A recent case where a homeowner killed a nighttime intruder has led many to ask about self defence in Canada.
Basically, you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself or your loved ones. That reasonable force can include lethal force where necessary. If attacked in your home you do not have to abandon the premises but can stand your ground even if that means violence including, if reasonable and necessary, lethal force.
But how much force is "reasonable force"?
In general, reasonable force can be defined as the minimum force required to deter or prevent an assault. If you are being assaulted or an assault is imminent then you can use only the amount of force necessary to stop the assault. Outside your home if you can run away without risking injury to yourself or another, then you must leave. You are not permitted to punish the assailant or seek revenge. You have to ask yourself the question "what would another reasonable person do in the same circumstances".
Now all that said, the Courts realize that facing an attack is a highly emotional experience and people cannot measure their responses as carefully as they might given more time and less emotion. Some margin is allowed. The real question is, was the force used reasonable in the circumstances? Was there some other less violent alternative? If not, the force was justified.
As a practical matter self defence is always a last resort. Professionals, the police, are trained to deal with dangerous criminals and many people who try to defend themselves are badly beaten or worse. But in those rare circumstances where you have no alternative, self defence is proper.
2 comments:
Um, assuming that I am successful in defending my turf, am I obligated to render first aid and/or call 911? Or can I just let the sumbitch bleed out on the front lawn? Or should I remove said failure off the property-line?
On a serious note, I wonder about your statement: "Professionals, the police, are trained to deal with dangerous criminals". We believe they are "trained". Of course, there's good training, bad training, forgotten training, all sorts of training. That's why we have a traveller tasered to death in Vancouver and police slaughtered at Mayerthorpe. Bad training, bad management, badly-trained management — and nobody's responsible.
Such encounters take place quickly. How am I to assess the risks and dangers to my family, property or myself in say 10 seconds?
I would prefer that the default position is that the homeowner can assume their life is in danger and that any action taken can be deemed necessary or reasonable. If lawyers, cops and judges don't like it then they should advise the would be thieves they had better think twice.
Post a Comment