Quote
He went to investigate, she explained, taking his .22 revolver to protect himself.
"He went downstairs and was confronted by an intruder who bear sprayed him in the face, incapacitating him," she said.
As he was being sprayed, the owner fired his gun. The suspect managed to run away and the owner called police.
Malkinson had been wounded by the gunshot but stayed four days in the Kootenays without going to a doctor or hospital.
Quote
Malkinson was charged with numerous offences including breaking and entering and breaching a probation order.
He was found guilty, Sept. 11. Two days later, he was sentenced to 30 months in jail.
"We considered all the facts and circumstances," she explained.
"He took a significant blast of bear spray to the face which incapacitated him. At that point, he's protecting himself from who knows what at that point ... His use of force was reasonable under these circumstances."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/castlegar-b-c-restaurant-owner-won-t-face-charges-after-shooting-intruder-1.4292088
This will make Real Woman
Quote from: "Angry White Male"
Quote
He went to investigate, she explained, taking his .22 revolver to protect himself.
"He went downstairs and was confronted by an intruder who bear sprayed him in the face, incapacitating him," she said.
As he was being sprayed, the owner fired his gun. The suspect managed to run away and the owner called police.
Malkinson had been wounded by the gunshot but stayed four days in the Kootenays without going to a doctor or hospital.
Quote
Malkinson was charged with numerous offences including breaking and entering and breaching a probation order.
He was found guilty, Sept. 11. Two days later, he was sentenced to 30 months in jail.
"We considered all the facts and circumstances," she explained.
"He took a significant blast of bear spray to the face which incapacitated him. At that point, he's protecting himself from who knows what at that point ... His use of force was reasonable under these circumstances."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/castlegar-b-c-restaurant-owner-won-t-face-charges-after-shooting-intruder-1.4292088
This will make Real Woman
Shooting him is too humane. I would have beat the shit out of him over a one week period. Only then would I have shanked him.
Quote from: "Angry White Male"
Quote
He went to investigate, she explained, taking his .22 revolver to protect himself.
"He went downstairs and was confronted by an intruder who bear sprayed him in the face, incapacitating him," she said.
As he was being sprayed, the owner fired his gun. The suspect managed to run away and the owner called police.
Malkinson had been wounded by the gunshot but stayed four days in the Kootenays without going to a doctor or hospital.
Quote
Malkinson was charged with numerous offences including breaking and entering and breaching a probation order.
He was found guilty, Sept. 11. Two days later, he was sentenced to 30 months in jail.
"We considered all the facts and circumstances," she explained.
"He took a significant blast of bear spray to the face which incapacitated him. At that point, he's protecting himself from who knows what at that point ... His use of force was reasonable under these circumstances."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/castlegar-b-c-restaurant-owner-won-t-face-charges-after-shooting-intruder-1.4292088
This will make Real Woman
The owner of the Chameleon is a very lovely German man. We have eaten at his restaurant many times and I am glad he's not only safe but not being charged for defending himself.
"FINALLY Some Sense in Canadian Justice..."
How so?
- That length of sentence (much of which he will not serve) is an insult to justice
- "Self Defence" was a no brainer
I don't know what the laws are like on self defense in Canada. But if someone invades your home you can shoot them for it in 26 US states., In the other 24 the invader needs to have a gun (or other weapon). How do you know if they have a gun? When they shoot you.
IMO you should have the right to shoot anyone burglarizing your home. Cops are trained to only shoot people with weapons, civilians are not.
Quote from: "cc"
How so?
- That length of sentence (much of which he will not serve) is an insult to justice
- "Self Defence" was a no brainer
I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
IMO you should have the right to shoot anyone burglarizing your home. Cops are trained to only shoot people with weapons, civilians are not.
I'll tell you right now that in Canada, you do NOT have the right to shoot someone burglarizing your home. You still have to meet force with appropriate counter force (which is ridiculous IMHO). In this case, the restaurant owner was assaulted with a weapon and was within in right to defend himself with a gun. If he had no weapon, that likely wouldn't have been the case.
