Canada - where your home is not really your castle?

[Common Sense Party]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/08/03/man-charged-after-alleged-thief-stabbed-inside-home/

{excerpt}
“You can defend your property, you can defend persons in your charge and you can defend yourself. In this case he can make an argument to all three, but he has to use proportional force,” said Gordon Dykstra, a criminal defence attorney in Abbotsford, B.C.

{excerpt}
“The courts have repeatedly said the self-defence sections of the Criminal Code are incredibly complicated. The provisions are really complex and are in need of an overhaul to simplify them,” said Mr. Lindsay.

“For the public to have confidence in the system, it is important for the system to be sympathetic to the victims of crime and understand to some degree who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.

“But that has to be balanced. You don’t have a right to just attack someone because they broke into your house. This is not the U.S.A. where your home is your castle and you have carte blanche once an intruder is inside your house.”

-----------------------------------------------------

Carte blanche? (There they go again, using that Frenchy talk.)

Really? You mean I can do ANYTHING I want to an intruder and get away with it? Can I tie him up and torture him, then slice and dice him and feed him to my piranha?

Of course not. It seems some Canadians have a...er, distorted view of life here down South.

I love the word choice here. I "don't have a right to just attack someone because they broke into" my house. "Attack"? Here we see it as "defending."

[Common Sense Party]

1. I guess the question is: Who thinks we should be more like Canada, and why?

[Euromutt]

202. Oh, please God, no

Judging by the charges of "unsafe storage" I've seen directed at various Canadians who have used firearms in self-defense, I'm much inclined to think that the idea Canadian prosecutors have of what constitutes "unsafe storage" is that the owner of the firearm is able to get to it.

I've developed rather a low tolerance of governments that can't guarantee that they'll protect you, but will most assuredly punish you for defending yourself.

[Starboard Tack]

218. Yes for many reasons

In fact, I can't think of any reasons not to be, except for the climate. They are more civilized, multi-cultural and have a more effective form of government.

[Taverner]

244. Because their health care system WORKS

Gun policy, not so much

[Euromutt]

262. It doesn't work as well as they'd like you to think

I know at least two Canadians who have used personal connections to get preferential treatment, specifically getting it the same week rather than having to wait X number of weeks; one had the good fortune to move in the same social circles as the director of a particular hospital, the other had a sister who's a head nurse. What really shocked me was not so much this blatant display of cronyism, but that the other Canadians involved in the discussion were completely accepting of the idea that you'd pull strings to jump the queue. Aside from the rank hypocrisy of asserting that it's morally objectionable that one should be able to buy preferential treatment with money, but that it's perfectly okay to buy it with wasta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasta), the accepting--indeed, I would say approving response--struck me as a tacit acknowledgement that the system doesn't work well enough, and that it's okay to jump the queue because your health and life may depend on it. Of course, what that does to the people who aren't fortunate enough to have connections in the medical establishment, is best left unsaid...

[iverglas]

271. having revisited this thread for other reasons, I see I missed this garbage

Anybody who believes a word of it is delusional.

It was tried on Paul Martin, the former Liberal Prime Minister. Allegations were made in the media that he had somehow "gone private" (which is not legal). They were proved to be 100% false: he used his provincial health card for his medical care and obtained it from providers under the provincial health plan like everybody else.

It was tried on Jack Layton, current leader of the NDP, when he was first treated for prostate cancer. The allegation was that he "went private". The problem was that the facility he was treated at, while private, provides services that are insured under the provincial health plan, and that was how Jack received his treatment. Just like my uncle did.

If our foreign friend here wants to present some evidence that someone actually had life-saving medical care denied/delayed because of some queue-jumping crony, let him go ahead and do it.

If his Canadian friends are what he says they are, I have no doubt that they voted for our current federal government, and thus just another illustration of the fact that there are right-wing assholes everywhere.

Yes, Euroginia, the rich everywhere do feel entitled, don't they? Ask an ordinary Canadian, not your right-wing cronies, what they think of such abuses, if you can actually prove that they occur, and you'll get a very different story.

I don't doubt that if I were close friends with my ophthalmologist's office manager, she might squeeze me in tomorrow rather than Wednesday if I call with another post-op complication. Now watch me condemn my healthcare system if that actually happens. Not.

I'm curious what this treatment is that someone got "the same week rather than having to wait X number of weeks". I'm curious what somebody waits X number of weeks for in the first place. I've waited several weeks for a couple of eye surgeries that were non-urgent. My partner waited several hours for urgent eye surgery. I wonder what the "it" was that this person got, and what the X was that they would otherwise have waited.

The desperation of the detractors of public health insurance systems knows no bounds. It's an observed phenomenon that people who move to the US from places where such systems exist are among the leaders of that pack. They've just found their ideological home, I guess.

[iverglas]

272. oh, and by the way

Our gun policy is working just fine, ta. Forgive me if I don't bow to your expertise.

It has the odd gap that needs filling, but as long as we have a right-wing federal government that won't happen soon.

Odd how that works, eh?

[Common Sense Party]

2. Is "proportional force" anything like "commensurate force"?

I'm still waiting for a reply in another thread from a poster who says that I can only use "commensurate" force to defend myself or my home.


Definition of COMMENSURATE

1
: equal in measure or extent : coextensive <lived a life commensurate with the early years of the republic>
2
: corresponding in size, extent, amount, or degree : proportionate <was given a job commensurate with her abilities>

Equal force? Please answer me this: if a guy comes breaking into my house and starts punching me, but I outweigh him by 80 pounds and I'm much better at martial arts, would "commensurate force" doctrine require that I hit him only as hard as he hits me? And that I refrain from using any moves that he doesn't know how to counter?

[slackmaster]

3. In before any Canadians

Fifty-four forty or fight!

[iverglas]

47. and here's the difference between us

I couldn't find 54-50 on a map. ;)


edit ... whoops ... I can't even type it.

54-40 or, er, a 2-4 of Labatt.

[SteveM]

4. That last quote really highlights what some in the U.S. want...

"I 'don't have a right to just attack someone because they broke into' my house."

This is what some folks in this country want to better enshrine the human rights of...

da thug.

Gandhi, who believed in defending yourself, your family, property and religion, would cringe at how his words have been misappropriated and misinterpreted to serve the interests of those who want "no violence" at any costs.

[roomfullofmirrors]

131. I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by six.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. People *worldwide* have a distorted sense of the US

Perhaps we should do something about that.

Suggestions:
1) stop torturing those who blow the whistle on war crimes. I don't know if any of those killed at Bagram were fed to piranha though.
2) don't authorize the assassination of people - especially not our citizens.
3) you get the picture.

We have worked hard to get our tough-guy image. It's not their fault that they pay attention.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. You use enough force to make the threat go away. No more, no less.

[GreenStormCloud]

10. How can you judge EXACTLY "no more, no less" in a split second of confrontation?

You are asking me to increase the risk to myself to determine the exact level of force that my attacker is about to use. I reject that. Once it is established that he is a threat then I will be concerned with my own survival and will use maximum force without concern for the welfare of the thug.

[RSillsbee]

32. I judge by using force

until the threat stops

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Comments posted here might be discoverable at trial.

I think your statement is morally flawed, and depending upon what state you are in, legally hazardous.

Generally speaking, a bad idea to say, whatever your intent.

[GreenStormCloud]

79. You still ducked the question.

How can you tell the EXACT amount of force needed so that you hit the "no more, no less" amount, given that you must decide in a split second?

[iverglas]

84. who's asking the question?

You? Why? Who cares?

[AtheistCrusader]

94. A split second only?

Why so short a duration? You imply some strange scenario that likely does not map to reality.

Let's assume, the 'split second' scenario.


My rule does not change. Enough force to make the threat go away. That does not mean FULL THROTTLE RESPONSE RAAAAAARGH MAXIMUM FORCE.

[GreenStormCloud]

115. Most street crime happens pretty quickly.

With excellent situational awareness you can spot a possible situation developing and try to avoid. But if you can't avoid, the criminal won't commit himself to the crime until the last second. He won't walk up to you holding the knife out. He will try to get close, then bring out his weapon. The best that I can do is to have already put my hand in my pocket and have my gun in hand but still concealed.

His weapon comes out and it is instant decision time for me.

If I am in my home and confront an intruder, any pause on my part surrenders the initiative to him. Action beats reaction every time. My best chance of winning the fight is when I first see him with my gun in my hand. I do not have any legal or moral obligation to increase the risk to my own life for the sake of the safety of the criminal.

[iverglas]

65. who has ever asked you to?

You are asking me to increase the risk to myself to determine the exact level of force that my attacker is about to use. I reject that.

Good for you. Quite sensible. The fact that it's all straw ...


The thread is, after all, about the Canadian law.

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

Nothing about judging or determining.

Once it is established that he is a threat then I will be concerned with my own survival and will use maximum force without concern for the welfare of the thug.

You do know that there are use-of-force/self-defence cases that have nothing to do with you or thugs, right? And that laws aren't made just for your convenience?

You can puff yourself up and say you "will do" whatever you like, if someone asks you. Whether the law should permit you to is an entirely different question.

If you want to try answering that one, you need a little more than huffing and puffing and assertions of what one cares or doesn't care about.

[GreenStormCloud]

80. I was responding to post #6, not to you.

AC cleary says that one must use the force required, "no more, no less". So how can one tell in a split second the exact level of force that is needed.

[iverglas]

86. good for you!

I was reminding you of the actual issue, as compared to your framing of it.

Someone says they would use the amount of force needed, no more, no less. No mention of "exact".

How will you decide how much time you need to get to your doctor's appointment -- no more, no less?

You don't want to arrive an hour too early, you don't want to arrive 20 minutes too late ... whatever can you do to make sure you get there on time??

No one has suggested that human beings are calculators or may be expected to behave as if they are.

The statement "no more, no less" -- the "no more" part anyway which is what concerns us -- is a fair representation of the historical requirements for justification, as pretty well reflected in Canadian law.

[GreenStormCloud]

89. "No more, no less" = EXACT. N/T

[iverglas]

92. disingenuous = disingenuous

nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

103. An apt description of the current Canadian laws on the topic

[iverglas]

106. as is so often the case

I just scratch my head.

A disingenuous law. Now who in a million years would have thought of putting those two words together?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

123. That is OK, it is clear to most of us that you really do not understand the issues at hand

[AtheistCrusader]

95. Missing in either direction, carries penalties.

If you use insufficient force where it was required, you lose. (a form of penalty)
If you use more than is required, you lose. (legal penalties)

I do not think this is technically, nor morally hazardous. Humans have survival instincts. We are quite well wired by evolution to preserve ourselves. That means snap risk assessments. You do it all the time.

Crossed a street through busy traffic recently? You've probably judged 'no more no less' how much time you had to exploit a break in the traffic. Too little, and you clip the side of the car that didn't get out of the way. Too much, and you are roadkill.

It is not a difficult concept.

[GreenStormCloud]

108. You are still ducking the question.

However I will credit you with acknowledging that the question exists. I don't face intruders in my home as a routine matter to be able to build up an experience base to be able to accurately judge the exact level of force that I need to be able to save myself. In fact I have never had to confront a street criminal or an intruder who was threatening my life. If it happens it will be the first time. Lacking such an experience base, how can I tell, in a split-second what level of force will be needed and no more. So I will decide to use maximum force if I am being seriously threatened. Fortunately the law in Texas allows that. I don't have to make detached reflection in the face of the uplifted knife.

How do YOU propose to know, in a crisis, the EXACT amount of force needed and no more?

[AtheistCrusader]

205. By analyzing the factors involved.

It is possible for the answer to be 'maximum force', but it certainly need not be a default response, simply because someone is in your home uninvited.

I am capable of quickly assessing if a person actually means me harm, and I suspect you are as well. Mere presence may be alarming, but not necessarily actually threatening.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

100. That assumes there is a continum of available options in terms of force

When in fact there are discrete steps.

[AtheistCrusader]

206. I disagree.

It is not difficult to predicate your response on how much threat the intruder presents. If he's creeping out your front door with your TV, chances are, not a threat. If he's facing you with a knife in hand, you can safely assume serious threat.

There is always a continuum of available options in retaliatory force.

[DrDan]

7. "proportional" is the key word - the one lacking here in the U.S. when it comes to our Castle Laws

Have to side with the insightful Canadians.

[Common Sense Party]

8. Explain "proportional force" to me, please.

A guy is breaking into my home in the middle of the night. My kids are upstairs, on the main floor level where he is coming in. I don't know his intentions, but since he has not been invited in, I can only surmise that he is not here to leave me a housewarming gift. I only know he's in my house, very close to my children. I grab my gun and run upstairs to confront him.

How should I respond with only "proportional" force?

[DrDan]

9. you cannot impose a death penalty

[GreenStormCloud]

11. We don't. We are shooting to eliminate the threat in the shortest possible time.

If the thug dies that is a by-product of having been stopped by gunfire.

[DrDan]

15. You are.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. No. The difference is in the intent.

I intend to render him physically incapable of futher agression. If the EMTs can safe his life, well and good. If they can't, his tough luck.

You have been asked by others and avoid the question. What would you do?

[DrDan]

29. I am not going to deal with hypotheticals - regardless of my response, I know the scenario will

changed.

No thanks - not playing.

[Common Sense Party]

12. I'm not even sure what that means.

What do you mean by "impose a death penalty"?

[DrDan]

14. it's pretty clear I think

[Common Sense Party]

17. No, it isn't. Which is why I asked for clarification.

What is my appropriate response, in your opinion, to an intruder in my house?

[DrDan]

31. same response as post #29 - not playing

[ileus]

110. Let me respond...your're supposed to run out the back door.

and hope they take their shoes off before walking on the carpet.

[one-eyed fat man]

13. On the practical side

in the event I shoot at someone who has forcibly broken into my home at night unless he possesses sufficient presence of mind and mobility to affect his escape my call to the authorities is likely to be all the medical attention he gets.

A burglar can do a lot of bleeding in the half hour or so it takes for the cops and ambulance to arrive.

[DrDan]

16. hence the Canadians have the good sense to seek proportionality

[Common Sense Party]

18. Is that like "commensurate force"?

Please answer me this: if a guy comes breaking into my house and starts punching me, but I outweigh him by 80 pounds and I'm much better at martial arts, would "commensurate force" doctrine require that I hit him only as hard as he hits me? And that I refrain from using any moves that he doesn't know how to counter?

[DrDan]

34. again - same post as #29 - not playing this hypothetical game

soon as I respond - the scenario will change - no end to it

[Common Sense Party]

39. I'd be more than happy to stick with one scenario and have you actually

answer a single question. If you're unwilling to do that, you're not contributing much to the discussion.

[DrDan]

42. not going to play with hypotheticals - I simply do not believe you can

establish yourself as the judge, jury and executioner.

Simple.

[Common Sense Party]

48. I'm not a judge, jury, or executioner. I'm a dad protecting my family.

It's my duty and right to protect them as I see fit, keeping well within the boundaries of the law.

If I deem someone to be a clear and present danger, a likely imminent threat to me or my family, I'm going to tell him to stop and get on the ground (if I have time). If he chooses not to, he gets three slugs in his center mass. Then it's up to the EMT's to help the criminal.

[DrDan]

63. sounds like judge, jury and executioner to me

[slackmaster]

68. I believe that someone who persists in an attack after being presented with overwhelming force...

...is probably someone who is dangerous enough to qualify as a legitimate target for deadly force.

[DrDan]

70. but then shooter has taken the role of judge, jury and executioner

right?

[Common Sense Party]

73. Wrong.

The Dad has taken the role as protector of his family.

And he has every right to do so.

What role should I take in that situation? Let the guy come in and do whatever he wants?

[DrDan]

76. so how am I wrong

you are judging the "intruder's" actions, assigning guilt, and carrying out the "sentence".

[GreenStormCloud]

81. So you believe the only moral action is to passively let the intruder do whatever he wants. N/T

[ileus]

82. better watch out you're not being a good democrat...

[DrDan]

90. please show me where I ever said that

[iverglas]

93. ah, the perennial question

If you have to ask, you know you won't get an answer. You might get called a few entertaining names, though!

[GreenStormCloud]

162. All of your posts on the topic are always anti-self defense.

Since you always post against self-defense then one may reasonably conclude that your position is absolute pacifism.

[DrDan]

164. conclude whatever you like

[slackmaster]

88. We're discussing an intruder who has already been shown overwhelming force but continues attacking

...you are judging the "intruder's" actions...

I would judge such an intruder to be a morally and legally justifiable target for deadly force of any form.

[DrDan]

137. when was "overwhelming force but continues attacking" introduced

this is why I will not respond to hypotheticals. The scenarios change at will.

[slackmaster]

146. Reply #68, up the subthread from here

Try keeping your finger on your monitor.

[DrDan]

150. you are right - you did introduce those parameters

guess I should not post at work - but instead focus on things that matter.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

107. You certainly are behaving in an intellectually dishonest manner

You can not claim the moral high ground and refuse to discuss scenarios.

I will give you one of mine...

