Self defense is not allowed

[A.P.F.]

I wonder what that government would say if he threw firebombs back?

Actually, that would have been preferred, as in Canada, you may use 'equivalent force' to defend yourself if your life is threatened. Go figure.

[Fred Sanford]

Note to self......if self lives in Canada.... don't record it....just kill the jerks.

[A.P.F.]

Note to self......if self lives in Canada.... don't record it....just kill the jerks.

Amen to that, David, Amen to that.

[Dr. Snubnose]

To all of my Canadian friends....this is absurd.....My suggestion is move to Vermont ASAP...similar weather. good skiing....close enough to visit friends and family....full carry of firearms without a permit.....You will be finally free.....**** I should move there too.....Doc :)

[A.P.F.]

To all of my Canadian friends....this is absurd.....My suggestion is move to Vermont ASAP...similar weather. good skiing....close enough to visit friends and family....full carry of firearms without a permit.....You will be finally free.....**** I should move there too.....Doc :)

That would be a great idea, Doc! I have always loved Vermont for it's history and trees, but alas, I must be here for the time being. Hmm...my Grandfather was born in Nebraska, perhaps I can leverage that when the time comes.

[*Cho*]

Actually, that would have been preferred, as in Canada, you may use 'equivalent force' to defend yourself if your life is threatened. Go figure.

Except it would be expected that he run away and let them burn his house down while he calls the cops from a pay phone down the road. If you have a chance to run away and remove yourself from danger you are suppose to take it that is self defense. :rolleyes:

[A.P.F.]

Except it would be expected that he run away and let them burn his house down while he calls the cops from a pay phone down the road. If you have a chance to run away and remove yourself from danger you are suppose to take it that is self defense. :rolleyes:

The Army didn't train me on everything from 9mm to 105mm howitzer, just to run away. If the 'man' wants to give me three hots and a cot for ten years, so be it. And that's all I have to say about that.

[RIOT]

self defense is never a crime!!!!!!!!

if it was a crime youd be dead and the criminal would be free.

[Nonprophet]

My Dad always told me to never draw my firearm to defend myself if I didn't plan on hitting my attacker with my first shot. He also said that I should never shoot-to-mame. If I am justified in discharging the firearm, I must be in grave danger. Shoot-to-kill only.

Does anyone else have this general philosophy?

TedP

Only difference I can offer (his basic tenent is true) from a professional and legal standpoint is never to say what you just said. You never aim to maim, you never fire a warning shot, when you shoot you aim center-of-mass in an attmept to stop the person from continuing their actions as quickly as possible. By saying, "I shot to kill because he was going to kill me." you are actually in the wrong. Pre-emptive killing is not legal. The firearm is only meant to stop the attack and if they die from several bullets in the upper chest, then that is an unfortunate side effect of their own actions. Saying you meant to kill (and trust me they'll find posts like this) if you ever did have to shoot someone will come back to haunt you cause prosecutors and litigators will say, "He meant to kill him. It wasn't about defense he was some crazy person who just wanted to take a life. Look he even said so!" no matter how wrong they are it weakens your argument......

[defenestrate]

Hmmm... I wasn't aware that LETHAL FORCE was "titratable." Either it's lethal... or it's not.

Exactly what I was thinking.

"Excuse me, sir, could you please stop firebombing my house while i dial my .357 down to 'Stern Warning'?"

[angusW]

Well the court date came today. About 20 people showed up. Apparently there were 5 charges, not 3. Two of them were dropped so now he has 3 charges. Not sure what all the charges are but one of them is still "careless storeage" as we had to ask a cop that was in the court what happened as this happened behind closed doors it seems. The cop wouldn't tell us what all the charges were.

There was a cop on the roof across the street. Going into the courthouse we were patted/wanded down. About an hour and a half later the 3 cops doing the pat downs left the front door and people could come and go as they please. A quote from the St. Catharines Standard

Police spokesman Const. Nilan Dave said the extra officers were on hand to ensure the safety of the public.

Very ironic as that was the whole point of the protest. But this is Canada so the "Authorities" have to take care of us. There was also a cop video taping from what I've read.

I was really hoping for more people to show up but this is Canada so was not surprised to see the dismal turnout. Canadians complain about not being able to prepare to defend themselves but most of us won't lift a finger to change that. A lot of old time firearm owners just want to "hang low" and "not cause a scene in case they decide to take all our guns". Between Toronto and the Niagara region there has to be about 3-4 million people and 20 show up. I'm really tired and disgusted with the lackadaisical attitudes people have. I did meet some really good people today. One guy was from B.C.

