Guest Posted October 12, 2012 Report Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) I strongly suggest rifling through the criminal code, section 494 explains what a citizens powers of arrest are. It's up to the citizen executing the arrest to articulate why he used x amt. of force to affect an arrest during the commission of an offense. Where citizens run into problems is they try and arrest after an offense has taken place. I think section 25, 27, and 30 also state the parameters of how an ordinary citizen can legally stop the commission of an offense. S. 27.1 CC even states parameters on an airplane. Well, that's the point of the thread. I know the parameters exist. It's just that they are probably wrong. The citizen executing the arrest shouldn't have to explain anything. (unless they arrest the wrong person) Allowable force should be up to the stabbing an unconcious burglar example, which should not be allowed, unless you really, really want to. Edited October 12, 2012 by bcsapper Quote
bleeding heart Posted October 12, 2012 Report Posted October 12, 2012 There have been examples of burglars being shot in the UK and Canada where the shooters were treated like criminals. The law needed changing, all right. Yes, everyone keeps talking about these examples, but oddly, no one wishes to pony up on irritants like facts and details. The details matter. Every time a criminal is killed, it is not an identical situation. Allowable force should be up to the stabbing an unconcious burglar example, which should not be allowed, unless you really, really want to. I assume you're joking, because in this hypothetical, the stabber is a far worse and more repugnant criminal than is the burglar. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Guest Posted October 12, 2012 Report Posted October 12, 2012 Yes, everyone keeps talking about these examples, but oddly, no one wishes to pony up on irritants like facts and details. The details matter. Every time a criminal is killed, it is not an identical situation. I assume you're joking, because in this hypothetical, the stabber is a far worse and more repugnant criminal than is the burglar. The problem with detais is, they have to be found. It's just not that important to go searching for the old articles. The original post contains a couple of examples. Other posts on here contain at least one other, albeit a "kidnapping" not a shooting. I googled "shooting burglars" and got this. https://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=shooting+burglars&oq=shooting+burglars&gs_l=hp.3..0l2j0i30l3j0i5j0i5i30l4.872.7160.1.7736.17.14.0.3.3.0.197.2316.0j14.14.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.f9y_J_S0waE&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=af059bd108695f2c&bpcl=35277026&biw=1536&bih=747 But then, so what? regardless of how many times it happens, a homeowner ought to know that they are safe from legal action if they act according to their best interests only when they are feel in danger of harm in their own home. I was joking about the stabbing. It's from Ford Prefect's expense account rules in the the HHGTTG. But, having said that, I don't think you can come out and call the stabber repugnant without knowing the details. Imagine a sixty seven year old lady who has just lost her husband of forty eight years. She is living alone for the first time in her life and she is terrified. She keeps her husband's hunting knife by her bedside, as much for the comfort of having close by an old possession of the man she loved for so long as for her protection. Some lowlife that read the obituary and needs a fix reckons this is a good time to see what valuables she keeps in her jewellery box. She awakens to find him at the foot of her bed going through her unmentionables. She screams, and he turns, startled, and runs head first into the door jamb. It's an old house, and well built. The door jamb does not fall to the floor unconcious, but he does! In a semi aware delerium brought on by fear and adrenalin, she grabs the knife and lunges at the immobile creep... So, life imprisonment? Quote
bleeding heart Posted October 12, 2012 Report Posted October 12, 2012 But, having said that, I don't think you can come out and call the stabber repugnant without knowing the details. Nor the burglar, unfortunately for the Hang 'em High Brigade. Imagine a sixty seven year old lady who has just lost her husband of forty eight years. She is living alone for the first time in her life and she is terrified. She keeps her husband's hunting knife by her bedside, as much for the comfort of having close by an old possession of the man she loved for so long as for her protection. Some lowlife that read the obituary and needs a fix reckons this is a good time to see what valuables she keeps in her jewellery box.She awakens to find him at the foot of her bed going through her unmentionables. She screams, and he turns, startled, and runs head first into the door jamb. It's an old house, and well built. The door jamb does not fall to the floor unconcious, but he does! In a semi aware delerium brought on by fear and adrenalin, she grabs the knife and lunges at the immobile creep... So, life imprisonment? Well, that's quite a scenario, rather different from your original remark about cavalierly "wanting to" stab an unconscious person. (I see your referecne, yes, but since you are continuing with the hypothetical....). At any rate, since you brought up the possibility of the assailant being a junkie, we could no doubt paint a pretty poignant picture of his own harrowing life...which doesn't excuse the crime, but it rather complciates it from the "creep" idea of Bad Guys versus Good Guys, i think. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Guest Posted October 12, 2012 Report Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) Nor the burglar, unfortunately for the Hang 'em High Brigade. I find preying on innocents repugnant, even if it is for a fix. Edited October 12, 2012 by bcsapper Quote