My wife shot an intruder in our home. Classic double tap as she had been trained. Make no mistake she intended to kill him. Police were unhappy that her pistol was not registered in the District, but let it go. Then again the perp had a gun aimed at me and declared his intent to kill me. Nothing hypothetical about this one...what are your thoughts

[iverglas]

124. my thoughts

I see you have referred to this incident before, but also not (in the instance I found) with any actual explanation of the circumstances. No one can have thoughts about something they know nothing about. For all we know you and your wife were participating in a drug deal at the time. I certainly do not suggest you were, but I have no idea how two gun-toting bad guys ended up in your house. Oh ... and how/where did they get those guns?


I did like this bit, though:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/harveywasserman.com/bcnews.go.com/en.wikipedia.org/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=387857&mesg_id=388081

I am a very big guy with extensive martial arts training. It was stated that I could/should be able to defend myself without a gun. I pointed to that person's partner, who was maybe 5-1 and asked the speaker, what about her? What should she do when some one my size attacks them? I added a few more colorful comments about the risk he was taking with her safety.

The Dad. He should take better care of his stuff!

And the attitude that just does out itself.

:rofl:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

129. Your thoughts as usual are incorrect

The first perp entered the house with a gun as we were repairing drywall and generally getting the house ready to live in. Using a drywall tool, I knocked his gun away and was in the process of disabling him when his partner, also armed came into the house, found us struggling and yelled words to the effect "I'm going to kill you sucka" at which point my wife shot him with a classic double tap (chest and head). Ever the practical one, she got out her Walther PPK while I was subduing the first perp. No charges were ever filed, we never got the Walther back. I have written about this previously on DU.

You actually help make my point for me...the gentleman who was quite large was convinced that he could subdue any threat to him and his family. My point was what if he was not there. She would be without the tools needed to defend herself and their children if he foolishly kept to his "no guns" position. Later there was an incident and subsequently they have firearms. A common story these days.

[iverglas]

136. "Later there was an incident and subsequently they have firearms."

And yet they evidently didn't need them at the time of the "incident".

Any idea why two men with guns were threatening to kill people in a vacant house? Presumably nothing there to be taken. Maybe they really needed some power tools. Maybe they just had to satisfy some blood lust that day. Maybe they thought you had money and valuables on your person. No charges were ever filed ... against the guy with the gun whom you "subdued", or did he make a getaway? You're not even interested in where they got their guns?


You actually help make my point for me...the gentleman who was quite large was convinced that he could subdue any threat to him and his family.

Ah, yes, well, patriarchy gets ya coming and going, doesn't it?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

149. Acutally we had moved in, just not unpacked

Per the survivor they did not know we were there since our car was not in the driveway and were there to "steal stuff" since they had observed the movers the day before. He blamed his dead partner for everything even though he was the one who first made entrance to our house. He went to jail under some sort of plea bargain and given the rules of the day most likely did not spend much time behind bars. I have no idea where they got their guns, did not care then or now.

As for that couple I spoke of, it was a particularly vile incident that if they had firearms could have been prevented. She is now active in the rape survivors movement and teaches Krav Maga. When they lived nearby she would assist in some of my firearms classes.

[iverglas]

157. well, there we are

I guess the reason you're here is the stuff that has happened. Self-selecting sample and all that. Outliers abound. And I know nobody wants to hear it, but we do not know what would have happened if your wife had not killed someone.

I guess, knowing what the risks were as I assume you did, I would have locked my doors.

As far as the "rape survivors movement" -- I don't know what that is. If it involves getting women to tote guns around, it's as misguided and ugly as every other aspect of the gun militant campaign.

Dismiss the endemic, rampant, ugly patriarchy and misogyny of your culture as irrelevant, not take the slightest interest in where criminals get guns, and arm everybody to the teeth. If you aren't part of the solution ...


typo fixed

[ProgressiveProfessor]

167. Actually I would probably be dead

Even the most incompetent perp can hit their target at point blank range...

That you have never heard of rape survivors groups does not surprise me. They help rape victims get past the trauma and move on. I see a fair amount of rape victims and their partners in my weekend firearms classes.

My viewpoint is based on practical knowledge and a lot of experience. Its called facts on the ground, and they matter. Criminals have guns and are quite willing to use them. Cops write incident reports, they can rarely if ever prevent violent crimes in progress is another relevant fact. People of all sizes, races, genders, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic levels need to be able to defend themselves effectively. Those are all relevant facts. I have no problem enabling effective handgun use through quality training aimed for those who have been victims because it is part of the solution. Armed gays do not get bashed. You can not rape a prepared person. It is clear that private firearms as a practical solution to preventing crimes upon yourself and loved ones is anathema to you. But to characterize it as misogynist and patriarchal is specious and you only look more foolish for it.

[iverglas]

170. "That you have never heard of rape survivors groups does not surprise me."

Really? Why is that? Please explain clearly.

What I actually said was that I had never heard of the rape survivors movement.

But you still need to explain your statement.


I see a fair amount of rape victims and their partners in my weekend firearms classes.

And I find that sad.

I have no problem enabling effective handgun use through quality training aimed for those who have been victims because it is part of the solution.

Not for the people who have suffered the assaults it isn't. It is exploitive, it is counterproductive, and it can be downright dangerous. You're familiar with PTSD and its potential manifestations?

It's part of your "solution" to the problem of crime, which is ... well, exploitive, counterproductive, and downright dangerous.


You can not rape a prepared person.

There ya go. Utter garbage, and pure victim-blaming. That's real healing, that is.

No patriarchal misogynist attitudes here, nope.


Armed gays do not get bashed.

"Gays" who live in civilized societies do not get bashed. But why put one's time and effort into fighting for same-sex marriage and benefits and protection from discrimination when you can teach 'em to shoot people instead?



Even the most incompetent perp can hit their target at point blank range...

If they pull the trigger ...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

181. SInce we can not agree on the problem, we will never agree on the solutions

The people I know who are involved in rape survivors movement and groups use the term movement to encompass the numerous groups. Since you have not heard of it, they must be making it up.

As for "You can not rape a prepared person" If you were to spend some time with rape survivor groups, you would see those words come from them. I figure they have more information to make that kind of statement than you or I. They don't use the word victim either. Note that I did not ascribe it just to women since men get raped too. The patriarchal misogynist attitudes here are yours.

As for armed gays not getting bashed, take that up with the Pinks Pistols. (PinkPistols.org)

It is unfortunate that you consider the most practical approach to self defense so untenable. Your bias and prejudice is overwhelming and does nothing to address the problems in the real world.

[iverglas]

183. it just knows no bounds

I am a "rape survivor". I'm also an attempted murder survivor.

Now tell me why you are not surprised that I have never heard of the "rape survivors movement", will you?

They don't use the word victim either.

I do. I was the victim of a cluster of violent crimes. What the fuck else would I call myself? I survived them. If I hadn't been victimized, there would be nothing to have survived. I actually find it ludicrous to say one is a "rape survivor" or a "shoplifting survivor" or the survivor of anything else that did not involve a likelihood of death. I was a victim of abduction and sexual assault, and a victim and survivor of attempted murder.

I figure they have more information to make that kind of statement than you or I.

Do you really. Well, I guess you figure wrong.

As for armed gays not getting bashed, take that up with the Pinks Pistols. (PinkPistols.org)

Have you not been around here long enough to know I'm laughing? Do you think *I* just fell off the turnip truck? How about you take up the Pink Pistols' real purpose and real constituency with the Pink Pistols?

Here ya go; from 2003:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x20608

The supposedly gay group of gun owners, the Pink Pistols, have their own enemies list. And what a peculiar list it is!

http://www.pinkpistols.org/antigun.html

The stridently anti-gay Family Research Council mysteriously seem to be OKAY with the Pink Pistols... so does the stridently anti-gay American Family Association…
...as does the stridently anti-gay Free Congress Foundation. So is Dobson's stridently anti-gay Focus on the Family group....not a murmur of complaint from the Pink Pistols for any of those groups.

On the other hand they seem to hate the ACLU, which has fought for gay rights. They hate the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which has come out strongly for gay rights.
The Episcopal Church…currently under fire for consecrating an openly gay bishop? The Pink Pistols HATE the Episcopal Church.

Jerry Falwell, who blamed gay people for 9/11...he's okay with them though. Not a word against Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson.

Crazy old Phyllis Schafly, who hates gays with a white hot passion...the Pink Pistols seem to think she's just aces. Tony Scalia is a bigoted old turd, but he doesn’t make the Pink Pistols enemies list.

On the other hand, they can’t stand Anne Heche, Debbie Reynolds, Bette Midler AND Barry Manilow. What's up with THAT, do you suppose?

Arlen Lindner of Minnesota, who claimed gays were responsible for the worst of World War 2 (oh yes he did)…
http://www.equality.org.za/news/2003/03/12arlon.htm
…doesn’t make the Pink Pistols hate list. Barbara Boxer, who has fought for gay and lesbian rights tirelessly, did make the enemies list.

Bigoted Rick Santorum, who compared gay rights to "man on dog sex" is just dan-dan-dandy to the Pink Pistols, who DO save their hatred for…..Barbra Streisand.

Bigoted Pat Buchanan complained publicly, "Rampant homosexuality, a sign of cultural decadence and moral decline from Rome to Weimar, is celebrated, as our first lady parades up Fifth Avenue to share her ‘pride’ in a lifestyle ruinous to body and soul alike." Pat's not on the list, but Hillary Clinton, the first lady Pat condemned for her association with gays, IS.

Even nutty old Fred "Mr. Rogers is in hell" Phelps is okey-dokey with the Pink Pistols...but not Barney Frank.

Jeeze, you don't suppose this could be yet another sham group of right wing loonies pretending to be what they are not, do you?

Wowsers, click on that "antigun" link of theirs. It would take all day to read that list.

So what do you do for your next trick?


It is unfortunate that you consider the most practical approach to self defense so untenable. Your bias and prejudice is overwhelming and does nothing to address the problems in the real world.

Yeah, interesting bias and prejudice I have ... as an abducted, sexually assaulted and thisclose to being murdered by a stranger woman ...

Need a serviette for that runny egg?

I gave you every opportunity to retreat from your appalling outburst. You had no duty to, of course! Except the duty that people engaged in civil discourse feel toward their interlocutors ...

[GKirk]

266. I totally agree with you that...

...we need to work towards changing society's attitude towards women gays minorities etc.
In the mean time there is the reality of what to do to defend oneself against bigots etc
til all people are enlightened.

[gejohnston]

198. I am betting that

the guy that runs the evidence locker was a James Bond fan, so this PPK shows up and, ummm what PPK? There is not PPK here.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

200. It had been her fathers. We never got it back from the DC police who had a policy of destroying

all weapons they confiscated. The PPK is a bit wimpy by current norms, but with good shot placement that is less of an issue. As a small woman she went with moderate rounds relying instead on accuracy. She was very good.

[gejohnston]

118. you have any idea how absurd that sounds?

Someone breaks in my house with a weapon, doesn't matter what the weapon, he is already guilty of breaking and entering. There is no judging. That is obvious. In the US, chances are he is not there for just the TV. If he flees, or sits down and waits for the cops, not problem. If I do it your way, he would be robber rapist executioner and you seem to have no problem with that.

[DrDan]

125. ridiculous

[gejohnston]

168. How so?

[DrDan]

204. ". . . and you seem to have no problem with that." - not worth a response

[gejohnston]

253. let me rephrase

you have less of a problem with that.

Someone is breaking in, kicking down the door, whatever.

you are judging the "intruder's" actions, assigning guilt, and carrying out the "sentence".

How is that judging an action beyond what all members of society agree is wrong?
Assigning guilt? No, more like fearing for life and safety based on the reality of the situation.
Carrying out the sentence. No, stopping an obvious attack that could cause bodily harm or death to the victim.

". . . and you seem to have no problem with that." - not worth a response

You are being judge and jury, assigning guilt as vigilante regardless the reality of the situation. You view a wounding, detaining while waiting for the police, etc as the same as a summary execution. In your bumper sticker logic, did it occur to you that "Oh this guy is high on PCP and has a pitchfork, maybe the peaceful occupant had no choice?" or would that be still vigilantism? So frankly, you either did not think about it or I was correct.

Seriously, have you ever put much thought in to this?

[DrDan]

263. yes I have - and I stand on my comment

you can deny, rationalize, twist all you like. Those are exactly the roles you have assumed.

[gejohnston]

268. and I stand by mine

unless you can come up with something deeper than cliche one liners, using terms you do not define, ect.

I am not denying, rationalizing, nor twisting anything. You are calling out anyone who defends themselves against violent attack.

You do know the article show examples of possible examples of jury nullification don't you? One it did not mention was a homeowner in a Montreal suburb who shot and killed a cop after the cops carried out a no knock warrant. The police vest was not properly marked and the owner was acquitted.
You do know that the Crown can appeal an acquittal don't you?

[DrDan]

269. I stand by my comment

regardless of your attempt to degrade.

a common tactic in this forum, btw

[gejohnston]

270. not meant to degrade, only seeing the only

logical option.

[DrDan]

203. self delete - wrong place

[Euromutt]

201. By that measure, *any* level of resistance constitutes appointing yourself "judge and jury"

Rendering the whole "judge, jury and executioner" thing a platitude at best.

[iverglas]

101. The Dad

The Dad has taken the role as protector of his family.

And they say I'm off base ...


http://www.michaeladams.ca/articles/pdf/here_father.pdf

... Nearly 20 years ago, my colleagues at Environics in Toronto and CROP in Montreal began a study of Canadian social values. In our first survey of Canadian values in 1983, we asked Canadians if they strongly or somewhat agreed or disagreed that: “The father of the family must be the master in his own house.” We posed more than 100 such questions to respondents that year. Our intention was to track these 100 items over time, dropping some, adding others; we hoped we’d measure what was important to Canadians or what was changing in our values and perspectives on life.

The “father must be master” question has become legendary at Environics. We love it because it measures a traditional, patriarchal attitude to authority in our most cherished institution: the family. ...

... In our 2000 Canadian survey, only 5 per cent reported being strongly in support of patriarchal authority, down from the 15 per cent we found in 1983 ... . This decline was an authentic social revolution. Despite unremitting attacks on boomer values by people like David Frum, political conservatism has not translated into cultural conservatism in Canada.

... Meanwhile, we found that where 42 per cent of Americans believed the father should be master in 1992, the number increased to 44 per cent in 1996. We wondered if this was a statistical anomaly. We went back into the field in 2000 to find out if the frontal assault on patriarchal authority by U.S. president Bill Clinton and television icon Homer Simpson would bring U.S. numbers more into line with those in Canada and France. This time, 48 per cent of Americans said the father of the family must be master in his own home; 51 per cent disagreed and 1 per cent had no opinion.

We were stunned.

Well, they just don't spend enough time hanging around the DU Guns forum!

;)

Herein lies the big difference between you, collectively and the rest of us, collectively you folks south of the border.

"Duty to retreat" isn't fighting words to men out here in the rest of the world; being a "true man" doesn't require that one batter another person into submission rather than getting the hell out of the way. Men out here in the rest of the world -- including those cultural communities known for their gun-totin' in the US -- are more secure. They don't have such a great need to exercise power over other people to measure their worth. A telling bit from the above:

But the United States is regionally divided: New England is least chauvinistic at 29 per cent, followed by the Plains states (36 per cent) and the Midwest (46 per cent). Above the national average are Texarkana (54 per cent) and the Deep South, where 71 per cent believe the gentleman of the house should be master.

Most likely to favour the notion of the traditional father are residents of small towns in America (54 per cent). However, Canada shows more homogeneity of social values. In cities of a million or more, 17 per cent think father knows best. The figure is 16 per cent in small towns and cities of 5,000 to 999,000 people; in hamlets and rural areas the proportion is a whopping 18 per cent.

You do see the thing here?

71% of respondents in the Deep South of the US believe that the father of the family must be the master in his own house; 21% of Canadians in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta (the fundier west) believe that, and 18% of rural Canadians believe it.

This is the real measure of the cultural divide, and the underpinning of the "culture wars". Patriarchy, and the degree of adherence to it. Not exactly the image of freedomlovingness.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

117. Flaming non-sequitor based on a false assumption that only the male would use a firearm

Not the case in the real world and the numbers of female gun owners is growing rapidly in the US. A good thing IMO

[iverglas]

126. relevant facts based on no such thing

The right wing is hand in hand with gun militants and they are both devotees of patriarchy.

Where the fuck does "a false assumption that only the male would use a firearm" come from?

the numbers of female gun owners is growing rapidly in the US.

This is commonly said as if it is supposed to prove something. I've never known what.

Gay men vote Republican. Who ever said that any class of people is either pure or never co-opted/deluded/deceived?

Who's talking about "gun owners", anyhow? I'm sure there are women who hunt and live in areas where there are predators and pests to be concerned about. If you want to talk about handgun owners or gun carriers, say so.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

182. Again you make a false equivlancey

You have yet to demonstrate in any way how gun ownership is related to patriarchy, particularly given the change in demographics.

