 by ToadBrother

[dre]

And that's where I disagree. If some anarchist kicks down my window, I should have an inalienable right to try to make a citizen's arrest, and use lethal force if obstructed from doing so, even if only via threats, verbal or behavioral.

You should be able to use deadly force if the libertarian resists your attempt to arrest him? That seems pretty damn extreme to me, unless hes actually attacking you as part of his resistance.

[dre]

I am going to assume that the vast majority of Canadians are law abiding pretty good folk. What we do need is to stop telling people to NOT take the law into their own hands or they will be charged. Thugs destroying property or attacking the vulnerable must not be tolerated. We must emphasize our duty as citizens to keep law and order. To be a help to our police forces. Yes I said Force!

No thats not a good idea at all.

And you can ask the police themselves and most of them will tell you that the very LAST thing they want is help from vigilantes.

Thugs destroying property or attacking the vulnerable must not be tolerated

You can already act when you see these things happening, and people do all the time.

[Remiel]

Grab a crowbar and return the favor. If the cops won't protect my property (that is why we pay these guys), then under the old notions of Common Law (which have sadly been put aside so cops could gain the monopoly on force) I feel myself entitled. If someone wants to haul me into court because I've gave some masked goon with a weapon a concussion, then so be it.

That is not the answer to the question I asked. You said you would not cry if all of the Blac Bloc was basically executed. When I asked, " What would you do? " I was referring to what you would do instead of crying.

[ToadBrother]

That is not the answer to the question I asked. You said you would not cry if all of the Blac Bloc was basically executed. When I asked, " What would you do? " I was referring to what you would do instead of crying.

Getting shot while committing a crime isn't execution. Nice try at a leading question.

[Remiel]

Getting shot while committing a crime isn't execution. Nice try at a leading question.

Though it may be a massacre, which is not really terribly different. Nice try at a deflection. Rarely, if ever, do combats end with one side killed to a man unless one of the sides was intentionally planning it that way.

[ToadBrother]

Though it may be a massacre, which is not really terribly different. Nice try at a deflection. Rarely, if ever, do combats end with one side killed to a man unless one of the sides was intentionally planning it that way.

I agree completely. It still doesn't mean I think we should give up and let the vile thugs do their worst. That's why I still think deputizing protesters, which would pretty much require they deal with the violent elements in their midst, is the best idea.

[dre]

I agree completely. It still doesn't mean I think we should give up and let the vile thugs do their worst. That's why I still think deputizing protesters, which would pretty much require they deal with the violent elements in their midst, is the best idea.

No thats a terrible idea. We should let the people who are trained to deal with these types of situations deal with them. Any citizen derived law enforcement will make the job of the police harder, not easier.

[Jack Weber]

I agree completely. It still doesn't mean I think we should give up and let the vile thugs do their worst. That's why I still think deputizing protesters, which would pretty much require they deal with the violent elements in their midst, is the best idea.

That's a great idea!

Then the "peaceful protesters" would be responsible for the behaviour of thewhole group.They would be able to go after the jackholes that were causing the damage...

I wonder if they could be sued for dereliction of duty if they were deputized?

I wonder if the cops would allow some of ther more militant union memebers marching to mete out some "picket line justice" on these twits?

I wonder if it would expose the "peaceful protesters' as really being in total agreement with the Marxist/Communist thugs?

Edited July 2, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Mr.Canada]

I would like to see Canadians being allowed to carry concealed weapons where ever they want to protect themselves. Cities that have CCW laws have seen a drastic drop in personal crime.

Chigago who got rid of their CCW laws seen a huge rise in personal crime. They were the 28th in terms of violent crime with the CCW law then rose to 4 most dangerous in America without it.

Criminals will think twice about trying to rob or rape someone if they know that their intended victim may be packing a handgun in her bag. That's a fact.

[Jack Weber]

I would like to see Canadians being allowed to carry concealed weapons where ever they want to protect themselves. Cities that have CCW laws have seen a drastic drop in personal crime.

Chigago who got rid of their CCW laws seen a huge rise in personal crime. They were the 28th in terms of violent crime with the CCW law then rose to 4 most dangerous in America without it.

Criminals will think twice about trying to rob or rape someone if they know that their intended victim may be packing a handgun in her bag. That's a fact.

All hail El Caudillo!!!!

[bloodyminded]

I don't buy it. Someone in a mask approaching your property with a crowbar is clearly intent on doing something bad. We can argue all day about appropriate force, but trying to make a violent goon sound like a saint compared to a storeowner strikes me as very wrongheaded. I wouldn't exactly cry tears if every single Black Bloc member ended up with a bullet in their skull.

But you put it as though we could be talking about your home property, in the middle of the night, with your children present.

Rather, i was responding specifically to the notion of property only; someone with the intent to damage your property, in broad daylight, in the midst of a crowd.

Deadly force is not only disproportional, it's potentially highly dangerous to others.

As for your last sentence: these guys do not deserve to die for their actions. That's absurd.

Edited July 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

And just appoint about people not hearing me over the noise as I announce my warning. If it's that loud, and they're swarming me and yelling at me, then that alone indicates highly aggressive behaviour.

But I wasn't hypothesizing that they're yelling at you, much less swarming you. I was talking about a crowd of people in a public place.

[M.Dancer]

Chigago who got rid of their CCW laws seen a huge rise in personal crime. They were the 28th in terms of violent crime with the CCW law then rose to 4 most dangerous in America without it..

Mr Canada only speaks fact. erroneous facts he overheard in the women's washroom filming gay protests...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921299.html

http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/23/most-dangerous-cities-lifestyle-real-estate-dangerous-american-cities_slide_16.html