The next trial date is in early April. Canadians. Wake the f$%k up. You are not as free as you think.

[2cha]

in the upper chest, then that is an unfortunate side effect of their own actions. Saying you meant to kill (and trust me they'll find posts like this) if you ever did have to shoot someone will come back to haunt you cause prosecutors and litigators will say, "He meant to kill him. It wasn't about defense he was some crazy person who just wanted to take a life. Look he even said so!" no matter how wrong they are it weakens your argument......

Ditto that. I worked on a death penalty case where an unarmed inmate, who is a skilled martial artist, killed another inmate. The prosecutor dragged up emails that the killer had written to some female fan about how he wanted to try his skills in mortal combat or something like that--prosecutor successfully argued to the jury that the killer must have been looking for a battle and that's why he killed the guy who was trying to stab him. Guy's gonna spend the rest of his life on death row at least in part because of what was said "electronically." The safest thing to do, IMHO, is to never "say" how you'd act and if you do feel compelled to say something, to say: "I stopped/would stop that man/person from trying to cause me/another serious bodily injury or death."

[Jordan]

See, I have a bit of an issue with some of what you folks are saying. In some hypothetical future courtroom wherein I am defending lethal action taken against an assailant by myself... I doubt comments that I have made on the internet will make a substantial difference in the outcome of the prosecution. Either my actions will have been defensible, or not. I will have been justified in the use of lethal force, or I won't have been. A smart prosecuting attorney would probably be more successful calling attention to the hundreds of rounds I discharge monthly at the firing range... or maybe the subscriptions I keep to several firearms-centric publications... or any of my various real life habits that indicate that I am an outspoken advocate of firearm ownership and daily firearm carry by civilians (i.e., NRA membership, concealed campus supporter, etc. etc.) anyway. They could, possibly, compile these things into an argument that I was looking for an opportunity to shoot somebody... but, here's the thing. Turns out... looking for a fight isn't actually illegal by itself. If you are justified in having defended yourself with lethal force, having some kind of weird desire to defend yourself with lethal force DOESN'T MAKE IT ILLEGAL. This hypothetical future attorney could find every comment I've ever made in any online forum, every letter to the editor I've ever written, and every email I've ever sent that talked about the administration of lethal force in self defense, and my philosophy in regards to that subject (and there have been a few :p ), and it just wouldn't matter. If it was a righteous shooting in the first place, it would still be that way after a jury of my peers read 10 year old poorly spelled forum posts debating the effectiveness of the .45 ACP round against .40 S&W on gangbangers in heavy clothing.

That was a bit of a rant... I know... but here is the thing. The attitude and philosophy of concerning yourself with prosecution after an event you hope to avoid in the first place causes you to formulate a bad self defense plan. If you are worried about carrying a knife that will look too much like a fighting knife... you might not end up carrying the knife that you need if you are attacked. If you are too worried about shooting a man who means violence towards you and yours because you might face civil or criminal consequences... you might be harmed or killed due to hesitation. Nobody trains to stop, neutralize, or maim an attacker. You shoot center mass because, on a human torso, thats where most of the really important stuff is. If the heart, lungs, stomach, kidney, and liver were entirely housed in the left leg on human beings... you'd better bet that's where people would practice shooting. If you train to utilize lethal force, there is no harm in saying so. Not here on this forum, or anywhere else.

Er... yeah, just my two cents anyway :) We can go back to talking about how weird Canada is now.

[Nonprophet]

Jordan... I hate to tell you but ALL the law enforcement and non-military in the country would disagree with you. If a police officer said, "I was aiming at his vital organs in an attempt to kill him because he was trying to kill me." Even a justifiable shoot is a toss up. Trust me man, I have trained with some of the people who train the world, I have discussed with other like "experts" and I have the actual training given to LEOs everywhere. In the end it's "shoot to stop" and not "to kill". If you think that the facts of a situation will bear the same results regardless of such things as what the defender was saying in the days, months, years prior to the incident, well sir I hope you never have to prove it out. The thing I think you miss in this is that you still shoot, you shoot without hesitation, and you aim at the area where all the vital organs are but you aim there because Shock, nervous damage and blood loss stoppages are more common by shooting those areas, NOT because you desire to end his life. It deals with intent and if you intend a killing then it's not ok, but if you intend to stop his actions by shooting vital areas then it IS ok. It seems like a small thing but my friend, please believe me when I tell you that it isn't and the difference can be a lot of time in prison even for an entirely justifiable shoot.
Another thing is your definition. The definition of lethal force generally speaking is " That amount of force which has a reasonable certainty of causing SERIOUS BODILY HARM or death" truth is just pointing a gun at someone is considered lethal force in the eyes of the law. The difference is that the action is considered lethal force but the intent is not necessarily to kill. Does that make sense? I won't argue much about it only to say that if you still disagree but want some good hard answers, especially if you own/carry firearms for selfe defense purposes I encourage you to speak to a lawyer in your area. I know in Texas they are a LOT more liberal with their self defense laws so you may be closer to right than I think where you live but I'd bet that any LEO you talked to would repeat what I just said.