As tools for defense, firearms help women stand up to abuse and oppression since they minimize the impact of physical differences. The 4'11" woman in her 60s can defend herself against a much younger and larger aggressor. The more that women, the poor, and minorities are able to suitably protect themselves, the more free and less repressive the society becomes.

In the US, gun rights restrictions are classist and racist in their roots and in their effect today. That is less true in Canada where though the laws are more repressive, they are more universal in their application.

[iverglas]

185. and yet that isn't true, eh?

The more that women, the poor, and minorities are able to suitably protect themselves, the more free and less repressive the society becomes.

Women, the poor and minorities of all kinds have much better lives, on average / as classes, here in Canada than in the US, and none of us carry guns around, and only the gun militants among us (who really tend not to be women, poor or minorities) keep guns handy in our homes for "self-defence".

So hmm. By your logic, I guess the more people have guns, the less free and more repressive the society becomes.

It sure looks that way from up here!


In the US, gun rights restrictions are classist and racist in their roots and in their effect today.

In the US, a lot of people like to spew a lot of bilge and think it accomplishes something, I guess.

I'm sure this phenomenon exists elsewhere too, but this is where I see some of the bilgiest.

Please don't ask me to prove you wrong. Spewed bilge is not actually something that calls for disproof.


You have yet to demonstrate in any way how gun ownership is related to patriarchy, particularly given the change in demographics.

Odd that I haven't done that, since I didn't actually assert that, eh?

Now gun militancy, that's another matter.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

191. Indeed it is not

Snarking and sneering are not valid arguments, even in Canada, which is about all you seem to be doing these days. Youhave done better in the past.

What is blige wash is your lack of knowledge of US history and the roots of some of our laws. As I pointed out previously, Canada has done a more thorough job of applying their repressive gun laws uniformly to your obvious satisfaction..

[slackmaster]

87. No more than you assume that role when you apply your martial arts skills to stop an attack

That's how it works.

[DrDan]

138. I don't disagree - don't believe I ever said otherwise

[Common Sense Party]

71. I can't help your problems of comprehension, sorry.

[gejohnston]

97. if you are fearing for your life,

there is no judge jury executioner. Nice talking point for a shallow ideology created by people who would most likely do the opposite in the same situation. Like Carl Rowen.

[PavePusher]

240. Again, what is your suggestion?

What level of force may I use? What steps must I take before using force?

[gejohnston]

112. because you can't

because there is no thought behind it. As soon as someone drags out the JJE canard, it is kind of obvious that you are either parroting a talking point or can't tell the difference between vigilantism and preventing the invader from being robber, rapist, executioner.
When you come up with a philosophy that you are going to judge me or society as a whole, at least put some thought in it.

[one-eyed fat man]

20. Maybe the burglar should pick a place closer to the hospital.

[gejohnston]

96. Only in theory

Your definition of the death penalty is valid only you shoot him after he surrenders or does something else that shows he is no longer a threat. To expect someone to ponder "proportionality" when their life or well being is being threatened in their home. Then have the victim be tired and judged by people where were not there, more concerned with some abstract definition of civilized behavior. That said, the higher profile cases I read of, including a shooting of a police officer in a raid, the term jury nullification comes to mind.
That said, in some parts of Canada, if one is aboriginal and the other white, then insight and right/wrong goes out the window. Just as black white does here still.

[iverglas]

273. what the fuck are you talking about?

That said, in some parts of Canada, if one is aboriginal and the other white, then insight and right/wrong goes out the window.

The only think I can imagine you are talking about is the disappearances/deaths in past decades of aboriginal women, mainly prostitutes/addicts living on the streets in urban areas, whose cases were given very much less than adequate attention by police. If you think this is happening now, show us your facts.

They would have precisely fuck all to do with "self-defence", so I still don't know what you are talking about. It's a rather serious allegation, so I'd like you to explain.


That said, the higher profile cases I read of, including a shooting of a police officer in a raid, the term jury nullification comes to mind.

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. "Jury nullification" does not exist in Canada and this has in fact been expressly stated by the courts (see Latimer). If you're talking about juries violating their oath, well hell, that may indeed happen.

But again, let's have this case you're talking about, to give us a clue.

To expect someone to ponder "proportionality" when their life or well being is being threatened in their home. Then have the victim be tired and judged by people where were not there, more concerned with some abstract definition of civilized behavior.

You see, here you're just making shit up. The standard applied for the self-defence excuse has nothing to do with any abstract definition of anything, or anyone pondering anything. You're free to look it up. I've discussed it in this forum at length in the past. What you aren't free to do, and still be a participant in civil discourse, is make up false shit and spread it.

[gejohnston]

275. elementary

No it has nothing to do with disappearances or deaths. You need to read closer and read the entire paragraph for context, or are you saying Canada eliminated racism or has a better way of vetting jurors?

I do stand corrected on one thing, it does not look like jury nullification.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/443230

I'm not making anything up, it is my honest understanding that your law is kind of arbitrary. It is my honest (as a non Canadian non lawyer) that at trial you are second guessed by people who were not there.

It is my honest opinion that your law and duty to retreat can be arbitrary. Another thing, as Spin noted in this post, it is exists mostly in theory since many of the means of effective self defense is illegal.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x449323#449675

http://www.wellandtribune.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3002535

[We_Have_A_Problem]

22. There is no death penalty being imposed.

When a criminal gets himself shot, the victim is shooting to stop the threat. Unfortunately for the criminal this is frequently fatal.

However, as it is simply a side effect of stopping the criminal behavior, and not a legal sentence imposed by the state, it cannot be called a "death penalty".

The criminal, upon committing his crime, violated the social contract and the rights of his victim. At this point, the criminal's rights became utterly unimportant when weighed against the rights of the victim. As long as the criminal is an active threat, too bad for him if he ends up dead.

[iverglas]

28. and now it's your turn

What is the meaning of the world "inalienable" (or "unalienable", if you prefer)?

Now try using it in a thought that resembles this:

The criminal, upon committing his crime, violated the social contract and the rights of his victim. At this point, the criminal's rights became utterly unimportant when weighed against the rights of the victim.

You're right, it isn't a "death penalty". It's an extrajudicial killing. In some situations, it is historically excused.

[DrDan]

35. judge - jury - executioner ---- and it certainly cannot be considered a "death reward"

of course it's a death penalty

[TheCowsCameHome]

55. I wonder how many of these pro castle posters

have actually blown an "intruder" away.

Some talk like it's no big deal.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

113. My wife shot a perp about to shoot me...

I have had to do similar violence to others over time

[iverglas]

127. what a traumatic life some people lead

You'd think this place would be peopled by a whole lot more of the 1000s of DU members, reporting all the times they've faced down death at the hands of bad guys ... given how often it seems to happen to a handful ...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

130. It was in Washington DC in the bad old days

While you obliquely sneer that those who have faced violence first hand, many of us chose to live in the cities and make a difference rather than flee to the burbs.

[slackmaster]

58. DrDan, I respectfully suggest that you take a class in self-defense

Any form - Firearm, edged weapon, empty hand, exotic weapons, whatever discipline you choose.

If your instructor is good, you will learn much about legal and moral issues associated with the use of deadly force, about the importance of mindset, how to behave after you have successfully defended yourself, and the likely consequences of such an event.

It's an intense and interesting subject, and I believe that like most people you will leave class with a sense of surprise at how much you didn't know when you entered.

[DrDan]

61. actually I have - several years of Tae Kwon Do- a red belt

and I agree with you - I learned a lot.

A lot about self control, about myself and my limitations.

The first instructor was great - where I learned a lot. The second, not so much. Learned a lot of technique - but little more than that.

And it was very intense.

[slackmaster]

64. Thanks. This may surprise you...

...The same principles of self-control, self-awareness, limitations, etc. are taught in firearm self-defense classes.

The moral issues associated with use of a handgun are no different than those of Tae Kwon Do. If you use either with the intent to kill and you are successful, you may be morally and legally guilty of murder even in a situation where you were protecting yourself against a violent attack.

The practical difference is that it's easier with an empty hand technique to moderate the amount of force you apply. But surely you know that it's possible to overdo it and injure or kill someone when your intent was simply to make the person stop some threatening behavior. Firearms are crude instruments in that sense, but they can enable a person to successfully take on someone who is much more physically capable. There's an old saw that goes "God created men, Sam Colt made them equal."

[DrDan]

69. I understand your point

but guns offer an additional risk.

The effectiveness of hand-to-hand techniques are based on personal study and practice - usually over the course of years. I realize that also applies to gun ownership. However, guns can also be placed into the wrong hands - those of others who do not undergo the same study, those who do not appreciate the "control over life" they now possess.

I married into a family of gun owners - for hunting. Not once have I seen them use the guns for anything other than hunting for food for their own tables. So I know first hand there are responsible gun owners. There is not a single trophy hanging on on a wall among any of this large family. Their guns are for food - not for the enjoyment of killing.

On the other hand, I read nearly daily of the misuse of guns. And this endangers all of us.

[PavePusher]

238. A few misperceptions on your part.

Martial Arts of all types can be "placed into the wrong hands - those of others who do not undergo the same study, those who do not appreciate the "control over life" they now possess." Plenty of fools and assholes train in various styles of "unarmed" combat.

Hunting only for food does not ensure that people "are responsible gun owners". Nor does being a non-hunting gun owner indicate irresponsibility, as you seem to imply.

And you can, if you wish, read daily about responsible use of guns. Use that makes us all a little safer. But you have to actually want to...

[Blown330]

161. Not anyone's fault but the thug's...

....if he chose to risk his life by breaking into someone else's home. That's suicide by stupidity.

[provis99]

21. well then,

say a guy is at a party at your house, you tell him to leave, and he refuses. Should you be allowed to shoot him? After all, he is apparently threatening you by refusing to leave.

[TheCowsCameHome]

23. Why not?

It's your castle.

[DrDan]

36. exactly the response I would expect - thank you

[petronius]

45. It's the response we all expect from anti-gun posters who specialize in nonsensical one-liners

Riddle me this, Doctor: all the other responses to this question say the shooting would not be justified, so who exactly did you expect Cow's response to come from? :shrug:

[We_Have_A_Problem]

24. Completely different situation. n/t

[provis99]

121. I think it's a common, realistic scenario.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

165. Never said or implied

it was either uncommon or unrealistic. I stated it was a completely different scenario than forcible entry.

Its a bit of a legally touchy thing though. If I've invited the person and then asked him to leave, well - if he refuses to go, he is trespassing, plain and simple. I'd likely call the cops rather than have it escalate to something physical. If the undesired guest chose to make it physical, well....can't really say what would happen then - too many variables.

[petronius]

25. Every version of a castle law that I've read is clear (explicitly or implicitly) that

the presumption of a threat doesn't apply to a person who was invited into the home. So, absent any other reason for fearing harm, shooting the recalcitrant party guest would not be covered (and I don't recall seeing anyone suggest that it should be)...

[iverglas]

40. hmmmm

Let's assume that you posted on your Facebook page that Joe Blow was not welcome at / invited to your party. You even told him that when you saw him on the street.

So then there you are standing on your doorstep telling Joe Blow he may not come inside, but Joe Blow shoves you out of the way and marches into your home demanding a beer.

He has "unlawfully and forcefully" entered your home. See post 37.

[petronius]

44. By the letter of the law, it sounds as though he has...

[We_Have_A_Problem]

52. In the scenario you presented...

...where Joe Blow forces his way into my home, especially by pushing me out of the way, Joe has now committed forcible entry, and physically attacked me. One way or another, Joe is leaving. It will be up to him as to whether or not it is under his own power or on a stretcher.

Yes - in my state, I am 100% legally justified in using deadly force.

[iverglas]

54. you've missed a post of mine: 28

Since you seem to be dedicating a lot of yours to mine, I thought you might like to be reminded.


where Joe Blow forces his way into my home, especially by pushing me out of the way, Joe has now committed forcible entry, and physically attacked me.

Exactly as I said.

So now, under "castle doctrine" laws, you are justified in killing him. There's no question about this.

If an unwelcome guest muscles his way into your party, and has done nothing to make you or anyone else fear for their safety (you just plain don't like him, that's why you told him not to come to your party), do you, personally, feel justified in killing him?

And would you regard yourself as a liberal, a progressive, a democrat, a Democrat, some combination of those ... ? And will you tell us which of those philosophies / ideologies / platforms your answer coincides with?

Mine is "no", and I'm pretty sure it coincides with all of them. So I expect yours will be too. ?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

59. His mere forcible entry is something to make me...

...fear for my safety. Simple as that iverglas.

On the other hand, if he has not FORCIBLY entered my home, but has instead entered peaceably even though he was specifically told not to be there, I would give him the choice of leaving or being forced to leave. It would only become physical if HE chose to make it so.

Self-defense is not a political ideology - it is a basic human right.

[iverglas]

66. self-defence

is not what you are talking about.

What you said was:

where Joe Blow forces his way into my home, especially by pushing me out of the way, Joe has now committed forcible entry, and physically attacked me. One way or another, Joe is leaving. It will be up to him as to whether or not it is under his own power or on a stretcher.

Joe has pushed you out of the way and done nothing to indicate to you that you are in danger of death or injury.

Your proposed course of action is not self-defence, it is blind rage, self-righteous indignation, I can't say; but it is not self-defence, because there is nothing to defend yourself against.

Self-defense is not a political ideology - it is a basic human right.

A belief that one is entitled to injure or kill another human other than as an unavoidable effect of action to prevent reasonably apprehended injury or death to one's self is most definitely part of a political ideology. To my knowledge, it is not liberal, progressive, democratic or Democratic. I'm just cuirious which you think it is.

Of course, it isn't a basic human right, so you can't avoid the question that way. If it were, some rights instrument -- from before your antique constitution up to the most modern of international covenants -- would surely have said so at some point, quite apart from the fact that it's a nonsense.

Life is a basic human right, liberty and security of the person are basic human rights. They're the reason you may not be convicted of an offence if you act in self-defence, in jurisdictions where those rights are recognized and protected. Self-defence is an excuse or justification for killing or harming another person, and the requirement that justification be shown is a protection of that other person's exercise of rights.

But since what you're talking about isn't self-defence, it's that judge, jury & executioner stuff, your response was non-responsive.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

83. I have answered your question.

I will not respond to your attempt to redefine the question, and intentionally misinterpret what I have said.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

109. The crux of the matter is forcible entry enough to presume deadly intent

In a growing number of places in the US, it is. In other places it is not. Maybe they have a nicer grade of home invaders than we do in the US.

[iverglas]

128. "presume"

The crux of the matter is forcible entry enough to presume deadly intent

Stop equivocating.

The presumption here is a matter of LAW. It is a presumption immune to refutation.

Forcible entry is never sufficient for a grant of immunity from prosecution regardless of the circumstances.

Anywhere on this earth, or elsewhere. Unless maybe you live in a place where forcible entry by Daleks is common.

If there are circumstances that make it reasonable for the individual to assume "deadly intent" -- like maybe the person doing it has announced their intention to kill everyone in the home -- then that individual has never been prevented from presenting those circumstances to show justification for using force to avert injury or death.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

133. Again, you seem allergic to the concept of Castle Doctrine

Better legal minds than you have reached the same conclusion that I posted...under Castle Doctrine the fact of forcible entry is sufficient in and of itself to presume deadly intent and justify the use of deadly force by the occupants.

[iverglas]

143. good fucking god

Better legal minds than you have reached the same conclusion that I posted...under Castle Doctrine the fact of forcible entry is sufficient in and of itself to presume deadly intent and justify the use of deadly force by the occupants.

At least I have a legal mind.

The fact of forcible entry is sufficient for THE LAW to presume THIS:

A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another ...

I posted the damned thing in this very thread nearly four hours ago in post 37, where it has been studiously ignored by all and sundry ever since.

No "deadly intent" is presumed. The occupant's "reasonable fear" is presumed. Even where THERE WAS NO REASONABLE FEAR.

Your entire sentence is a total dog's breakfast.

Of course "under castle doctrine" -- i.e. the deformed, perverted new formulation of it on which some states rest their legislation -- forcible entry generates a legal presumption of reasonable fear.

Duh. Tautology. Definition is not argument.

If you have some legal mind that has come up with the burble you have written, let me know. I've linked to the ones that agree with me in another thread this afternoon.

Here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=127275

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/15132235.htm (dead link)

A Fayette judge struggled to make sense of Kentucky's new "home intruder" law yesterday, calling the National Rifle Association-backed legislation confusing, vague and poorly written.

"I'm not quite sure that the drafters had even a marginal knowledge of criminal law or Kentucky law," Circuit Judge Sheila Isaac said. "It is absolutely silent on the court's role."

... Prosecutors around the state have expressed concerns about the law, which they say is difficult to interpret and raises numerous questions.

... "It is the worst legislation I have ever seen in 40 years," said Lawson, the principal drafter of Kentucky's penal code, which was adopted in 1975.

A judge, a number of prosecutors and a criminal law expert (Lawson, also described as "widely considered the state's foremost expert on criminal law"). Good enough legal minds for you?

