Verisure
Senior Member
So, you are denying that shooting someone to death in the US is often being called "self-defence" even when the shooter's life isn't in any danger at all? Listen to this:
Motorcyclist pulls gun in road rage incident. His target had better aim
- Thread starter WhatInThe
- Start date
- Status
horseless carriage
Well-known Member
Reading this thread through a couple of times I see an undercurrent in the exchanges. Those of us that are not from the US do not have a Second Amendment:
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The result of that is that we don't have a gun culture, with trigger happy gun owners taking pot shots at one another.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The result of that is that we don't have a gun culture, with trigger happy gun owners taking pot shots at one another.
Question for Marge or Holly. The facts seem to indicate in Canada or England, when a homicide occurs, the police must effect a MANDATORY arrest on scene, not discretionary, no exceptions. Am I right? It would seem that not every police ageny in Canada or England has the same policy, therefore it must be National law. Can you point that out?
You're right, Ohio, no exceptions, you kill someone, you're going to be arrested guaranteed, right on the spot, you're going for a ride.
As an example, John Doe, hears the front door of his house being knocked down in the middle of the night, regardless of whether he grabs a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, or single-handedly dispatches the person with his bare hands, when the police show up, John Doe, better have on some clothes, because he's going for a ride in a cruiser straight to the police station, no questions asked.
- Here in Canada we do have the right to self-defense, and to use firearms against criminal attackers. If we wish to be extended this right related to firearms, as a Canadian we need to be licensed and the gun registered.
- Canada even has a de facto 'stand your ground' law. Nobody in Canada has an obligation to retreat when their home is involved.
Still, under those two rights, laws, provisions, in the event of a fatal incident taking place, you won't be crawling back into your own bed to finish your beauty sleep. You'll be enjoying accommodations, for a while.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Take for instance the case of Philip Foster.
Phillip Foster, 73, a retired Canadian diplomat, has been sentenced to house arrest after a 2010 self-defense incident in his home. Foster was attacked in his home by a drunk former romantic partner of one of Foster’s daughters. The attacker, Richard Dean Cantwell, assaulted Foster and was smashing Foster’s possessions. Foster armed himself with a .22-calibre revolver — a potent, if relatively low-powered, firearm. Cantwell attacked Foster, knocking him to the ground, and Foster shot Cantwell in the leg. Cantwell was able to wrest the gun from Foster, but fled the scene. He survived his injury.
It’s hard to imagine a more legitimate self-defense scenario than this. An older man, inside his own home, has already been attacked and seen his property destroyed when he uses a measured degree of force against the attacker, ending the confrontation. Legally, it’s textbook perfect, and Foster did exactly the right thing to protect himself and his property. Except for one minor detail: The handgun was not properly registered. According to reports, Foster had owned the gun for more than 40 years, after buying it to protect himself while serving with Canada’s diplomatic corps in Africa. He returned to Canada in the 1960s, and kept the gun but never bothered registering it. This was illegal then, and illegal now — handguns have required registration since 1934, and Foster could have registered it when the current firearms laws went into effect in the 1990s. He declined to do so, and will serve 9 months of house arrest after pleading guilty to the reduced charge of assault with a weapon.
In reaching this plea agreement, the Crown agreed not to charge Foster with the much more serious charge of unauthorized possession of a restricted firearm, which could have carried a five-year prison term. Foster was also vulnerable to a four-year mandatory minimum sentence for using an illegally possessed firearm to injure Cantwell. The Crown prosecutor called the case “troubling” but also knew that self-defense would be a legitimate claim, and a complicating factor for her case.
Some will object on the grounds that Foster, the defender, should have received no punishment, or gripe that Cantwell, the attacker, received a lesser sentence — a 12-month conditional sentence for assault, mischief to property and disturbing the occupants of a dwelling house. But the plea bargain strikes the right balance between not punishing Foster for defending himself while recognizing that he was in possession of an illegally owned handgun.