[Jordan]

A year ago, I'd have agreed with you probably. I can't say without digging through some old posts... but probably HAVE agreed with you on this very forum at some point in the past few years. Then I spent some time in Iraq with civilian law enforcement trainers that helped my unit to train IDF. After that, I obtained a Texas CHL and started hanging with the local IPSC crowd. I've discussed this very subject, at length, with a variety of LEOs, retired LEOs, and combat trainers. My opinion as it was stated in my prior post is based primarily off of their input. That input has been that the majority of stories that you hear about people who were convicted of a crime or held liable in civil court for shootings that would have been considered justified normally are one of two things, rare exceptions that gain a great deal of press... or just stories told by people who desperately want to believe that the authorities exist to persecute Joe Citizen. As I am, in fact, armed more often than not and temperamentally inclined to distrust anecdotal evidence... I have gone to some lengths to find evidence to the contrary. This has proven fruitless. In the handful of should-have-been-but weren't justified shootings I've found, comments, correspondence, etc., were not factors... not even a little. Most of them were because the shooter left the scene of the shooting or tried to obfuscate and lie to the police after the fact in an effort to make themselves appear "more" innocent. The rest were results of collateral damage from the shootings. People who justifiably shot an attacker, but also wounded another party with an errant round or an over penetration. I'm certain that you have been well trained... but in this subject, I feel that you may have been misinformed. If you look into the stories you've heard, I think you may find that the shootings in question weren't righteous in the first place (or were in serious doubt), or were rare exemptions from the norm long before anyone had character evidence presented against them at trial. If you are correct in that this is strictly a Texas thing... I highly suggest that you consider relocating. If we are the only state that has figured out that you should NOT prosecute civilians who defend themselves within the limits of the law... I don't understand why we've stuck with the Union as long as we have :p .

Um... for the record, the advice that I have received from EVERY LEO that I have talked to about this? Tell the truth. All of it. As quickly as you can, so that you don't forget any of it. No matter how much better you think it'll seem if you lie, omit, exaggerate, or minimize some detail... it won't be. If you get caught in a single lie, it becomes much more likely that the case will see a trial, and that is all a prosecutor will need to make EVERYTHING you say in doubt, without having to pour through the spyderco.com forums for posts. :p Also, call the police immediately... turns out quite a few people just assume somebody else will do that.

[dewildeman]

When I went to firearms training to qualify to carry in my dept. several years ago, the first thing they taught us was there was no such thing as a warning shot.

[Nonprophet]

Well in the end I don't really consider myself an expert. All the trainers I've talked to have held to the intent to stop idea but that can be as much a regional thing as anything else based on departmental leanings. I can say that while I have been well trained, what I am not is arrogant enough to say that my opinion trumps all others. In the end it matters very little as the trend of the area prevails and neither consideration should cause even a moments hesitation when the need to defend your life arises. One place we agree 100% is the "call the police and tell them the truth" idea.

[2cha]

Gotta say, this little "conversation" has been one of the most polite and well reasoned debates I've ever read in a forum. Usually people just end up emotionally ranting or name calling.

[Jordan]

Nonprophet: I rather like that response... so I'll appropriate it :) . I have an opinion. I find it to be well reasoned, and backed by my experiences. You also have an opinion. As far as I can tell, it is based on sound logic and backed by your experiences. Since neither of us sounds insane... I think that your theory about regional differences dictating the outcome of a self defense shooting is looking pretty good. In my experience, the people that claim to be experts tend to know the least about their alleged area of expertise. The people who unabashedly admit their ignorance are the fonts of knowledge I prefer to plumb.

2cha: It is pretty great... I've been a forum denizen for a long time now, here and elsewhere. It is rather rare that such a hot button topic can come up without anybody setting their keyboard to caps lock and going ballistic (pun intended :p ) on those who don't share their outlook.

[Dr. Snubnose]

Gotta say, this little "conversation" has been one of the most polite and well reasoned debates I've ever read in a forum. Usually people just end up emotionally ranting or name calling.

2cha....you are just a little troublemaker and you will get what's coming to you....you @&*)$#!)*&^!%*))*.....so there I said it!!!!!....Doc :p