If you really want to be informed and enlightened, there is this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=125237&mesg_id=125237
in which I discussed an article published in a Harvard law journal saying exactly what I had been saying the whole time, only with, believe it or not, a whole lot more words.


allergic to the concept of Castle Doctrine?

Nauseated by right wing anti-human turds being represented as "doctrines" rather than as crap made up by the right wing and legislated by malicious morons. Yeah.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

153. The Florida law is actually quite clear and practical

Spin cited it earlier in post #135:


The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

169. Did you every practice law?

You cited a KY newspaper...

I teach in the UC systems at both the graduate and undergraduate level.

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

190. Unfortunately, his opinion is more relevant in the United States ...

than your opinion is. He at least lives in this country.

But carry on. At least you are far more intelligent and literate than most of the posters that favor draconian gun control and waste their time in the Gungeon.

That's sad considering that this is a very liberal and progressive forum.

You are entertaining and challenging.

[iverglas]

226. the last resort of the ...

... well, I don't actually know what kind of person alleges that someone's opinion on a matter of fact is more relevant than someone else's because of where they live. A person with very odd notions, I guess.

What do we do when the fact doesn't have a nationality? Whose opinion about the distance from the North Pole to the moon matters more -- mine or some NRA hack's? Mine, because the North Pole is in Canada? What if mine differs from an astronomer's in Peru?

The opinion of someone who appears to have not the slightest grasp on reality -- I refer to the source cited and I am being charitable indeed -- is of no relevance at all, anywhere.

[iverglas]

225. I am still gobsmacked

Now let's do this again.


You cited a KY newspaper...

I cited a newspaper as the source for statements made by a judge trying a case under the law in question and the lead drafter of the Kentucky penal code and recognized criminal law expert.

Are you saying that the newspaper made up those statements and falsely claimed that they were made by those people?

I can see no other reason why you would make the statement "You cited a KY newspaper". It has to be relevant to something, surely. What?

I am at a complete loss. I really, really don't understand what point you were making by that statement. Will you tell me?

I believe I also mentioned (and sadly someone seems not to have wanted to hear) that the criminal law expert was also quoted in the NY Times saying the same sort of thing. Perhaps this was some sort of mainstream media conspiracy to publish false news?


I teach in the UC systems at both the graduate and undergraduate level.

As far as I am aware, you teach some sort of "tech" stuff. Do you have some experience in reading, let alone interpreting, legislation?

I practised law for a dozen years. I have a law degree. I have an undergraduate degree with majors in philosophy and French language and literature and subsequent undergraduate studies equivalent to a major in political science. I have worked for 35 years in a field that requires that I be an expert in the concepts of a wide range of legal fields, one of which is the construction of statutes. ("Construction" is what we in the law biz say when we are referring to interpretation.)

None of that, neither your under-qualification for the task at hand nor my over-qualification, has anything to do with this. My statement of the meaning and effects of the law in question is true because I say what the law says. The statements of the various sources cited in this thread saying otherwise say something other than what the law says. It's really extremely simple.


It is not my fault if you don't understand this. Perhaps it isn't your fault either. I've done my best to help, and that's all I can do.

It doesn't matter how many sources anyone finds that say the law means something it doesn't say or mean. What the law says and means will still be what the law says and means.


Facts are what they are. How so many people take exception to them, so often and so consistently, I have no idea.

[iverglas]

224. who is it who's allergic to facts hereabouts?

One by one we go.


One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

False.

I have demonstrated over and over that this is false.

It is plain from a simple reading of the legislation in question that it is false.

I have no idea why the original source said something this false.

I also have no idea why anyone here continues to offer it up as proof of something when what it says is not true.

Let's read the law one more time:

A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another ...

Let's compare that to what the source cited says:

the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm

There they are. I'd put them side by side if this place allowed columns, for your greater convenience, but I can't.

The LAW says that A PERSON is PRESUMED to have held a reasonable fear, etc.

Your SOURCE says that A CRIMINAL is PRESUMED to have had an intent.

Do you see the difference? Would you ever acknowledge seeing the difference if I asked 1000 times?

Do you want to say there is no difference? How would you plan to say that?



Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. ...

FALSE. This states as fact something that was never fact. No one ever HAD to turn their back on a criminal and try to run away when attacked. So to state that one no longer has to do this is to deceive.

The law in normal kinds of places, and I'll include US states here, simply does not place a DUTY on anyone to endanger their life let alone to be killed. What absolute, utter nonsense. The duty that civilized societies place on people is not to use force against other people let alone kill them. People who do so in order to avoid injury or death are excused. No one has ever been required to submit to injury or death rather than use force to avert it. No one, nowhere, never.

I have no idea why this source is trying to deceive. I also have no idea why anyone here offers up this deception as proof of something when what the source is saying is not true.


... Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Well hey, that's true. What it says has always been true. Why would a new law have been needed?

It's also a sin of omission.

The whole truth is:

You may you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, EVEN IF you DO NOT reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

That is what the law says. Do you want to see it again?

A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another ...

If a person HAD a reasonable fear, no one needs to presume anything.

If a person DID NOT HAVE a reasonable fear, WHY WOULD anyone presume they did?

More to the point: why would a law create this presumption?

The legislators who enacted it must be presumed to intend its effects: that NO ONE who KILLS a person who entered their home forcefully and unlawfully EVER HAS TO CLAIM that they held any fear, reasonable or otherwise.

And no prosecutor MAY EVER TRY TO PROVE, even where it is true and obvious, that the person who killed had no such fear whatsoever.

That is: the legislature has legislated impunity for killers in the situations provided for.


I'm sorry if someone doesn't like facts.

Perhaps they might be allowed to remain on view at Democratic Underground all the same, though.

[spin]

189. Nothing that appears in a Harvard Law journal ...

is relevant to the law in Florida.

Explain to me why I should give a shit.

[iverglas]

208. "Explain to me why I should give a shit."

I wouldn't bother.

People whose opinion matters do.

An opinion matters when it at least starts by acknowledging the facts under discussion, which you refuse to do.

[spin]

187. So I have to wait for the intruder to tell me that he intends to kill everyone in the home?

Do I have to record his intentions on a tape recorder?

What if he doesn't cooperate and tell me his intentions -- kills me -- and then kills the rest of my family.

Sorry, Homey don't play that!

[iverglas]

215. "Sorry, Homey don't play that!"

Me either.

You have repeatedly demostrated your disregard for facts (what "castle doctrine" legislation actually provides, what I have ever said) and/or total inability to comprehend facts (ditto).

You have once again misrepresented everything I have said:

So I have to wait for the intruder to tell me that he intends to kill everyone in the home?

In such an ugly way and for such ugly purposes that there is only one appropriate response and it is the only one needed.

It consists of two words, and I'm sure you won't have any difficulty figuring that one out.

[rl6214]

172. "nothing to indicate to you that you are in danger of death or injury."

FACT: Over 50% of all rapes occur in the victim’s home. Half of those involved forced entry. Rape occurs at all times of the day and night.


http://www.raperesponse.com/about_sexual_violence.php

Nothing at all to worry about when someone forces their way into your home, nothing at all.:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

219. perhaps truth hurts ...

You quote from your source:

FACT: Over 50% of all rapes occur in the victim’s home. Half of those involved forced entry. Rape occurs at all times of the day and night.

From your source (it's segregated over on the right, possibly because of its importance):

FACT: 80% of victims know their attacker.

Cherry-picking your "facts" to present an inaccurate picture of reality and support a case they don't support isn't wise. You tend to get caught out.

I suppose the 80% of assaults where the victim knew the attacker occurred mainly in public places and not in the victim's home ...

Or do you suppose maybe that an overwhelming majority of the assaults that occur in the victim's home involved people the victim knew?

At least 3/5 of assaults in the victim's home had to have involved people the victim knew, by those percentages. That would leave all of the other 50% of assaults, the ones outside the victim's home, being assaults where the victim knew the attacker ... not a hypothesis I consider to be reasonable. So I say the overwhelming majority of the assaults that occur in the victim's home involve people the victim knew.

So I have to assume that you and those like you actually believe that a girl or woman is going to double-tap her father, brother, partner, former partner, friend, date, classmate, teacher, boss or co-worker to avoid a sexual assault. (Oh yeah, you do know that when a husband forces sex on his wife, it's rape, right?)

Whether you do or not is actually irrelevant, because the fact is that it isn't going to happen.

If you didn't believe this, you'd leave off this exploitation of women and only put finger to keyboard when you have something useful to say on the issue of helping women avoid sexual assualt, rather than pursuing your agenda of promoting the possession and use of firearms on the coattails of women victims of sexual assault.

My problem arises from the fact that I can't believe you do believe it -- I can't believe you do believe that a girl or woman is going to double-tap her father, brother, friend, date, classmate, teacher, boss or co-worker to avoid a sexual assault -- and yet you continue to try to use the experiences of those girls and women to advance your agenda. Why?



edit

And by the way -- all of the women in these statistics seem to be still alive. If you believe that killing someone to avoid being raped is appropriate, then perhaps you think that rape is a fate worse than death? I don't. Women actually have value apart from our "honour", these days.

[TheCowsCameHome]

43. Grey area.

What's to stop the shooter from claiming the victim wasn't there by invitation?

[petronius]

49. Must have been a pretty lame party, if nobody else was there to see what happened

:shrug:

[TheCowsCameHome]

53. It only takes two......................

the shooter and the deceased.

[petronius]

57. The hypothetical situation that started the sub-thread was "party"; it sounds

as though you've stopped talking about that. As for other situations, I suspect that police are not completely inept at investigating the circumstances of any shooting, and the 'invitation to a murder' scheme is likely to occur to them as a possibility...

[TheCowsCameHome]

60. Ok, so there's just two in the room, in this case.

Shooter says the other person was perceived as a threat.

One person dies and the other says he had it coming.

What happens next?

[petronius]

67. Well, obviously, the police pull out their Magic 8 Ball, keep shaking it until it

comes up "Askin' fer it!!", and then they and the homeowner go out to celebrate with donuts and daiquiris. :sarcasm:

Seriously, what part don't you get? The police investigate. I'm sure a cop could give you more details, but I presume that includes examining the totality of the situation, any relationship between shooter and deceased, signs of forced entry, discrepancies in the shooter's explanation, and so on.

The point of castle laws is to shift the burden of proof. With such a law, the shooter is presumed to have acted in self-defense under certain circumstances unless the state can prove otherwise. Your approach leaves open the possibility of the person who really was acting in self-defense being convicted of murder. I consider that a more serious risk and more worthy of legal protection than the chance of a clever murderer being able to conceal the crime under a castle defense...

[TheCowsCameHome]

72. So once you decide to pull the trigger,

you'd better be goddamned sure nothing will come back to bite you in the ass.

In a nutshell, just be prepared to undergo a lot of scrutiny and possible legal expense before it's over and done with.

That's fair.

[petronius]

91. Yes. And the point of a castle law is to minimize or avoid any unfair

or unjustified ass-biting suffered by a person acting in legitimate self-defense...

[iverglas]

104. no, it is not

If that were the point of the laws, that is what they would have done.

What they have done is ELIMINATE the need of any person who uses force against someone unlawfully in their home to demonstrate that their use of force, and the force used, was justified.

What they have done is make it IMPOSSIBLE to convict someone in those circumstances EVEN IF it is completely plain (even if there is evidence) that the person used force without any apprehension of harm to anyone, or used force far in excess of the force anyone would reasonably believe was needed in the circumstances.

That is what they have done, so that is obviously what their point is.

[petronius]

120. And why do you think they did that?

Your response doesn't contradict my statement - you may think the laws are clumsy, excessive, or even reprehensible, but their point and purpose is what I said...

[iverglas]

132. no, it is not

Your response doesn't contradict my statement - you may think the laws are clumsy, excessive, or even reprehensible, but their point and purpose is what I said...

Your statement was:

the point of a castle law is to minimize or avoid any unfair or unjustified ass-biting suffered by a person acting in legitimate self-defense...

What can you possibly mean, that my response doesn't contradict that? I said that is not the point of the law, and I demonstrated that it is not the point of the law. Do you imagine that you can cite a law and then just assign a "point" to it to suit whatever purpose you may have, in complete disregard of the obvious-on-its-face purpose of the law and its known effects?

Their point and purpose is to do WHAT THEY DO, not what you say they do.

What they do is confer IMMUNITY from prosecution on certain people in certain circumstances EVEN WHERE there is irrefutable evidence that the person used force in a situation where it was NOT justified by any apprehension of the use of force or actual use of force against them or anyone else -- where there was NO legitimate self-defence.

What they do, and this is not some unconsidered wild statement, is grant anyone in a dwelling a licence to kill to anyone who "forcibly and unlawfully" enters it. They provide for killing with impunity.

These laws are simply no different from allowing people of one skin colour to kill people of another skin colour with impunity.

impunity
1. exemption or immunity from punishment or recrimination

Just like whites had in your country at one time, just like the war criminals harboured by some countries enjoyed, and so on.

Forcibly and unlawfully entering a dwelling does not turn a human being into some other kind of mammal, any more than having dark skin or dissident political opinions does. Nothing turns human beings into anything other than human beings.

And human beings have rights. INHERENT, INALIENABLE rights. And this law violates the rights of a class of people by permitting other people to kill (or harm) them with impunity.

It's as simple as that.

[petronius]

193. Well that's a remarkably steaming pantload you've delivered

You've demonstrated nothing except your apparent (willful?) inability to understand words like "point" and "purpose." Castle laws exist to prevent unfair legal jeopardy for people who legitimately defend themselves with deadly force. That's their point. It's why they exist. It's that simple. How they serve this purpose is what you seem to be objecting to in your bizarre screed - but as I said, you're welcome to your opinions on that score...

[We_Have_A_Problem]

227. A criminal's rights...

...mean absolutely nothing to me when he is busy violating mine.

When it comes down to a choice of which individual's rights take precedence, the right of the victim to not BE a victim is superior to the desire of a criminal to violate his rights.

Frankly, I'm astonished that you would even try to make the argument that a criminal's right to life somehow gives him the right to violate the rights of others with impunity.

[iverglas]

230. and your opinion

means absolutely nothing to anyone when the issue is rights. Fundamental, human, inherent, inalienable rights.

So what means anything or otherwise to you is of the most utter and supreme lack of concern to me.

You don't even try to make sense, anyhow.

When it comes down to a choice of which individual's rights take precedence, the right of the victim to not BE a victim is superior to the desire of a criminal to violate his rights.

No, the victim's right to life is the basis on which their use of force to defend their life against someone trying to injure or kill them will be excused.

Criminals don't violate anybody's rights. They shoplift, rob, burn and sometimes kill.

Societies that allow people to use force against and even kill other people with impunity violate the rights of the people against whom force is used with impunity.

Frankly, I'm astonished that you would even try to make the argument that a criminal's right to life somehow gives him the right to violate the rights of others with impunity.

But you see, I'm not even mildly surprised that you would say something so utterly and completely false about me.

Perhaps you make a practice of being astonished by six impossible things before breakfast. I wouldn't know.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

235. Did you really just say:

Criminals don't violate anybody's rights. They shoplift, rob, burn and sometimes kill.

What in the name of all that is holy do you think shoplifting, robbery, arson and murder are if not violations of the VICTIM'S rights?

[iverglas]

237. what I really said

was that I am familiar with the discourse of rights, and you aren't.

You have a right to life. That right is a matter between yourself and the collective(s) you are part of. The collective(s) you are part of may not violate that right.

You've read your constitution?

Amendment V
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ... .

That is a statement of recognition of the right to life.

Does that mean that Joe next door shall not deprive you of life without due process of law?

I don't think so.

Joe may not kill you (unless he presents an excuse and it is accepted).

If the collective(s) you belong to did not prohibit him from doing that and punish him for doing it, it/they would be violating your right to life.

Doncha think? If murder wasn't illegal in your state and you could be killed with impunit by anyone at whom you looked sideways, that would be a violation of your right to life?

What in the name of all that is holy do you think shoplifting, robbery, arson and murder are if not violations of the VICTIM'S rights?

Crimes.

Which they are because if they weren't prohibited, and people who did them weren't punished, your collective (say, your state of the USofA) would be violating your rights. Whether or not you actually got stolen from, robbed, etc.

If your STATE stole your stuff or burned your house down or killed you, it would be violating your rights. Possibly with justification, but violating them all the same.

Joe might violate your rights under a contract, or your rights under local anti-discrimination laws, or your rights under labour laws -- all of which assign you rights in your relationship with Joe.

But fundamental, human, inherent, inalienable rights are not in issue in relationships between individuals. They exist between individuals and collectives.

That's why you see them set out in things like constitutions, not things like contracts.

And why you can't actually sue Joe for, or have him charged with, violating your right to liberty. Unlawful imprisonment, yup. Not violating your right to liberty. For that, you have to sue a government. ... Well, at least where the legal/judicial system isn't some relic from the 18th century ...

[We_Have_A_Problem]

246. They are your exact words...

Regardless, I'm done with this. You hold your opinion, I'll hold mine.