Canadians do have a right to self defense, and to use firearms against criminal attackers. But the right to self-defense does not override all our other laws. While the right to self-defense is something that Canadians need to fight very hard to preserve and protect, they must do so lawfully at all times. Phillip Foster did the right thing in a terrible situation, and the Courts have correctly chosen not to prosecute him for defending himself and his home. But the illegal possession of a handgun, though used for a lawful purposes, could not be ignored. Let this be a lesson for all Canadians — you cannot use an illegal firearm in a legal way. If you want the option of defending yourself with a gun, get licensed, and get it registered.
That's a good question, one which I have no answers.
(I was hoping you could find something on it).
Regardless of, I'm all for it.
Honestly, I was unaware that there was any other way.
For example: Call comes in to dispatch, there's been a home robbery gone wrong, gun shots fired, police show up, two robbers lay dead on the outside of the front stairs of the home, what happened ask the police. Home-owner tells his or her side of the story, police respond, good job Sir/Maam, have a nice night, sorry to bother you.
The above scenario would not unfold here in Canada.
That's what I was looking for.
It's not like that here either. In addition to patrol police homicide detectives would be sent to the scene immediately for investigation and technical/forensic people would collect any evidence.
Yes, the same for us, too.
If all was found to be above board, I can see the individual in question being released on conditions, particularly if they never had a brush with the law in their life, weren't viewed as the fleeing type, yada, yada, the list goes on.
AnnieA
Well-known Member
- Location
- Down South
@Aunt Marg Does Canadian law not distinguish between the nuances of questioning, cooperation, detaining and arrest? Are you clear on the differences?
In the OP case, there were witnesses of the perpertrator's road rage gun threat, the victim is cooperating with the investigation so there's no need for arrest.
Self defense cases should certainly all be investigated, but arrests issued only if the person claiming self-defense refuses to cooperate or is found to be lying about the circumstances during the course of the investigation. In the case I've known about personally in which a person shot in self defense, the victim who killed in self defense called the cops and willingly asked to go to the police station to make a statement. He was the surviving victim of an attempt on his life who wanted the law to know what happened.
In the OP case, there were witnesses of the perpertrator's road rage gun threat, the victim is cooperating with the investigation so there's no need for arrest.
Self defense cases should certainly all be investigated, but arrests issued only if the person claiming self-defense refuses to cooperate or is found to be lying about the circumstances during the course of the investigation. In the case I've known about personally in which a person shot in self defense, the victim who killed in self defense called the cops and willingly asked to go to the police station to make a statement. He was the surviving victim of an attempt on his life who wanted the law to know what happened.
I do believe I am clear on the differences, Annie, but here in Canada laws are stricter. You'll be questioned alright, in the police station and in cuffs, and then you'd be shown to your new accommodations until further notice.
I do understand in your country things are different, where events that unfold such as this typically allow the individual in question to be on their merry way and carry on as if nothing happened after the initial line of questioning takes place at the scene.
Like authorities (police) when they kill, so long as it's seen as being justified, there is no arrests, no charges, no anything.
AnnieA
Well-known Member
- Location
- Down South
Thankfully, it's innocent until proven guilty here. In the OP case, the person acting in self defense is rightly recognized as a victim of an attempt on their life and the life of others under their care. They need trauma counseling, not cuffs and heavy-handed "you're going for a ride" "enjoying accommodations" lingo that you're using.
And the person I know who was the victim forced into killing in self defense will never be "on their merry" way about it. It's a life scarring event, but it's a good deal better than dead; there were only two choices.
Last edited:
At the mass rate and frequency of violence I'm witnessing today, I find it hard to believe that much of a conscience exists anymore in society.
Human life has become disposable, it's just another day in the neighbourhood.
Happy all worked out well for the man in the vehicle, that's what's most important of all, especially considering he had other family with him.
AnnieA
Well-known Member
- Location
- Down South
Seriously? Don't be so jaded by movies and media. It's a real person I'm talking about with a conscious and a soul. He had two choices, kill or be killed. He killed and it has scarred him. I own a gun and hope to God I never have a need to use it. If I do, I hope that the cop who responds to my 911 call doesn't have your attitude.
