FINALLY Some Sense in Canadian Justice...

[RW]

To clarify, Canada has fairly strict firearms laws, at least compared to the US.



What Canada DOES have, is the "Law of Necessity."  This is RARELY ever mentioned, and I'm not sure the US has a similar clause.



What the "Law of Necessity" enables one to do, is to break the law to save himself/herself.  If it was truly a potential life and death situation, you are 'technically' permitted to break the law to save your own life, and cannot be charged for whatever method you utilize to do so...



And that means you can utilize whatever weapon you have at your disposal.  In the Castlegar case, intruder was lucky it was only a .22.

Not in practise Ace.



"Necessity" defense has strict requirements including a reasonable person would find there were no legal alternatives, means of escape, etc.  Also, like I said:



"The harm inflicted by the accused must be proportional to the harm avoided by the accused. The harm inflicted by the accused must not be disproportionate to the harm the accused tried to avoid. The harm avoided must be either comparable to, or clearly greater than the harm inflicted. The peril or danger must be more than just foreseeable or likely. It must be near and unavoidable."



This means you can't shoot an unarmed person in your home. (Read R v Latimer if you want the SCC's take on it).



It's bullshit because Section 40 of the Crim Code clearly states:



"Marginal note:Defence of dwelling



"40 Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority."



When pushcomes to shove though, the courts apply the reasonability standards to the force used. You'll likely get off or treated with leniency but you could very well still be prosecuted.

[RW]

I'm usually too high to notice :D

You really have no clue.



I remember when you argued with me that even owning a gun is against the law, let alone shooting someone with it.



You have NO clue about our laws in defense matters, so don't even try.

Why would I argue that owning a gun is illegal?  My uncle's own guns.  My brother owned a gun.



I clearly know more than you do.

[RW]

Canadian "Law of Necessity" came about like 150 years ago or something...



Boat was stuck, crew was dying, so the remaining living crew ate some of the dead.



What they did was illegal, since cannibalism was, and is, illegal...



However, that case set a precedent in Canadian law, that stated that their charges must be expunged, due to the "laws of necessity."



And since then, that ruling has held in Canadian Criminal Courts.

Why do you say thing like the bolded when you don't know that because you don't read case law?



 

[Angry White Male]

I've stated more than enough for people to get a grasp of our system, RW.



You have posted nothing, since you really know nothing.

[RW]

I've stated more than enough for people to get a grasp of our system, RW.



You have posted nothing, since you really know nothing.

Except links to actual law, including case law.



 

[Angry White Male]

Sorry RW, you are REALLY losing your marbles now.



You have posted no links, nor anything else here, to dispute what I've posted.



You know what you HAVE done?  You've become Mimi...  Argue for the sake of argument!!!



Good luck with that, RW.  Mimi finally got the forum she wanted...  LOLZ!



I hope you get yours also.

[RW]

I love my forum.



I posted actual law asshat.  What do you have?

[Angry White Male]

What I have?



A three day absence from all forums, due to more important matters, and a very limited tolerance for your bullshit.

[RW]

What I have?



A three day absence from all forums, due to more important matters, and a very limited tolerance for your bullshit.

So nothing.

[Angry White Male]

Unreal.



No wonder you and Mimi are such good friends...



I'm out for now.  I have better things to do with my fairly busy time than to argue with the sole, drugged up, argumentative poster of this forum.



Nothing personal, RW, but I have better places I can be right now.

[RW]

Take your shitty understanding of the law with you.

[Anonymous]

Unreal.



No wonder you and Mimi are such good friends...



I'm out for now.  I have better things to do with my fairly busy time than to argue with the sole, drugged up, argumentative poster of this forum.



Nothing personal, RW, but I have better places I can be right now.

In other words you are too drunk to post.

[cc]

[RW]

Unreal.



No wonder you and Mimi are such good friends...



I'm out for now.  I have better things to do with my fairly busy time than to argue with the sole, drugged up, argumentative poster of this forum.



Nothing personal, RW, but I have better places I can be right now.

In other words you are too drunk to post.

I don't know that he ever reaches that point.  It seems like he's always too drunk, yet here he is posting. :D