[iverglas]

249. duh

What did you want me to do, write them 10 times on the blackboard?

What I did was explain what they meant and why I said them.

Apparently you prefer to ... well, I don't know ... remain clueless, pretend that what I said was not correct ...

Whatever, eh?

You hold your opinion, I'll hold mine.

My "opinion" is fact, i.e. a correct statement of rights theory on which there is universal consensus among those who know what they're talking about.

I dunno what yours is.

[X_Digger]

251. How does this strike you, then?

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

[iverglas]

254. what's the date on that?

You did note my caveat about jurisdictions mired in the 18th century not counting ...

Would I be right in thinking that what you have quoted has something to do with the KKK and its fellow travellers?

Is that statute really referring to what I was referring to -- fundamental, human, inherent, inalienable rights? Life, liberty, security of the person?

(Modern rights instruments, like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, expressly recognize those rights. Yours implicitly recognizes them by saying that the state may not deprive a person of life or liberty without due process.*)

Does it make sense to talk about two or more persons conspiring to intimidate any person in the free exercise of their right not to be deprived of life without due process?

Doesn't really make sense, does it? How would one even do that?

I think the rights that statute is talking about are what are genuinely called "civil rights" -- the rights that attach to citizenship or membership in a particular society. Like voting.




* This is actually a complex minefield littered with history and politics. This paper may help understand why we sometimes seem to be speaking different languages. We are. Mine is modern English, yours is Olde Yankee-ese, if I may. (Another example of the antiquity of US practices is that you retain elements of "civil death", long ago eliminated in comparable countries: the actual denial of genuine "civil" rights such as voting and, yes, firearms possession, to certain individuals as a result of crimes, for example.)

http://www.icltd.org/anderson.htm

Google will find you things like

http://blog.onbeing.org/post/3438176529/malcolm-x-on-human-rights-not-civil-rights-by
Malcolm X on Human Rights, Not Civil Rights
... "... We believe that our problem is one not one of civil rights but a violation of human rights. Not only are we denied the right to be a citizen in the United States, we are denied the right to be a human being."

http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Rights-Human-Struggle-Economic/dp/0812239695
"From Civil Rights to Human Rights: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Struggle for Economic Justice"

http://www.ushumanrightsfund.org/about-us/history
Civil Rights at Home, Human Rights Abroad
"From the 1950s until the late 1990s, we inhabited this bi-furcated rights reality in the United States. Human rights applied elsewhere and only civil rights applied here. ..."
Rejoining Human Rights
"At the end of the 20th century, the default understanding of human rights as foreign and civil rights as domestic began to change. ..."

http://books.google.com/books/about/Bringing_Human_Rights_Home_Portraits_of.html?id=o11DAQAAIAAJ
Bringing Human Rights Home: Portraits of the movement
"This three-volume set chronicles the history of human rights in the United States from the perspective of domestic social justice activism. First, the set examines the political forces and historic events that resulted in the U.S.'s failure to embrace human rights principles at home while actively (albeit selectively) championing and promoting human rights abroad. It then considers the current explosion of human rights activism around issues within the United States and the way human rights is transforming domestic social justice work."


I keep hoping the Guns forum will catch up.

Life and liberty are not "civil rights". They are inherent, inalienable, fundamental, human rights.

[ileus]

116. every citizen in every state should be demanding a castle law...except criminals.

Not one person should have to debate law in their head before protecting their family, or property.

One shouldn't have to worry about a criminals family suing them for lost wages or some other BS.

One shouldn't have to worry about a prosecutor biting at the bit to win their next election.

Your home, family, and person are yours....nothing else matters.

[gejohnston]

147. not usually

you have a pretty good chance of surviving a gunshot, depending on speed of medical care etc.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

196. Depends upon who shoots you and with what

While there are number of WIA vs KIA, there is not really much more of a breakdown for civilian shootings (You can get LEO stats most of the time).

You are much more likely to die from being shot by a competitive combat shooter with a .45 vice than an elderly person with a .22 revolver. Gang shootings and other spray and pray events do indeed produce a lot of WIA.

[iverglas]

51. actually a good question

The person who uses deadly force (not necessarily a firearm) need only bring themselves within the presumption -- that they had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm -- to benefit from the effects of it.

That is, they need only show that they knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

If the other person is dead, what is there to refute such an assertion? In some circumstances, it might be quite possible to get away with the lie.

[Common Sense Party]

26. You're not really that obtuse, are you?

[ileus]

75. Be kinda crazy to have a party at your own home...

I know how often people are invited to my home for a party....zero.zero

I try and avoid even having Tgiving or Xmas family get togethers, but every third year it still rotates to our home. I hate having anyone inside my home besides my wife kids and a select few of their friends.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

98. That's your choice.

Some of us enjoy having friends over. Its a lot cheaper than going out, and we can get drunk and have a good time without having to worry about anyone driving.

[ileus]

105. Yeah....we don't go out like that either.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

111. Like i said...

Whatever works for you - I'd go nuts if I never had people over.

[GreenStormCloud]

85. Depends upon several factors.

If he simply is refusing to leave but is not behaving violently you don't have cause to do anything except call the police.

If he is getting violent then at some point his violence will be enough that self-defense will be authorized. You must be sure that you are not contributing to the escalation in the violence.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

188. kind of like a date rape thing - -

invite a guy into your home, he gets out of line, you ask him to leave, he doesn't. then what?

[iverglas]

221. goes without saying, doesn't it?

EVERYTHING having to do with firearms is related to sexual violence against women somehow, I gather.

[iverglas]

27. ah, it's the National Post

Shall I quote some Fox News at you?

Poor National Post, wishing we were all USAmericans. Why then, we'd have "attorneys" in British Columbia. Which we don't. Canadians don't have attorneys. We have barristers, solicitors, lawyers ... and people who get their news and views from south of the border think they have attorneys.

Anyhow. I always like the bits that don't make it to the threads here. I haven't read the thread yet. Maybe somebody else has noticed this. Hahahaha.

“The man was charged because it is alleged the stabbing was excessive,” said Constable Tonyo Vella. “It is alleged that he stabbed the man a number of times. He’s fortunate to be alive.”

Key to the case is that the multiple stab wounds were inflicted both inside the home and outside, Const. Vella said, suggesting the occupants might have been able to close the door once he was outside and call police.

Oh dear. Now, the line forms here for those defending his actions.

As for juries declining to convict people like the man who killed the man who got his daughter addicted to drugs ... I, knowing whereof I speak, might be able to help you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Latimer

Robert William "Bob" Latimer (born March 13, 1953), a Canadian canola and wheat farmer, was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of his daughter Tracy (November 23, 1980 – October 24, 1993).

... Tracy Latimer was born November 23, 1980. An interruption in Tracy's supply of oxygen during the birth caused cerebral palsy,<3> leading to severe mental and physical disabilities including seizures that were controlled with seizure medication.<4><5> She had little or no voluntary control of her muscles, and could not walk or talk. Her doctors described the care given by her family as excellent.<6>

The Supreme Court judgment of 1997 noted, "It is undisputed that Tracy was in constant pain. ...

... After a new trial, Mr. Latimer was again found guilty of second-degree murder in late 1997. At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Latimer’s lawyer argued that he should be given a “constitutional exemption,” or that the judge should find the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years to be “cruel and unusual punishment” in the circumstances, and therefore a violation of Mr. Latimer’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On 1 December 1997, in a decision that surprised most legal commentators, the sentencing judge found that a 10-year sentence would indeed be “grossly disproportionate” to the offence. He sentenced Mr. Latimer to two years less a day, half of which would be served in a provincial jail and half on his farm. In 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Mr. Latimer's crime could not be justified through the defence of necessity, and found that, despite the special circumstances of the case, the lengthy prison sentence given to Mr. Latimer was not cruel and unusual, and therefore not a breach of section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court also ruled that Mr. Latimer was not denied rights to jury nullification, as no such rights exist, and his prison sentence was thus upheld.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/12/06/f-robert-latimer-compassionate-homicide.html

Latimer stood trial again in October 1997. A month later he was convicted, again, of second-degree murder.

The jury recommended he be eligible for parole after a year, even though the minimum sentence for second-degree murder is 25 years with no chance of parole for 10 years. (Automatic minimum sentences for first- and second-degree murder have been mandatory since 1976, as a trade-off for the abolition of capital punishment.)

There, I suspect, is much of the problem.

Mandatory minimum sentences.

A jury that agreed that the case for guilt had been made, but believed the accused should be treated leniently for one reason or another, would find itself condemning someone to at least 10 years in prison.

Prosecutors may have trouble finding juries willing to convict in those circumstances. If there were widespread opposition to the death penalty in the US, prosecutors might find themselves in the same situation. (Unfortunatley, it works the other way around: people who oppose the death penalty will be in short supply on murder juries, leaving the job to the kind of nasty people who support it and are more likely to be willing to convict even in questionable cases.)


There's nothing confusing about Canada's self-defence laws. Yup, they do not say "shoot to kill at will", but Canadians do understand words of more than one syllable.

Anyone in the world would know that if you keep stabbing someone who is already injured and is not inside your home you will -- or at least should -- find yourself in a spot of bother.

[iverglas]

30. and just to inform the debate

This is what the Criminal Code of Canada actually says:


Defence of Person

Self-defence against unprovoked assault

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Extent of justification

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.


additional provisions include:


Preventing assault

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

Extent of justification

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.


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.


Defence of house or real property

41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

Assault by trespasser

(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.



edit

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html

[iverglas]

37. compare and contrast: Florida

s.776.012

Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.



s.776.013

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.




Get it at all?

A person who uses "deadly force" against someone who is entering or has entered a dwelling unlawfully or forcefully is PRESUMED to have had a reasonable fear etc.

That is an IRREBUTABLE presumption. As the law journal I quoted some years ago says:

Therefore, a court will not entertain arguments showing the nonexistence of the presumed fact, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Rather, a court will direct a jury that if they find the basic fact, that the victim was unlawfully in the actor’s dwelling or vehicle, to be proven, then they must find the presumed fact that the actor had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury. This finding in turn justifies the use of deadly force, regardless of the circumstances.

Getting it yet?

You actually MAY shoot an unarmed 10-yr-old in the back if the kid came in through a window.

[spin]

135. Yup. If someone forcefully enters my home in Florida ...

I have EVERY right to assume that they intend to harm me or my family.

It's easy to knock and wait for someone to come to the door. I've had this happen numerous times in the past and if it is late at night, I am armed. When I answer the door, I have a snub nosed revolver in my pocket and my hand is on it. I have never had a incident where I had to draw the weapon and none of the people who have been at the door ever realized that I was armed.

What I would do if I ever confronted an intruder who has forcefully entered my home depends on many factors. If he follows my instructions, I will hold him for the police. If he acts at all aggressive, I will use lethal force. If he turns his back on me and doesn't immediately run for an exit, I will assume that he may well be attempting to reach for a weapon while his back blocks my view, I will immediately move sideways to cover if possible and order him to "freeze" and not to turn towards me.

The last thing that I would ever want to do is to shoot another person, even if it was entirely justified. However, if I feel that my life or my health is threatened, I will do so. The stakes are higher now that I live in a home with my daughter, son in law and grandchildren. If an intruder gets past me, he threatens them.

Your assumption is that I will instantly shoot anyone I find in my house without taking the time to appraise the situation and that I would blow away some ten year old kid who crawled through a window. I suppose that under the law in Florida, someone who did might actually not be criminally charged. I can't remember an example where this has happened, but it may have.

But you should also be aware that I have not changed my tactics for self defense since the law has changed in Florida. I would have done exactly the same things before the law passed in 2005.

Let's review what the Florida Castle Doctrine Law does.

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

I personally appreciate two things about this law.

1) I no longer have a duty to retreat if I am somewhere I have a right to be and am attacked in a manner that threatens my life or health. Since I am an candidate for a hip replacement and suffer from degenerative disk disease, retreating may save my life or heath only if the attacker was incapacitated with laughter at my attempt.

2) Why should I have to face the expense of a law suit from the person who attacked me or his family if I was in the right?

I realize that you will disagree with my view, and that's fine. You live in a different nation with different laws. You like the laws on self defense where you live and I like the laws where I live. I doubt if anything either one of us says will have any effect on either nation's laws, but it is always fun to debate.

[iverglas]

155. do you enjoy dancing in circles?

Let's review what the Florida Castle Doctrine Law does.

I disposed of this attempt a long time ago -- possibly the first time you posted it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=196259&mesg_id=196485

Actually, I let the spin get to me there. The legislation does NOT establish "in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person".

It establishes the presumption in law that a person who used force against someone who forcibly and unlawfully enters a dwelling HAD A REASONABLE FEAR of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.

How many times does this have to be said?

And this:

Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

is just flat out FALSE, and I don't care who said it. It is NOT what the law says. Not. Just plain not.

You do not have to believe anything in order to use deadly force, reasonable belief or otherwise. And no one may present evidence to show you did not have any such belief or any grounds for such a belief. This is the whole bleeding point. Citing amateur internet sites at me that say something else doesn't help any case.

Again, how many times does this have to be said? It isn't me saying it, it is the legislation saying it.

Guncite is not a court. Guncite is not a legal expert. Guncite is misleading people. You have replied to a post in which I QUOTED the law. Why don't you quote it instead of some nonsense from the internet?


1) I no longer have a duty to retreat if I am somewhere I have a right to be and am attacked in a manner that threatens my life or health. Since I am an candidate for a hip replacement and suffer from degenerative disk disease, retreating may save my life or heath only if the attacker was incapacitated with laughter at my attempt.

You seem actually to believe that a person with this sort of physical disability would have been expected to sprint for the nearest window and climb out. If you do actually believe that, well, you're wrong. You also would not have had a duty to sprout wings and airlift yourself to safety.

2) Why should I have to face the expense of a law suit from the person who attacked me or his family if I was in the right?

Why should you not have to, if you were in the wrong?

If you don't believe that killing an unarmed 10-year-old who has climbed in your window is "wrong", then you don't have to bother answering. If you do, then please acknowledge that these laws PERMIT THAT and let me know.


Your assumption is that I will instantly shoot anyone I find in my house without taking the time to appraise the situation and that I would blow away some ten year old kid who crawled through a window.

I neither made nor stated any such assumption and you have no business asserting that I did.



typo fixed

[spin]

173. Obviously your attempt to reply in the past did not convince me ...

nor does it now.

The Florida law says:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=776.012&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Then the statute goes on to explain a number of situations in which the presumption does not apply.

If I do have such reasonable belief that my health or life is threatened and I meet all the requirements in the statute, I can use lethal force. If the investigation proves that the person who was in my home or attacked me on the street or attempted to enter my car had no right to be there and did indeed have evil intentions, I can't be prosecuted or sued. Sounds fairly straight forward to me. If the investigation proves that I was in the wrong, I can be prosecuted or sued (and deserve to be).

I will agree that in all likelihood considering my age and my physical disabilities, I would have not been prosecuted for failing retreat under the old law. However even in the days when I was in far better condition, a requirement to retreat would expose me to unnecessary risk. If I am totally in the right, why should I have to run? Far better for me to stand my ground or even to advance on the attacker. Running from a predator is, in my opinion, foolish. It's far better to react in a manner the attacker does not expect. He anticipates that you will be frightened and may attempt to flee. When you react in the opposite manner, you gain the advantage. He may well decide to run. If so all ends well.

But let me ask you that if an individual was 6' 8" and was in excellent physical condition and was faced by an attacker who was 5' 5" and topped the scale at 110 pounds but was armed with a knife or a gun, why should the victim be required to retreat? Admittedly this is unlikely, but could happen.

Also ten year old kids are normally small enough that most people would realize that they were being threatened by a child, but what is to say that a teenager, if armed with a firearm, is not dangerous? In many areas of the world very young children are recruited to fight in wars and can be as deadly as adults. I would imagine that in Florida a person who shot a ten year old kid who entered his home would face a serious investigation and might well face prosecution. Again I can't think of a single incident where this happened. If the youth was armed, especially with a handgun, the homeowner would probably not face prosecution if he used lethal force. Should he?

What if the invader was 13 years old or if he was 15 or 16? How can the victim determine the attacker's age? Hell, in the United States a 17 year old kid can join the military with his parents permission. I know several 14 year old kids that are taller than I am.

How would you change the Florida law? Would you say that lethal force can only be used against home invaders or attackers over a certain age?

[iverglas]

179. I'm not responsible for your shortcomings; really I am not

If I do have such reasonable belief that my health or life is threatened and I meet all the requirements in the statute, I can use lethal force.

THIS is what the law says, NOT what you keep saying. Please try to let this penetrate your grey matter:

If you do NOT have such reasonable belief that your health or life is threatened and you meet all the requirements in the statute, you may use lethal force.

Getting it yet?

You copied and pasted the bleeding statute and still you claim not to get it?

A person IS PRESUMED to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm ...

Do you see the teeny tiny difference between that and standard self-defence provisions, the Canadian one I offered being an example?

Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and ...