Tish
SF VIP
- Location
- Rural N.S.W. Australia
Good God, does the madness ever end? 
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
In my world it does. If I knew that I was in the vicinity of an armed civilian I would back away quietly to the nearest exit. I do the same when confronted by a large snake because I don't know whether or not is is venomous. When it comes to the armed civilian, I don't have any idea of his/her sanity.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Police officers here have to answer every time they draw a weapon and for every bullet they discharge. They are very accountable for death or injury they may inflict in the pursuit of their duty.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
In my state, NSW in Australia, if a driver blows over the legal blood alcohol limit at a roadside test, he/she can be taken into custody and driven to the police station for further testing. This is an arrest. It does not mean that they will spend more time in custody than is necessary.
Drivers involved in serious accidents are taken under police guard to a hospital for drug and alcohol blood tests. They cannot object because they are under arrest.
People who bash other people are arrested. Why would people who shoot at other people not be arrested until statements are taken. You do have habeas corpus in US, do you not? That is how we protect people's civil rights.
Here is what happens in Canada.
The charge of refuse breathalyzer test has the following penalties; criminal record for life, one year license suspension, fine between $1000 and $2000, oh, and yes, you will be arrested, cuffed, and taken in.
You said yourself Australia does not have a Bill of Rights, the U.S. does. The 4th Amendment prohibits UNreasonable seizures. An arrest is the quintessential seizure. U.S. 4th AM case law can be argumentive at times, but one element is universal, an arrest requires Probable Cause. If that is present at the scene of a shooting, then the police can arrest. The mere admittance at a scene where the person admits to killing another, can provide PC, but also can not provide PC.
WG, yes HC exists in our Constitution. A person arrested without a warrant must have an arraignment/probable cause hearing within 48 hours. Then the court determines if enough PC exists to charge or not to charge, that's Due Process. HC is not applicable at that time.
Shalimar
SF VIP
- Location
- Vancouver Island Canada
Canada has a Bill of Rights. It is called charter of rights and freedoms and enshrined in Canadian constitution,
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Not having a bill of rights does not mean we don't have rights.
Our rights stem from common law and written law.
We understand what probable cause means.
In Australian criminal law, reasonable and probable grounds most prominently regulates police officers as a precondition of the exercise of certain powers in their function as enforcers of the law.[1] Based on Australian common law, it is a prerequisite of most police powers (including arresting without a warrant,[2] searching without a warrant,[3] requesting disclosure of identity,[4] and investigating terrorist activity).[5]
In Canada, it is defined as the point where probability replaces suspicion based on a reasonable belief; reasonableness is a legitimate expectation in the existence of specific facts, and the belief in individual circumstances can be "reasonable without being probable."[6] Less-clearly defined in Australia, it depends on the circumstances of a case and often involves an assessment of the circumstances of a potential crime.
Our rights stem from common law and written law.
We understand what probable cause means.
In Australian criminal law, reasonable and probable grounds most prominently regulates police officers as a precondition of the exercise of certain powers in their function as enforcers of the law.[1] Based on Australian common law, it is a prerequisite of most police powers (including arresting without a warrant,[2] searching without a warrant,[3] requesting disclosure of identity,[4] and investigating terrorist activity).[5]
In Canada, it is defined as the point where probability replaces suspicion based on a reasonable belief; reasonableness is a legitimate expectation in the existence of specific facts, and the belief in individual circumstances can be "reasonable without being probable."[6] Less-clearly defined in Australia, it depends on the circumstances of a case and often involves an assessment of the circumstances of a potential crime.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
We have a Constitution and it is occasionally amended. To amend the constitution a national referendum is held and to pass an amendment there must be a majority vote in a majority of states (i.e. at least 4 out of 6 states vote YES) and an overall majority of voters nationally. These are tough conditions.
I voted for the amendment that included indigenous people in the national census. It was overwhelmingly approved in every state. Effectively it conveyed citizenship on the first Australians. A necessary correction to their status and rights.
Butterfly
SF VIP
- Location
- Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
What's an AM??
- Status