Consititional Rights able to be removed? WTF

[guyser]

Oh you do have the right to enter to retrieve your property that right exists at common law. It is actually an exemption to tresspass as you have the lawful right to enter to retrieve, it therefor is not break.

You may think so but I do not agree one bit.

Can a bank just go in one day and boot you out?

Can a car dealer break the lock on your garage to get the car you missed payments on?

B&E is a separate crime and only in specific cases can one do so.

[William Ashley]

You may think so but I do not agree one bit.

Can a bank just go in one day and boot you out?

Can a car dealer break the lock on your garage to get the car you missed payments on?

B&E is a separate crime and only in specific cases can one do so.

Defence with claim of right

39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

Defence without claim of right

(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as of right or does not act under the authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justified or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.

* R.S., c. C-34, s. 39.

Edited August 18, 2011 by William Ashley

[guyser]

Defence with claim of right

39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

Defence without claim of right

(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as of right or does not act under the authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justified or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.

* R.S., c. C-34, s. 39.

Thanks for that.

Care to show how that contradicts my assertions?

[William Ashley]

Thanks for that.

Care to show how that contradicts my assertions?

Can you restate your assertions, then I can see about making some comments. Basically what the above says is that individuals have a defence against criminal liability if they act to protect their property.

Restate your assertions.

[William Ashley]

I actually from having Ichim jogged in my mind again, and found that he just became engaged and his fiances bail conditions of house arrest, arising from the g20 protests were altered to let them see each other without one of her parents being there.

What I don't get is why they had to give up association with an antipoverty group to allow for it

...??

http://www.guelphmercury.com/news/local/article/576525--g20-activist-pflug-back-has-strict-bail-conditions-altered

Madness.

Edited August 18, 2011 by William Ashley

[guyser]

Post 51

No one has said they cannot protect their property.

The issue was you cannot now break into anyplace to retrieve your posessions. Go ahead, break into the police lock up to get your X back.

One cannot, except in the most egregious of conditions commit a crime to write an earliercrime/wrong against oneself.

[William Ashley]

Post 51

No one has said they cannot protect their property.

The issue was you cannot now break into anyplace to retrieve your posessions. Go ahead, break into the police lock up to get your X back.

One cannot, except in the most egregious of conditions commit a crime to write an earliercrime/wrong against oneself.

Refer to post 52.

Its not a crime if it is legal. Legal defences exist for a reason, they negate the elements that make an act criminal.

Learn a little about right and honour then get back to me.

It goes back to justification, reasonableness, and acting pro bono.

Edited August 18, 2011 by William Ashley

[wyly]

Sure , you try breaking the police storage door and see what happens.

You have no right to break in somewhere just because your goods may or may not be inside, but if you wish to , knock yourself out.

ya despite what the law may actually claim you can do and actually doing it are two different things, doing it may be hazardous to your health...at the minimum doing something like that will get you locked up, a good beating/tazering and a lockup, hospitalized or even dead...

cops can be bullies when challenged and you may win in the end but at what cost?

[guyser]

Refer to post 52.

Its not a crime if it is legal. Legal defences exist for a reason, they negate the elements that make an act criminal.

Oh FFS !

You cannot commit B&E to get something you own that is inside anothers place.

Got it?

Protecting your property is one thing, breaking into someones garage to get your car is another. You can and will be (most likely) charged with B&E

[William Ashley]

ya despite what the law may actually claim you can do and actually doing it are two different things, doing it may be hazardous to your health...at the minimum doing something like that will get you locked up, a good beating/tazering and a lockup, hospitalized or even dead...

cops can be bullies when challenged and you may win in the end but at what cost?

I disagree cops can be beat they are actually quite weak and mostly non defended to suprise attacks. Its not like things like this are likely to happen, they will spook the public security apparatus. None the less it is possible but something very important or valuable would have to be the cause. The reasonableness works both ways.

However when you have corrupt government it deserves to be beaten back by the people - such as occured in Egypt or Libya -- however you must recognize that corrupt government here is no different then corrupt government anywhere else in the world.

However there is a difference in part between exercising against the state to protect yourself or your property against unlawful siezure, destruction, or misuse, or to defend against breach of your privacy - as opposed to setting out to destroy the state, or attack individuals as an antagonist.

I just need to be very clear in the concept of rightful action.

Rebellion is a much larger thing than reclaiming property through application of required force. It is actually illegal to purport or suggest violent insurrection - one is self divested the other is more so directed against a lawful government. It is lawful to correct the law in regard to yourself or to protect other individuals, it is not lawful to overthrow the government through use of force, for civil purposes - it becomes a martial act, and one that is between two different governments (war), or against a government and a non state actor (civil war).

(It wouldn't be difficult if organized). It wouldn't be terrorism either, but it might be called that.

I can understand your view though of "fear will keep them in line" or " you really are afraid of them" aspect. I'm neither afraid of cops, nor in support of oppression as a means of governance. When cops start breaking the law it is an INDICTABLE OFFENCE, of misconduct, you can legally kill a cop if they resist citizens arrest for misconduct, although the means may only be to use as much as force as necesary, if the officer is armed and in a confrontation, then you should assume they may use deadly force if confronted. It is important to know what constitutes misconduct within the criminal code though.

ccc s.128

the protections in s. 129 only cover lawful execution.

There is actually a g20 related page on this

http://www.g20justice.com/crimes.html

These mechanisms are important because they are mechanisms to prevent violent state oppression that acts against a free and democratic soceity. Canada is not a police state if people do not allow the corruption.

I should state though the same type of "reasonable" beleif applies to both police actions and civil defence actions against officers/agents of the government. It is something everyone needs to use absolute discretion with.

It is not the role of the public to directly assume power, but it is there to insure that if the apparatus will not check itself that the public act as a check to remove those elements that are abusing the powers they were given by the government. If they don't act you are empowered to, because frankly the system can be negligent and endanger the greater good of a functioning civil society, rather than a non democratic unfree totalitarian police state. The buck stops with you. But you may not be alone.

Anyone who stands against those values stands against Canada.

The whole context would be based on a situation which time was highly relevant and the court remedy would be too lengthy or the court itself was stonewalling or allowing an illegal process to occur, but no court order was made. The idea here is time expediency or loss of right of redress or petition - this might be akin to a situation of duress with reasonable grounds. The steps could be taken but you have to wiegh the potential damages to society since acting pro bono includes acting pro socio. That is in acting for good, you should be acting for society, so any damages, deaths etc.. need to be weighed into the action. Clearly very few instances may necesitate or substantiate an action such as breaking into a police storage facility all T2. However if there is unlawful process related then there are also actions, but if the blue wall or non reflection of the justice system (lawful requirement to coverup things that make the justice system look bad) is used then it is up to the individual to act as is necessary.

Unfortunately with some progressions about self prosecution of cases in provincial justice administration - the context of these acts is increasing as fundamental and constitutional rights are being eroded. Take it as it comes I suppose.

The Social Party very much supports reenfranchising people against many of the abuses and checks and balances that are being removed, unfortunately the Conservatives, and Liberals have progressively supported the removal of individuals rights and individual protections.

Just listening to you guys I know your position is lost because it disempowers the citizens of Canada, and if they are disempowered, so is Canada.

Edited August 19, 2011 by William Ashley