You see how the standard version REQUIRES that the person have such a reasonable apprehension and the so-called castle doctrine law DOES NOT REQUIRE that the person have such a reasonable apprehension?

It is so clear, so simple, so unavoidable, that I absolutely cannot see how you cannot see it. Absolutely. Cannot. See.


If I am totally in the right, why should I have to run?

Why you should run is because you do not want to get hurt or killed, for the love of god. What kind of a moron is more concerned about whether they should "have to run" than about whether they get hurt or killed? What does being "totally in the right" have to do with the best way to avoid getting killed?

Why is NOT killing someone else worse than killing them? Why is you "having to run" worse than you killing someone????


Far better for me to stand my ground or even to advance on the attacker.

"Better" in what sense? Practically, if a disability prevents leaving the scene? (See how it's possible to frame it neutrally, without those dishonourable words like "retreat"?) Sure. Better morally? Absent special circumstances, better chance of survival? Depends on the circumstances, doesn't it? As the self-defence justification ALWAYS DID AND STILL DOES.


I would imagine that in Florida a person who shot a ten year old kid who entered his home would face a serious investigation and might well face prosecution.

Why would you imagine this? Because you are reading an imaginary law and not the law on the books?

Here's the law, one more time:

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

Is there something in there that exempts children? Not that I can see.


But let me ask you that if an individual was 6' 8" and was in excellent physical condition and was faced by an attacker who was 5' 5" and topped the scale at 110 pounds but was armed with a knife or a gun, why should the victim be required to retreat?

Because, IF they did NOT reasonably believe that leaving the scene would NOT enable them to avoid injury or death, they would be using force against another person FOR NO REASON, and that is generally regarded as a crime.

Fear of loss of face is NOT an acceptable reason to use force against another person in civilized societies. Not.


How would you change the Florida law?

Since you ask ... I would change all these ugly laws to provide for exactly what self-defence actually MEANS, which is the use of force where there is a reasonable belief that no alternative exists, to avoid reasonably apprehended injury or death, so long as there is no intent to kill.

And if that means a bullet to the hip rather than a bullet to the brain, so be it.

[spin]

186. We will continue to differ ...

While I'm sure that you will go absolutely ballistic and quote all sorts of precedents based on Canadian and British law which in no way impresses me, I will take the time to post an interview with the person primarily responsible for many Florida laws involving firearms.

Former NRA President Exposes the Lies and Misinformation Aimed at Florida’s “Castle Doctrine” Law

HAMMER: The castle doctrine law was signed into law on April 26th of this year. It did not take effect until October 1st because jury instructions had to be re-written. The jury system and the prosecutors in this state had started changing the law and jury instructions to simply give the edge to criminals. So because there was a delay in the legislation taking effect, the Brady Campaign, who had been unsuccessful in defeating the campaign, had decided to run a campaign and get a lot of publicity and in essence terrorize our tourists by attempting to make them think that if they came to Florida they could be shot. That is absolute nonsense.

The castle law doctrine has three major components. It restores the right of a law-abiding citizen to protect himself and his family in his home. It establishes the presumption that if someone breaks into your home or forcefully intrudes into your home of your occupied vehicle, that they are there to do harm and that you may therefore use force, including deadly force, to protect yourself and your family and you are not going to be badgered by a justice system that protects criminals.

The second thing that it does is it removes the duty to retreat when you are under attack by a criminal. The duty to retreat had been imposed by the system and essentially if someone had tried to drag a woman into an alley to rape her, the women – even though she might be licensed to carry concealed and ready to protect herself, the law would not allow her to do it. It required her to try to get away and run and be chased down by the perpetrator before she could then use force to protect herself. That was wrong. So the duty to retreat from any place that you have the right to be has been removed. If you are attacked, you can still run if you want to. But if you want to protect yourself, you can in effect stand your ground and protect yourself.

The third component deals with a prohibition against civil lawsuits by criminals or the families of criminals who had begun to profit by their crimes by suing victims who may have harmed or killed criminals who were attacking them or intruding into their homes. It is just wrong for a system to allow criminals who have attacked you to turn around and sue you when you defend yourself and do harm to them.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/marion-hammer-nra-interview.htm

A person who enters my home forcefully is to me and to Florida law a threat to me and my family.

That does not mean that I will automatically shoot the intruder as I have explained.

You reply in response to my question. "How would you change the Florida law?"

"Since you ask ... I would change all these ugly laws to provide for exactly what self-defence actually MEANS, which is the use of force where there is a reasonable belief that no alternative exists, to avoid reasonably apprehended injury or death, so long as there is no intent to kill.

And if that means a bullet to the hip rather than a bullet to the brain, so be it."

All that shows to me is that you have absolutely no comprehension of using a firearm for self defense (which is not surprising, considering that you live in Canada.)

In self defense you shoot for center body mass. If that fails to stop the attack, you MIGHT attempt a head shot. Why would any one attempt to stop a criminal attack by shooting to the hip? I've never heard any expert suggest such a tactic.

Some of the females I have taken to the range did shoot towards the groin area of the target. When I asked them why, they just smiled.

[iverglas]

197. "Former NRA President"

Keep digging.

I offer a judge, the lead drafter of the Kentucky penal code, a publication in a learnèd journal, actual cases ... and you offer an amateur internet site and a former NRA president.


All that shows to me is that you have absolutely no comprehension of using a firearm for self defense (which is not surprising, considering that you live in Canada.)

No, what it shows is that I am not interested in tough-guy, pseudo-expert, macho bullshit and I don't believe that people should intentionally kill other people.

This is not a matter of "comprehension of using a firearm for self defense". Much as you all like to talk about nothing else and pretend that there are no issues, there are.


Some of the females I have taken to the range did shoot towards the groin area of the target. When I asked them why, they just smiled.

Female ... cats? chimpanzees? aardvarks?

[spin]

210. Marion Hammer, the former NRA president ...

has been the driving force behind many Florida gun laws. She is one very impressive lady. This may surprise you but she is a lifelong Democrat. I doubt if you have any interest in her, but if you do there is a interesting Florida Trend article at http://www.floridatrend.com/people_article.asp?cName=People&rName=Florida%20Icons&whatID=1&aID=49217

I will waste some of my time and post a couple of excerpts from an articles on self defense. I'm sure they will impress you just as much as your quote from the "learnèd journal" impressed me. You may be a very intelligent person but you obviously lack the basic knowledge of using a handgun for self defense as illustrated by your statement in post #179

How would you change the Florida law?

Since you ask ... I would change all these ugly laws to provide for exactly what self-defence actually MEANS, which is the use of force where there is a reasonable belief that no alternative exists, to avoid reasonably apprehended injury or death, so long as there is no intent to kill.

And if that means a bullet to the hip rather than a bullet to the brain, so be it.

Hopefully these excerpts will help to overcome the misconceptions that you acquired by watching far too many movies.

Defensive Handgun Shooting Accuracy - Application and Justification

***snip***

The Risks Of Not Aiming For Center-of-Mass

Some students in my Detroit Michigan CCW CPL Class have expressed to me a desire to merely shoot an assailant in a part of his anatomy that is believed to be non-life threatening. For example, one lady recently expressed to me a desire to shoot a bad guy in the leg, if she was ever attacked. She figured that this tactic would both stop the threat and not kill the attacker.

There are a couple of problems with this approach to a defensive shooting. For starters, the victim may not possess the requisite ability to shoot a moving leg of an assailant while "under the stress" of an attack. If the shot misses, the fired bullet could come to rest in a "bad" place, as discussed earlier. A "miss" could lead to jail time and a civil lawsuit.

Furthermore, during the time that the victim is attempting "trick shots," the attacking assailant may be attempting common sense center-of-mass shots of his own to the victim. The victim could very well be placing himself in greater danger by unnecessarily prolonging the encounter.

Secondly, there is a major artery in the leg: the femoral. If a bullet hits this artery, an assailant could "bleed out" and expire in a very short period of time. So, even though the victim wouldn't face criminal liability for killing an attacking assailant, he could still "fail" at not killing his attacker.
http://www.squidoo.com/defensive-handgun-shooting-accuracy-application-and-justification

Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense, Part 2

In Part 1 of this special series, the Force Science Research Center explored legislation proposed, and ultimately recalled, by a NYS Senator that would have required officers to “shoot to wound” and the practical reason why this idea doesn’t make sense.

***snip***

LEGAL ISSUES.

A shoot-to-wound mandate would “not be valid legally” because it sets a standard far beyond that established by Graham v. Connor, the benchmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on police use of force, says former prosecutor Jeff Chudwin, now chief of the Olympia Fields (IL) PD and president of the Illinois Tactical Officers Assn.

Recognizing that violent encounters are “tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving,” the Court “does not require officers to use the least intrusive method” of forcefully controlling a threatening suspect, but “only what’s reasonable,” Chudwin explains. When an officer’s life or that of a third party appears in jeopardy, shooting can be justified as reasonable.

By legal definition, the possible consequences of deadly force include both death and great bodily harm. “The law has never broken these 2 apart,” Chudwin says, which is what Paterson’s proposal tried to do. “He’s saying that police should only shoot someone just a little bit. Deadly force is not about ‘just a little bit.’ Any time you fire a firearm, there’s a substantial risk of great bodily harm or death. The law doesn’t even so much as suggest that deadly force should be just enough to wound but with no probability of death. That’s plain wrong legally and tactically, and sends the wrong message.”
http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/127238-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-Part-2/

Should law require 'shooting to wound'?

"When Vice President Joe Biden was asked about a 'minimum force' bill that would require officers to shoot an assailant in the arm or the leg," The Firearms Lawyer Mark Knapp writes, "the VP called the legislation a 'John Wayne Bill' because officers cannot reasonably be expected to shoot like they do in Hollywood."
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/should-law-require-shooting-to-wound

[iverglas]

213. whatever

Are you not one of the first to dismiss anything that comes from the Joyce Foundation or one of its officers -- even when what is in issue is known fact?

I am not remotely interested in the statements of a former NRA president about a law the NRA was the driving force behind -- when those statements are proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be false.

I don't care what her political affiliation is, I don't care what her c.v. says. The only thing that matters is whether what she says about a matter of fact, not opinion, is true.

Her representation of what the law says is FALSE. This has nothing to do with anyone's interpretation of the law. What the law does is plain on its face. And it isn't what this person says it does. Period. No issue.

It DOES say what other sources I have cited say it says -- and you can see that with your own eyes by READING the damned law. I have absolutely no clue why you think you can keep presenting anyone's representation of what the laws says as some kind of truth when anyone with eyes, including you, can read the law for themself and see that it's false.

It's no different from someone saying the earth is flat. It isn't.


As for the rest of your post: sorry, I really just am not interested.

If someone chooses to kill another person, it's up to them to demonstrate justification for their action -- in civilized societies.

Let them call all the expert evidence they like, and show that their choice to use a firearm in a way that makes it clear that the foreseeable effect was death was not an intentional killing -- as is required in civilized societies.

[spin]

228. You have a cifficult time understanding why I fail to view your interpretation ...

as correct and I have a hard time trying to understand why you fail to understand a simple term such as "deadly force".

Here's the Florida definition of the term from the 2010 Florida statutes: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

776.06 Deadly force.—
(1) The term “deadly force” means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to:
(a) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
(b) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.

If I ever shoot a person with a firearm in legitimate self defense, I will realize that I will likely cause "death or great bodily harm". There is no way I can do what you suggest and foresee what the result will be. I don't shoot to kill a person, I shoot to stop his attack. He may die as a result.

It's not like if I shoot him in his chest area that he is guaranteed to die. There's an excellent chance that he will survive. That's fine with me, as long as my efforts have stopped his attack. But my efforts might not be successful. Many times a victim has shot an attacker multiple times and the attacker was still able to injure or kill the victim.

When can a citizen use deadly force in Florida?

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

The statute goes on to explain when the presumption does not apply. You might find this interesting. Further down there is another excerpt that I would like to point out:

3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

Obviously the above is not the way Canada would write a law on the use of deadly force nor does it meet the approval of some legal experts who write in highly regarded publications. Oh well.

[iverglas]

231. so you copy and paste but just don't read?

Here you go.

AGAIN.

A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear
of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using
defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: ...


We ARE NOT talking about 776.012.

We ARE talking about 776.013.

So you can underline anything you like in 776.012, and it will still HAVE NOTHING TO DO with the sitaution under discussion:

Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.


The statute goes on to explain when the presumption does not apply.

WHO THE FUCK CARES?

We are talking about where the presumption DOES apply.

Does this pass for reasoned argument in the tech world???


You quote:

A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

This is NOT what we are talking about. If you want to talk about that, find a thread or subthread somewhere where someone is talking about that. It's ugly in itself -- there is NO justification whatsoever for a presumption that a kid who climbs in a window has the intent of committing an unlawful act involving force or violence -- but it is NOT relevant to anything I am saying.

*I* am and have always been talking about the presumption regarding the occupant of the dwelling. Not the presumption regarding the alleged intruder.



Obviously the above is not the way Canada would write a law on the use of deadly force nor does it meet the approval of some legal experts who write in highly regarded publications. Oh well.

Oh well. As long as the NRA and its funders and followers are happy, what does the entire concept of the INHERENT, INALIENABLE RIGHTS of human beings have to do with anything at all?



html fixed

[spin]

234. So what is your presumption regarding the occupant of the dwelling?

[iverglas]

239. why in the name of dog would I make any such presumption????

Who the hell "presumes" something about someone they know nothing about???

All I know is that they are the occupant of a dwelling and that someone has (allegedly) entered the dwelling forcibly and unlawfully -- which includes a 10-yr-old breaking a window.

What might it be reasonable for me to "presume" on that basis?

Shall I "presume" that the occupant is a very large, tall, strong person and the person who has entered the dwelling is a 10-yr-old kid? Why would I do that?

The point being: WHY would legislators/legislation make it an IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION that someone was afraid of something EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT?

You can always feel free to answer.

[spin]

247. Because this is Florida....

Many years ago Florida had a commercial which said, Florida, the rules are different here.

[iverglas]

233. oh, I see what you've done, now; you've changed the subject

I have a hard time trying to understand why you fail to understand a simple term such as "deadly force".

Yeah, well, your problem would be that I don't fail to understand it at all.

This would be a great big reason why I have this little problem with SHOOTING AT PEOPLE, ffs.


There is no way I can do what you suggest and foresee what the result will be. I don't shoot to kill a person, I shoot to stop his attack. He may die as a result.

And YOU are PRESUMED to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your action. And because, as you say, you are well aware that a likely outcome is death, you are presumed to intend that outcome.


Surely you have grasped that my little difficulty here is that these laws ALLOW people to use not just force, which would be bad enough, but "deadly force", when they DO NOT HAVE ANY REASONABLE FEAR of death or injury.

Do you want me to explain that all over again now?

A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if ...

PRESUMED. EVEN IF no such thing was true.

How about if I say (and I am not saying): "I presume you are a two-toed sloth."

You know it's not true. I know it's not true.

How about if a law says: "spin is presumed to be a two-toed sloth."

People may put two-toed sloths in cages in zoos.

So, under that law, people may put spin in a cage in a zoo.

Happy about the law presuming things that ARE NOT TRUE now?

Or are you only happy only when it's other people's lives at stake?

[spin]

236. I think that you are presuming far too much ...

my comment:

There is no way I can do what you suggest and foresee what the result will be. I don't shoot to kill a person, I shoot to stop his attack. He may die as a result.

Your reply:

And YOU are PRESUMED to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your action. And because, as you say, you are well aware that a likely outcome is death, you are presumed to intend that outcome.


Surely you have grasped that my little difficulty here is that these laws ALLOW people to use not just force, which would be bad enough, but "deadly force", when they DO NOT HAVE ANY REASONABLE FEAR of death or injury.

So you are PRESUMING that I intend to kill when I shoot an intruder that I honestly believe is threatening my health or life. Remember the definition of "deadly force".

776.06 Deadly force.—
(1) The term “deadly force” means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to:
(a) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
(b) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

Note that the definition includes, "force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm." It does not say, "force that will cause death." If I ever use a firearm for legitimate self defense, I am aware that my actions may cause serious injury or death. You presume that when I use a firearm for self defense, I intend to kill.

As I have patiently explained, my object would be to STOP the attack.

[iverglas]

242. I presumed nothing

You said:

If I ever shoot a person with a firearm in legitimate self defense, I will realize that I will likely cause "death or great bodily harm".

Death is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of your act.

You are presumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your actions.

(And this actually is general law, and good law -- otherwise, as I have very recently said, I could just bash your head with a rock and say I had no reason to believe this would kill you so I'm not guilty since I did not intend to kill, y'r honour.)

So you are PRESUMING that I intend to kill when I shoot an intruder that I honestly believe is threatening my health or life.

It is not ME presuming anything. It is centuries of human history and reason.

If you do something of which the reasonably foreseeable consequence is death, you are presumed to intend death. It is really quite simple.

If that were not the case, there would be a whole lot of murderers walking the streets.

How about if it's reversed, and the intruder shoots you and you die. Should they not be presumed to have intended to kill you??