Guest Peeves Posted October 12, 2012 Report Posted October 12, 2012 No one has "proven" that the law "needed" changing; only that it was. Tell that to those who disagree with the "need" for any alteration of any laws. Start with abortion, I guess, and go from there. My point being: proof has been requested, and offers of evidence have been declined. As usual, we are left with a single example, and claims of a handful (at best) of others. As usual we have a contrary view that fails to repudiate the need for this law, a law that supports the victim. There's enough proof for the average individual with reasonable expectations, sensible understanding and intellect to understand that the law is needed. Personally I don't give a fiddlers damn whether that is sufficient for those that haven't enough background on the issue to comment on the need. I have my proof. You can suck your thumb and research the issue. Quote
Guest Peeves Posted October 12, 2012 Report Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-19879314 Similar situation in Britain. See link above... Excerpt; " in 2008, Buckinghamshire businessman Munir Hussain was jailed for 30 months after chasing and attacking with a cricket bat one of three intruders who had tied up his family. The intruder, Walid Saleem, received a lesser sentence than Hussain, who was convicted of grievous bodily harm. This was later reduced on appeal. 'Gratuitous' But between 1990 and 2005 there were just 11 prosecutions for people tackling intruders in any premises, including seven involving homes. In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. Householders are protected from prosecution as long as they act "honestly and instinctively" in the heat of the moment.Continue reading the main story LAW ON TACKLING BURGLARS In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others Householders can claim they attacked in self-defence if they genuinely believed they were in peril - even if in hindsight they were clearly wrong Juries must distinguish between "reasonable force" and grievous harm Q&A: Self defence and burglars It is still lawful to act in reasonable self-defence, even if the intruder dies as a result. However, prosecution could result from "very excessive and gratuitous force", such as attacking someone who is unconscious." Edited October 12, 2012 by Peeves Quote
guyser Posted October 12, 2012 Report Posted October 12, 2012 I strongly suggest rifling through the criminal code, section 494 explains what a citizens powers of arrest are. It's up to the citizen executing the arrest to articulate why he used x amt. of force to affect an arrest during the commission of an offense. Where citizens run into problems is they try and arrest after an offense has taken place. Well said and the crux of the problem. People dont know the law and are outraged when someone defends property but in a criminal way. Quote
guyser Posted October 12, 2012 Report Posted October 12, 2012 a law that supports the victim. How? Quote
Guest Peeves Posted October 12, 2012 Report Posted October 12, 2012 How? How? By allowing him latitude to defend without being charged by the authorities for defending. Quote
Guest Peeves Posted October 12, 2012 Report Posted October 12, 2012 Well said and the crux of the problem. People dont know the law and are outraged when someone defends property but in a criminal way. In a 'criminal way'? What's in a criminal way? A criminal way would be breaking the law. If the law allows defense, it's not in a criminal way. Quote
Guest Posted October 12, 2012 Report Posted October 12, 2012 Well said and the crux of the problem. People dont know the law and are outraged when someone defends property but in a criminal way. Again, that's the point of the thread. Defending your property ought not to be criminal, except in the most extreme of circumstance. Hence the original post supporting the changes the British government are making. Quote
bleeding heart Posted October 12, 2012 Report Posted October 12, 2012 As usual we have a contrary view that fails to repudiate the need for this law, a law that supports the victim. There's enough proof for the average individual with reasonable expectations, sensible understanding and intellect to understand that the law is needed. Proof that you remain unable to offer. Personally I don't give a fiddlers damn whether that is sufficient for those that haven't enough background on the issue to comment on the need. "Sufficient evidence" being your emotional response. I have my proof. You can suck your thumb and research the issue. The little Hogwarts poltergeist is losing his temper, I see. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
guyser Posted October 12, 2012 Report Posted October 12, 2012 In a 'criminal way'? What's in a criminal way? A criminal way would be breaking the law. If the law allows defense, it's not in a criminal way. He was charged, they felt he acted criminally. I have no idea what you said in your previous post. Quote
guyser Posted October 12, 2012 Report Posted October 12, 2012 Again, that's the point of the thread. Defending your property ought not to be criminal, To a point no. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.