My dad had two men break into his house years back. When they came through the back door, he was waiting for him with a baseball bat and started swinging. He badly broke the first guy's arm and took him down, and he chased the other guy and hit him when he threw the baseball bat at him as he ran away. The cops told my dad to expect charges to be laid because they had no weapons. The crown didn't push charges but they could have. It's ridiculous how tight the laws are when it comes to protecting yourself in Canada.
The UK, Canada and Australia are pretty similar in this respect, which isn't surprising. The big issue is defining "excessive force".
It's an absurd situation as it's always easy to see, in hindsight, whether less force would have been sufficient to deal with a situation. But when it's 3 am and you here an intruder going through your house and you have no idea if he's armed or not - hell, what are you going to do?
I keep an ax handle under the bed. No doubt I could be charged with use of an offensive weapon, but with the wife and two daughters in the house, I'm not going to be completely unarmed if there's an intruder.
A few weeks ago a farmer heard a burglar in his house, so he grabbed his
Now the police have confiscated his rifle while they review his firearms licence! :2r4ml1j_th:
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "iron horse jockey"
Quote from: "cc"
How so?
- That length of sentence (much of which he will not serve) is an insult to justice
- "Self Defence" was a no brainer
I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.
I'd rather avoid confronting an intruder..
I'd hide.
SMART!
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Canada has laws unlike anywhere else in the world, when it comes to defense... Even RW, the self-proclaimed lawyer on the matter, keeps flip-flopping, because even she cannot grasp our laws, and cannot understand and grasp them.
We are like NO OTHER nation in the world, when it comes to self-defense. I can explain it to you, but others here seem to know better.
But yes, under the right 'circumstances,' you can unload that 12 gauge shell into the face of another, should your life be in serious danger.
We can also use as "much force as necessary" to keep someone from entering our dwelling home. THIS is up to the judges, on how to decide, and I'll tell you why...
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.
Quote from: "Angry White Male"
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Canada has laws unlike anywhere else in the world, when it comes to defense... Even RW, the self-proclaimed lawyer on the matter, keeps flip-flopping, because even she cannot grasp our laws, and cannot understand and grasp them.
We are like NO OTHER nation in the world, when it comes to self-defense. I can explain it to you, but others here seem to know better.
But yes, under the right 'circumstances,' you can unload that 12 gauge shell into the face of another, should your life be in serious danger.
We can also use as "much force as necessary" to keep someone from entering our dwelling home. THIS is up to the judges, on how to decide, and I'll tell you why...
You say I know nothing then reiterate what I say.
The stupid dial is jacked up tonight. I'm usually too high to notice :D
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.
Quote from: "RW"
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.
Here's the other problem though, RW...
Had it been a different Judge, your German restaurant owner would be serving a MINIMUM of five years in prison for what he did, up to life in prison.
Think about that for a minute.
These rules are NOT set in stone... He could JUST as easily have been sentenced to 25 years in prison here.
Quote from: "Angry White Male"
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:
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.
Quote from: "Angry White Male"
Quote from: "RW"
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.
Quote from: "Angry White Male"
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."
Why do you say thing like the bolded when you don't know that because you don't read case law?
:oeudC:
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.
Quote from: "Angry White Male"
You have posted nothing, since you really know nothing.
Except links to actual law, including case law.
:crazy:
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.
I love my forum.
I posted actual law asshat. What do you have?
What I have?
A three day absence from all forums, due to more important matters, and a very limited tolerance for your bullshit.
Quote from: "Angry White Male"
A three day absence from all forums, due to more important matters, and a very limited tolerance for your bullshit.
So nothing.
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.
Take your shitty understanding of the law with you.
Quote from: "Angry White Male"
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.
:laugh:
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Angry White Male"
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