As I have patiently explained, my object would be to STOP the attack.

And as I really have tried to explain, this is the fundamental problem with shooting people.

Genuine self-defence laws preclude an intent to kill. (By "genuine self-defence laws" I do not mean laws of the Florida type.)

Someone claiming self-defence as justification for a homicide will need to demonstrate that they did not intend to kill. That can be a little difficult to do when a firearm was used.



typo fixed

[spin]

245. People use firearms for self defense every day in the United States ...

It is not difficult to justify shooting a person who was attacking you with the intention of seriously injuring or killing you.

And if you do kill someone in legitimate self defense, it is NOT homicide.

[iverglas]

250. oh, get a dictionary

And if you do kill someone in legitimate self defense, it is NOT homicide.

Look it up.

It comes from the Latin. It means the killing of a person.

It is not CULPABLE homicide.

Why the hell else would people constantly say things like "justifiable homicide"?

Why do you have to invent these silly skirmishes about nothing?


It is not difficult to justify shooting a person who was attacking you with the intention of seriously injuring or killing you.

So I guess all I can say is: don't try it anywhere but home.

You may find it more difficult, if the outcome is a death, if you try it somewhere that takes a dimmer view of killing people.

Damned if I have yet figured out where the bodies of all the people who did NOT have guns at hand when someone attacked them with the intention of seriously injuring or killing them are, who would be alive if they'd just done one of those defensive gun use things that people with guns are so prone to doing ...

Whatever; enough, run its course, all done.

[Glassunion]

252. I have a question, more of a clarification really.

Damned if I have yet figured out where the bodies of all the people who did NOT have guns at hand when someone attacked them with the intention of seriously injuring or killing them are, who would be alive if they'd just done one of those defensive gun use things that people with guns are so prone to doing ...

Are you basically asking for a scenario where someone IS dead, who would NOT BE dead, IF they had possession of and used a firearm?

[iverglas]

255. not really

I have asked that question -- not just "someone" but significant numbers of someones -- but this one is different.

What, exactly, did all those "defensive gun uses" accomplish?

These are actual reported crime numbers for the US, for example:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
2009
robbery 408,217
murder 15,241

How is it possible that the tiny fraction of the population that has a firearm at hand every minute of their existence averted so many crimes, when the overwhelming majority of the population that does not have a firearm at hand every minute of their existence didn't suffer from vastly more crimes than actually occurred?

Do criminals overwhelmingly pick on people carrying guns?

Taking one of the random figures at random: 250,000 "DGU"s a year. Or 80,000, whatever, take your pick.

What were they defending against? Robberies that would otherwise have been completed? Where are the completed robberies against people who did not have guns? Not even all holders of permits to carry guns do it all the time, so what percentage of the population has a gun handy all the time? 1%? What did the other 99% of the population do when confronted with someone trying to rob them? Shouldn't there be another few million robberies, and at least a few more murders than there actually were?

Where are the crimes that were *not* prevented by a "defensive gun use"??

And if they don't exist, how come so many crimes were attempted against people with guns but not against people with no guns?

Or, I suppose, is it just possible that the "defensive gun use" accomplished nothing that some gun-less act would have accomplished just as well?



typo fixed

[Glassunion]

259. Hard to say because the data you are looking for does not get collected.

Now your source that you linked gets it's data from the FBI uniform crime reports.
When you look at robbery for instance 408,217. According to the FBI that number includes both robbery and attempted robbery. So a good question would be, how many of those attempted robberies were the result of a DGU? No one can know because the police do not gather that statistic in their reports. They also do not separate the two. So no one knows how many were completed vs how many were attempted.


The fraction of people who CCW might not be as small as you think. It depends on the state. You are far more likely to encounter a CCW in PA than its neighbor NJ for example.

But as I stated above. Unless law enforcement starts reporting on DGUs we will never have an exact idea of its overall impact. I will not state one way or another.

[iverglas]

260. "Unless law enforcement starts reporting on DGUs"

I think you mean: unless all the fantasists and liars who tell telephone interviewers about being big touch guys and scaring off criminals with their pocket pistols start reporting the crimes / attempted crimes they allegedly were victims of to police, no rational person in the world has the least reason to believe these silly tales.

[spin]

267. The attempted crimes are often reported ...

they just aren't entered into the statistics as crimes averted by a DGU.

If someone attacks you and you draw your weapon which causes him to run, it's wise to immediately call the police and report the incident. Otherwise, the bad guy might call the cops and report that you pulled a firearm on him for no reason.

Mouseguns/Pocketguns for Self-Defense - Selection and Tactics

***snip***

4. Display your CCW, be prepared to go to jail.
You should expect to be arrested by police at gunpoint, and be charged with a crime anytime your concealed handgun is seen by another citizen in public, regardless of how unintentional, innocent or justified the situation might seem. Choose a method of carry that keeps your gun reliably hidden from public view at all times.

You have no control over how a stranger will react to seeing (or learning about) your concealed handgun. He or she might become alarmed and report you to police as a "man or woman with a gun." Depending on his or her feelings about firearms, this person might be willing to maliciously embellish his or her story in an attempt to have your gun seized by police or to get you arrested. An alarmed citizen who reports a "man with a gun" is going to be more credible to police than you when you are stopped because you match the suspect's description, and you are found to have a concealed handgun in your possession. Under these circumstances, you have been accused, apprehended, and are in a defensive position.If you must draw your gun, make certain you are the first to notify police.

Before you deliberately expose your gun in public, ask yourself: "Is this worth going to jail for?" The only time this question should warrant a "yes" response is when an adversary has at least, both ability and intent, and is actively seeking the opportunity to do you great harm.
http://mouseguns.com/tactics/seltac.htm

[ileus]

159. congrats on your freedoms...

[spin]

175. Thanks. I appreciate them. Everyone should have them. (n/t)

[gejohnston]

192. I have an honest question

not being a lawyer or having a legal mind. I have seen your law described as complex. Vague seems to be a better word for it.
Who defines "reasonable grounds?" One USAian used the term "commensurate force" but could not define it. Although the exact phrase is not used, isn't "no more force than is necessary" basically the same thing? For example, invader breaks in armed with whatever, or just a huge weight lifter type. If I aim a pistol and he flees or surrenders, and the cops take him unharmed, is that reasonable force, or is that excessive force because I have a pistol and he has something else?
In the US, part of the problem with duty to retreat has been malicious prosecution by by politically or philosophically motivated DAs. The firebombing case in southern Ontario a few years ago, frankly struck me as just that. How does your system deal with that, given that, if I understand correctly, the Crown can appeal an acquittal. Please correct me if I am in error.
Also, how does your system deal with this problem:
The third component deals with a prohibition against civil lawsuits by criminals or the families of criminals who had begun to profit by their crimes by suing victims who may have harmed or killed criminals who were attacking them or intruding into their homes.

[iverglas]

211. it's decided the same way any issue in a criminal law matter is decided

Police investigate and decide whether to lay charges, possibly in consultation with prosecution officials.

Prosecutors decide whether to prosecute, based on a host of factors, including whether it would be in the public interest to do so and whether there is a reasonable possibility of conviction, apart from the obvious question of whether it appear that a crime was committed by the person charged.

Courts hear both sides of the case in an adversarial proceeding. (Ours are not much different from yours except that the accused in serious criminal cases may opt for judge & jury or judge sitting alone, and many opt for the latter if legal issues play a large role in the case.)

Evidence is presented, testimony is heard, witnesses are cross-examined, counsel make submissions. The trier of fact (jury where there is one, judge if not) assesses the credibility of witnesses and weighs the evidence. I practised very little criminal law, although I do deal with criminal law cases in my current work, but self-defence prosecutions are not common, so off the top of my head I couldn't really tell you the evidentiary standards that apply; I'm pretty sure I've looked it all up and posted it here in the past. The "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" onus is still on the Crown.

Okay, I apparently did that here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x95463

Where both of us are at, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence charged -- proving all the elements of the offence.

Where I'm at, an accused who claims self-defence as justification for his/her act has the onus of proving the justification, and has to prove it on a balance of probabilities. The defence does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was committed in self-defence.

The jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence, and on a balance of probabilities that s/he committed it in self-defence. The accused's onus is lighter than the prosecution's, and this might be one factor in the prosecution's decision that a conviction is unlikely to be secured.

I now gather that where you're at,* the prosecution does have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence was *not* committed in self-defence (in the legal sense, i.e. by someone who had a reasonable belief that s/he had no alternative way of avoiding death or serious injury). That strikes me as onerous indeed. No wonder these charges don't seem to get laid too often.

* i.e. in non-"castle doctrine" states

Courts decide delicate questions all the time. "It's their word against yours" -- and courts decide whom they believe. Courts aren't finders of truth. They are weighers of evidence. I can't see any reason why someone who kills or seriously injures another person should not be called on to show justification for that act, at least to the same extent they have to show that they have an alibi, for instance (i.e. at least to show reasonable doubt as seems to be the case in US states under ordinary self-defence law), and why they would not be able to.


The third component deals with a prohibition against civil lawsuits by criminals or the families of criminals who had begun to profit by their crimes by suing victims who may have harmed or killed criminals who were attacking them or intruding into their homes.

This is an entirely different and separate issue and is not at all related to the requirements for self-defence. I can't even see how it belongs in a criminal statute.

I don't really bother having an opinion about it, other than to say I'm opposed on principle to barring any class of civil actions. It's up to courts to decide whether there is a cause of action and whether a defendant is liable for damages.

It have had the impression that awarding of costs against unsuccessful parties in civil actions is not as common where you are as it is where I am. This is one way that civil courts control their process: by deterring frivolous lawsuits where plaintiffs know that they may have to pay the other parties' costs if they lose. Costs are normally awarded on a "party and party" basis, which means they are only a percentage of actual legal fees, but where an action is frivolous they may be awarded on a "solicitor and client" basis which means the successful party gets something closer to their actual costs. There is also summary judgment on motion to dismiss, for example.

This movement to preclude various civil actions in the US strikes me as pretty authoritarian. It also strikes me that it's largely based on the right wing's misrepresentation of the nature of many civil cases. The woman who was scalded by McDonalds coffee wasn't a fool trying to blame someone else for her actions; there actually was no "twinkie defence"; etc. That's not to say that some civil awards in the US aren't bizarrely astronomical. People in Canada just don't win the Lottario jackpot when they go to court, and some of that "tort reform" stuff in the US might actually be salutary.



In the US, part of the problem with duty to retreat has been malicious prosecution by by politically or philosophically motivated DAs.

Well, these things happen when you elect public servants. The idea of an elected judge or an elected prosecutor, to a Canadian, is just flat out bizarre.

Our actual problem at the moment is the Conservative government doing its utmost to portray judges as clueless bleeding hearts who don't sentence harshly enough, so they need to have mandatory minimum sentences imposed on their sentencing practices. (Our Supreme Court tends to strike down mandatory minmums as unconstitutional - cruel and unusual, for example - but does allow some to stand as being matters of public policy on which they defer to the legislature, e.g. for murder in the Latimer case I cited in this thread, and for gun crime and drunk driving offences, off the top of my head.) All the witnesses who have testified at parliamentary committees have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that judges already sentence way above the proposed mandatory minimums in serious cases, but the truth doesn't serve the Conservatives' ideology-driven agenda.

Judicial systems shouldn't be politicized or used as the tools of politicians, the way you do or the way the Conservatives are trying to do here. If you didn't politicize your judicial system, you might get better results. ;)

[gejohnston]

216. If understand correctly

in my scenario, where the criminal either flees or surrenders, without me having to fire a shot, all is good?

[iverglas]

220. not quite catching that

Self-defence is about the use of force, so if no force is used ... ?




ten words and I screw up the html tags ...

[ileus]

33. Your home is an extension of your being...do whatever it takes to protect it.

Someone breaking into your home may as well have stabbed you in the eye. If someone can't respect your private domicile they should get whatever you can pour down upon their miserable heads. If you're in my home you'd better have "skin in the game"

[iverglas]

38. remind me

Are you a liberal, a progressive, a democrat or a Democrat?

Which of those philosophies / ideologies / platforms contains the doctrine you have served up here?

[ileus]

56. Protection of family, property and home has no ideology.

I think I'm pretty progressive compared to many I know. I've always been a registered democrat, and come from a democratic family. I'm not a registered Dem anymore becuase you don't register a party in Va. I grew up in a liberal arts town but I'm not a uber liberal. http://www.concord.edu/

However.com when it come to private property and the 2A I consider myself progressive in the fact I support both. I can't be pigeonholed into pacifist liberal ideology many people think is required to be considered good democrat. Who are you to question me on being a democrat...as we always say here in America. Sit on it Potsie.


Or............get to fuck out of town I don't give a green goddam what you think a proper democrat should be.

[iverglas]

62. oh dear; let me be more specific

If someone can't respect your private domicile they should get whatever you can pour down upon their miserable heads.

There really are bits in the philosophies / ideologies / platforms to which I referred (i.e. to which the terms of this site refer) that address what you have said.

I don't think John Stuart Mill would have said it.
I don't think Joe Hill would have said it.
I don't think Eleanor Roosevelt would have said it.

But you say it.

Cognitive dissonance ...

[GreenStormCloud]

102. Let's look at those people.

I don't think John Stuart Mill would have said it.

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." That sounds like an endorsement of self-defense to me.


Joe Hill? Sorry, don't know him. Name is too common and Google brings up tons of hits.

Eleanor Roosevelt is known to have carried a concealed handgun. Not exactly a pacifist.

[iverglas]

114. go blow it somewhere else

That sounds like an endorsement of self-defense to me.

If only we were talking about self-defence, and not about the spewings of a Republican blowhard and whether anything equivalent has ever been said by a liberal / progressive / d/Democrat.


Joe Hill? Sorry, don't know him. Name is too common and Google brings up tons of hits.

Oooookay. Well, that answers some questions. I feel compelled to assist.

http://www.k12station.com/k12link_library.html?subject=NSS&sub_cat=105520&final=105522
Labor in the Progressive Era
Joe Hill
The story of Joe Hill, a labor organizer executed by the state of Utah in 1915.

Joe Hill actually apparently met his end as a result of a gun fight, i.e. he was convicted of murder and executed. Was he really one of the masked robbers, or was he really shot in a fight over a woman? Either way, guns sure did him no good. I admit to pulling his name out of a hat as a "progressive". Curious that I knew him as a very famous USAmerican union organizer (if I say "Wobblies" ...?) and you didn't.


Eleanor Roosevelt is known to have carried a concealed handgun. Not exactly a pacifist.

Oops, the goal posts have gone somewhere else again now. Also not known to spew shit about government and otherwise spout the modern gun militant line, I don't think, which is what the issue was.

[ileus]

122. Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness are democratic guarantees...

Like it or not here in America I'm allowed to assure my safety inside my home, and in some states outside my home.

[DrDan]

41. hence the Canadian's view of us and "our" love of guns and violence

[iverglas]

46. give us a break now ;)

We may think that collectively you're a gun-lovin' violent lot ... but virtually every one of us, when asked a question about "you", will say we don't judge individual USAmericans by the collective image.

And most of us would pretty easily recognize most who post here as not representative of the hive. ;)

[Common Sense Party]

74. The Canadians are often wrong.

Some of them are so wrong, all the time, that I don't even read what they type anymore.

[DrDan]

77. and they are often right

I believe they had the good sense to limit their involvement in Iraq and they provided sanctuary to our diplomats from Iran during the hostage crisis.

Just two incidents that quickly come to mind demonstrating that they are very often right.

[ileus]

78. and healthcare...

[gejohnston]

139. true but

There there was still the RCMP version of cointelpro (they just released the files on Tommy Douglas), Japanese Canadian internment, and Canadian mining corporations in South America....Let's just you might want to take the Canadian flag off your backpack. Like any other place, they get things right and wrong. No more and no less than us or anyone else.

http://www.coha.org/hidden-hegemony-canadian-mining-in-latin-america/

[DrDan]

140. never said otherwise - I just happen to think they are correct in their

view of us with respect to guns

[provis99]

145. there are reasons for all of these.

First, the RCMP spying was conducted by Conservative governments; second, the Canadian government resisted imprisoning Japanese Canadians until threatened by the American government; and third, Canada has no control over what corporations do in South America; that is up to the host countries.

[gejohnston]

148. still

Ours happened during Nixon and J Edgar Hoover, same diff

I'll have to research that more. While the military and RCMP did think it was a bad idea (just like our FBI and military thought so) greedy land grabbers still profited in both countries

The corporations are based in Canada.

[iverglas]

163. my god

The RCMP in what was it, the 1940s? A government in what was it, the 1940s?

And the activities of corporations in the present day, about which I will comment as negatively as anyone else whenever the opportunity arises. What would you like me to do about corporate operations in other countries? Not buy their products? I wouldn't buy gold to save my non-existent soul. Or diamonds, for that matter. How about you?

The activities of the federal police force and the federal government generations ago mean that USAmericans should stop masquerading as Canadians when they travel? Yeah, Tommy Douglas is a revered figure in Eastern Europe, and someone who spots your maple leaf is likely to give you a good talking to.

Like any other place, they get things right and wrong. No more and no less than us or anyone else.

No, there really is a spectrum, there really are quantifiable facts. Interning Japanese Canadians really isn't quite the same as committing intentional genocide against the indigenous population (you're the one dredging up ancient history), and hosting the corporate headquarters of environmentally horrible companies isn't quite the same as invading every country you feel like and overthrowing any government that isn't to your taste. And yet I don't blame you for all those things.

FYI:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3580301&File=30&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2&Language=E

THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE
has the honour to present its
FIFTH REPORT
(Adopted by the Committee on June 18, 2008; Presented to the House on June 19, 2008)

Pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 108(2), the Committee has studied the Canada-Colombia free trade negotiations, including concerns relating to human rights and the environment, and reports its findings and recommendations.

... Recommendations to the Government of Canada

Recommendation 1:

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada should not sign and implement a free trade agreement with the Government of Colombia until the Canadian government has taken into account the recommendations contained in this report, including those of the dissenting reports.

Recommendation 2:

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada maintain close ties with Colombia without signing a free trade agreement until there is confirmation that the improvements noted are maintained, including continued improvement as regards displacement, labour law and accountability for crime, and until the Colombian government shows a more constructive attitude to human rights groups in the country.

Recommendation 3:

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada draw on the work of the organization Rights and Democracy to give an independent body the mandate to conduct studies regarding the impact on rights and the environment when it is negotiating economic agreements with countries at risk, as in the case of the agreement with Colombia.

Recommendation 4:

The Committee recommends that an independent, impartial, and comprehensive human rights impact assessment should be carried out by a competent body, which is subject to levels of independent scrutiny and validation; the recommendations of this assessment should be addressed before Canada considers signing, ratifying and implementing an agreement with Colombia.

Recommendation 5:

The Committee recommends that any trade agreement with Colombia ensure that separate deals on labour and the environment exceed the template of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in order to set a higher standard for future negotiations.

Recommendation 6:

The Committee recommends that any trade agreement with Colombia must be accompanied by legislated provisions on corporate social responsibility and reporting mechanisms to monitor the implementation of universal human rights standards by Canadian entities investing in Colombia.

Recommendation 7:

The Committee recommends to the Government of Canada (a) that any trade agreement with Colombia include a compliance and enforcement mechanism for both the environment and human rights, comparable to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) model, exceeding the template set by NAFTA; (b) that such mechanisms must be independent and objective, receiving adequate funding to complete their tasks and include a built-in inflation escalator; (c) that they should include a process that ensures public monitoring and input through such mechanisms as citizenship submissions.

Recommendation 8:

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada develop new social responsibility standards for corporations as regards compliance with universal human rights standards. Non-compliance with these basic standards could lead to Canada imposing penalties on these corporations.

[gejohnston]

166. hey we were talking about national decisions

no one said a time limit. No, that does not excuse our genocide of our First Nations. Both countries committed cultural genocide with the boarding schools and forced sterilization.

To explain where I was going, many Americans see Canada as what the US should be. In many ways, I agree. In many ways, I don't. Whenever someone puts a person or place on a pedestal they tend to think that the object of there reverence is perfect with no flaws. No person and no place is blemish-less.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Common Sense Party]

134. You presume much and understand little.

Nowhere did I indicate a "dislike of Canadians".

[provis99]

141. so what do you like about Canadians then?

[provis99]

144. can't come up with a single thing? Well ok then.

Previous presumption is hereby confirmed.

Let me help you get started. One thing I like about Canadians is that they have a lower gun homicide rate than us.

Would you like to try now?

[Common Sense Party]

151. Forgive me. I didn't know getting on a conference call for 20 minutes

was a capital crime.

Canadians? Love 'em. Any country that gave us that yummy bacon, Rush, Sarah MacLachlan and the Kids in the Hall has gotta be good.

It doesn't mean they understand us or our legal system. What they have may work for them, but that doesn't mean it will work here.

And I think you know where you can stick your innuendo.

[provis99]

152. so you basically think Canadians are clowns for amusing you.

Ok then.

[Common Sense Party]

154. Oh, are YOU Canadian?

In your case, yes.

[provis99]

184. Still have nothing positive to say about Canadians..

I think their health insurance system is better than ours; we could learn a lot from them on this front. I'm also aware their voting turnout is higher. Elections are publicly funded, rather than funded by corporations, and limits on spending per candidate are set. Their ideology of multiculturalism makes them less hostile to immigrants, something we should look into. Also, the seem to lack the miles and miles of decaying ghettos that exist in America. Their wealth distribution is more even, and reflects worker productivity more. They seem to be involved in fewer wars of aggression than us, and their military is sent around the world to act as peacekeepers, rather than peace destroyers.

But if amusing clowns are the only thing in Canada that interest you about that country, then I feel sorry for your philistinism and narrow parochialism.

[ileus]

160. Don't forget Rush and Nickleback.

[Common Sense Party]

174. I mentioned Rush. I'm trying to forget Nickelback.

I forgot Triumph.

[gejohnston]

156. May I try?

I like their lower homicide rate regardless of weapon. That is what annoys me most about your side. Guns are used on only one third of their murders.
I like their vast wilderness
Their beer
Healthcare
Their military has some interesting traditions
decent mass transit system even in places like Whitehorse, Yukon
If you need a spare part or magazine for a long out of production or obscure gun, a Canadian supplier will most likely have it. (Seriously, the only place I could find magazines for my Mauser Hsc, was in Canada)
CBC
their cop shows, more realistic than our shoot out at the end of every episode.

If I can think of things later, I'll add.

[gejohnston]

194. Oh yeah, some more stuff

some of your military transports are nicer to ride in
Shania Twain
Canadian Crown Whiskey
Frederick Banting (my mom was diabetic)
Black Berry

[Tuesday Afternoon]

207. I like to take them on an individual basis; generalities tend to lead to

something bordering on racism.

[iverglas]

209. "generalities tend to lead to something bordering on racism."

And isn't that the truth.

Perhaps some of your colleagues will heed your wise words.

[DrDan]

142. you are quite perceptive

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

177. Here I just get all Midevil on them. When the threat ends, so does the defence against it. n/t

[krispos42]

99. I see you waited until a certain Canadian returned to the Gungeon before posting this

:popcorn:

[iverglas]

176. the so-called castle doctrine at work

http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2006/08/courts_more_on_13.html

The case in and in respect of which the comments I quoted elsewhere in the thread were made.

Continuing confusion over Kentucky's new "home intruder" law led prosecutors to negotiate a last-minute plea offer with James Adam Clem, who is on trial on murder charges, they said in court yesterday evening.

... The law was passed this spring after lobbying by the National Rifle Association.

University of Kentucky law professor Robert Lawson, the primary author of Kentucky's penal code, has said the new law is unnecessary because Kentuckians have had the right to self-defense since a 1931 court decision.

Contrary to the claims of the legislation's supporters, the state has never required homeowners to retreat before resorting to self-defense, Lawson said.

... After bashing Newberg's head five times with a bronze lamp, Clem nailed a sheet over a window so outsiders could not see how messy it was inside, he said. Clem said he then threw a moving truck's furniture pad over Newberg -- who was still breathing -- washed his hands, put on pants, grabbed a pitcher of Kool-Aid and Newberg's cell phone and headed for nearby woods. He never called 911.

Everybody's happy.

A link I had originally used for this next is now dead; this is the best I find (from a previous post of mine):

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=73535

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 /U.S. Newswire/
-- The following was released today by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:

In five highly questionable Florida deaths, the law is being used by killers in efforts to avoid conviction for a crime, and one of those deaths predated the law by almost a year. Another homicide, in Kentucky, was downgraded to manslaughter after that state followed Florida's lead and passed an identical statute. In that case, a crack addict used the law to get off with a lighter sentence …

... James Adam Clem, 27, beat Keith Newberg to death with a bronze lamp in Clem's apartment on August 9, 2004 in Lexington, Kentucky. This summer, he accepted a manslaughter deal and will be eligible for parole in several months. "One of our concerns was, if we couldn't understand it (the law) ourselves, how are we going to get a jury to understand it?" said Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Kimberly Henderson Baird. (Lexington Herald Leader, 8-3-06)

(Someone on a charming website actually bashes the Brady Campaign for talking about a non-gun homicide ...)

This is from 2006; if anybody can find updates ... or heck, if anybody wants to claim the paper made up the quotes ...

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2006-06-11/news/DEADLYFORCE11_1_new-law-self-defense-ground-law

... The head of the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association said the law has given people who are too quick to fire a weapon "another defense." "In my mind, it was an unnecessary law," association President Bruce Colton said.

... In a January case in Orange County, the Sheriff's Office did not ask the Orange-Osceola State Attorney's Office to decide whether a homeowner with a shotgun should have been charged in the wounding of a drunken intruder who stumbled into the residence at 4 a.m., mistaking it for a friend's house.

If I find anything from the last 5 years, I'll report in.

[Blown330]

195. I don't know what's more funny...

...the fact you post here or what you post.

Here are some more examples.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=443197&mesg_id=443197

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=443197&mesg_id=443197

http://www.wcnc.com/news/crime/Shooting-in-Belmont126539673.html

[ProgressiveProfessor]

199. The Belmont case is an interesting read

Best I can tell $200 damages to a car by a girl friend lead to breaking into a residence with a tire iron lead to a justifiable shooting.

[iverglas]

212. and what would it have led to if there had been no firearm?

Do people who don't have guns never get into fights about debts? Do people never threaten people with tire irons but not actually kill them?

I'm sure you're aware that this is one of the major arguments against a society having a gun in every pocket. Disputes that formerly were and would otherwise be settled by words or even violence did and would not end in death or serious injury / disability.

[gejohnston]

214. since none of us were there

none of us knows or can know.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

232. There can be reasonably projected results. In this case the perp violenty forced

forced the door open while carrying a tire iron. That is a reasonable indication of violent intent.

[gejohnston]

248. true, I did not have that detail.

[Starboard Tack]

217. Yeah, well the real castles, which are all outside the US are tourist attractions now

Thanks for posting this. It really brings the issue of accountability and proportionate force to the forefront. It appears the intruder was stabbed repeatedly, both inside and outside the house. Good call by the cops. Let a jury decide.

[iverglas]

222. and then there's the real castle doctrine, which I've been meaning to mention

George P Mahoney got it wrong, and so do all these laws and their various stupid and/or evil proponents in the gun militant lobby and legislatures of the US. As I've oft said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=245535&mesg_id=246053

iverglas
Mon Aug-10-09 09:40 PM
57. do your research, chum

What is called "castle doctrine" in the United States of America has precisely FUCK ALL with the "Englishman's home is his castle" maxim it is portrayed as deriving from.

"Castle doctrine" is the misnomer, and like many misnomers used by the right wing it is used knowingly and intentionally in order to persuade the ignorant listener that it is something it is not.

And I won't play their game or dignify legalized murder by giving it cutesy names that make it sound like something honourable.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/an-englishmans-home-is-his-castle.html

... What was meant by 'castle' was defined in 1763 by the British Prime Minister with an admirable selection of names to choose from - William Pitt, the first Earl of Chatham, also known as Pitt the Elder:

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter - the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter."

It is clear from the above that the law was established to give householders the right to prevent entry to their homes. Like the 'rule of thumb', which was popularly and mistakenly believed to be the right of a man to beat his wife, the 'Englishman's home is his castle' rule didn't establish a man's right to take actions inside the home that would be illegal outside it.

(note that the allegation about "rule of thumb" is incorrect; I own an original of the "Judge Thumb" print of the cartoon about the actual case: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=900906&mesg_id=906967)


This is USAmerican legal history too: 1763.

Allowing people to kill other people where they do not have a reasonable belief that their life or limb is in danger and a reasonable belief that they have no alternative to using force has nothing to do with anyone's home being their castle.

It has to do with total disdain for the inherent, inalienable rights of human beings and total flouting of society's corresponding duty not to permit some of its members to harm or kill others.

[Starboard Tack]

223. Parfait!

[Common Sense Party]

229. And knives should be outlawed. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

241. Why would you outlaw knives? That's just plain silly.

Possibly certain knives in certain places, like maybe switchblades in classrooms or bayonets in a dance hall. Let's see if you can come up with another. Come on, just try. You can do it.

[Common Sense Party]

243. Of course it's not silly. This homeowner when nuts and stabbed the guy.

We shouldn't even have dangerous weapons available to the general public if that's how they're going to behave.

I bet the knife was even in an unsecured kitchen drawer.

[Starboard Tack]

258. Alright, let's move to extremely silly, but not yet silly enough for primetime

but you did hit the nail on the head with "This homeowner when nuts", though I'm sure you meant to say "went" and that is what the story is about. Proportionate use of force in a self-defense situation. The guy crossed the line, it would appear, by continuing to stab the intruder after exiting the premises, which he no longer posed a threat to. But that's for a jury to decide.
So, there's no need for deflections about banning shit. That's for other posts. This is about where you may cross the line. Don't fight it, you may learn something valuable. There is nothing to fight here, only to express thoughts about where the line should be drawn. And that's why we have laws and courts.

[spin]

256. In the UK they basically are ...

THE LAW
YOUR KNIFE AND YOU

Despite what you may have been led to believe, our knife laws are amongst the most sensible in the modern World.

In Great Britain we benefit from laws which promote the sensible use and collecting of fine cutlery, yet discourage those who seek to abuse what are, in effect, artistic, well engineered tools. In short, be aware of the following points, although please read the linked articles for more in-depth information ...

***snip***

What You Can Carry ...
The Criminal Justice Act (1988) says that you may carry a knife with a blade length of 3.0" or less so long as it is capable of folding. That means no fixed blade knives. But use your loaf - a knife has no place at a football match, in a pub, nightclub or school and becomes an offensive weapon in these circumstances in just the same way as a screwdriver, or any other innanimate tool.

***snip***

But I NEED a Bigger Knife ...
If you wish to carry a larger knife then you must have 'reasonable cause'. That means that you must be able to prove that you had a genuine reason for carrying the knife.
http://www.bkcg.co.uk/guide/law.html

Knife law (UK)

***snip***

Carrying Knives in Public

***snip***

"It is an offence for any person, without lawful authority or good reason, to have with him in a public place, any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except for a folding pocket-knife which has a cutting edge to its blade not exceeding 3 inches."

The phrase "good reason" is intended to allow for "common sense" possession of knives, so that it is legal to carry a knife if there is a bona fide reason to do so. Examples of bona fide reasons which have been accepted include: a knife required for ones trade (e.g. a chefs knife), as part of a national costume (e.g. a sgian dubh), or for religious reasons (e.g. a Sikh Kirpan).

***snip***

The special exception which exists in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (s139) for folding knives (pocket knives) is another "common sense" measure accepting that some small knives are carried for general utility however even a folding pocket knife of less than 3" (76mm) may still be considered an offensive weapon if carried or used for that purpose. It was a long held common belief that a folding knife must be non-locking for this provision to apply.

A Crown Court case (Harris v DPP), ruled (case law). A lock knife for all legal purposes, is the same as a fixed blade knife. A folding pocket knife must be readily foldable at all times. If it has a mechanism that prevents folding, it's a lock knife (or for legal purposes, a fixed blade) The Court of Appeal (REGINA - v - DESMOND GARCIA DEEGAN 1998) upheld the Harris ruling stating that "folding was held to mean non-locking". No leave to appeal was granted.
http://www.goxplore.net/guides/Knife_law_%28UK%29

I have a small knife collection, none of which would be legal to carry in the UK. Yet, I have no legal problems carrying them in Florida.

I often carry a fixed blade knife openly in the small town I live in.

Currently I'm carrying a Compact Utility knife from Northwoods Knives.



If I journey into a large city, I often carry a Bravo Necker 2 knife from Bark River on my belt or in my pocket.



If I chose to carry a folder, I carry a Benchmade 710. It would be illegal to carry in the UK as the blade locks open.

[PavePusher]

257. Making a safety device illegal....

One of many reasons I am glad I left Britian.

[iverglas]

261. isn't there a point at which

you and people like you just start making a lot of noise when you walk? Clank, clank, bang ...


Maybe it's like wearing bells to scare off bears ... anybody hears you coming and clears away from the, um, funny person walking down the street ...

[spin]

265. Nope. I just limp along silently ...

You reminded me of a security guard where I worked before I retired. He would indeed clank and bang while he was walking on patrol. He said his object was to scare people away as they could hear him coming. He felt he wasn't paid enough to try to catch anyone.

[ileus]

264. At least we all agree, our home is our castle and it should be protected at all costs.

[iverglas]

274. I shouldn't take time out for eye surgery

I miss ugly bullshit like this.

[tortoise1956]

276. Ok, so the laws are different

So what?

Two different countries, two different views of what the law should be. If Canadians are satisifed with their legal system, then it is right for them. I assume that if the majority were dissatisfied, they would be agitating for change. Is that happening? I haven't seen anything to indicate that.