Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

Your right to defend yourself and property.

17K views 368 replies 22 participants last post by  kps 
#1 ·
There's been a few high profile cases recently where individuals protecting themselves, their property or both, ended up being charged unfairly by the state. How do you feel about these basic rights and are they being quashed by the state?

Here's a great article by George Jonas that inspired this post and says it better than I ever could:

George Jonas: The state’s protection racket

George Jonas Feb 7, 2012 – 8:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 6, 2012 5:26 PM ET

When defending their monopoly to defend us, the authorities often shoot themselves in the foot. In Saturday’s National Post, Rex Murphy recalled the case of a shopkeeper in Toronto’s Chinatown who was charged with kidnapping for nabbing a shoplifter and holding him for the police. The story had a happy ending: The lawmen looked as foolish in court as they deserved to look, and the shopkeeper was acquitted.

Undaunted, though, the authorities press on. Currently, prosecutors are making fools of themselves over a citizen named Ian Thomson, whose warning shots scared away three men trying to firebomb his farm house near Port Colborne, Ont. He fired in the air; the assailants fled, and no one was hurt except the feelings of the authorities.

The householder, a licensed gun owner and firearms instructor, broke no law. Still, miffed by a citizen’s display of self-reliance, the wounded minions of the state hauled him into court for — guess what? — the unsafe storage of firearms.

There’s a Kafkesque provision in the Criminal Code that makes it unlawful for gun owners to store their ammunition in the same hemisphere as their weapons — certainly not close enough for a gun to be of any but decorative use. The mere fact Mr. Thomson had time to fire indicated to the prosecutor he must have broken the law. Anyone who obeys, couldn’t have. Gotcha!

After counsels’ submissions, the judge adjourned till the summer. Evidently, he needed a few months to figure out just how much of an ass the law really is — a luxury not available to Mr. Thomson, who would have had to decide the same thing in seconds while being firebombed.

The authorities are having a fit every time crime victims defend themselves — but why? It wins them no kudos. The citizens they haul into court are usually acquitted. Yet something in our law enforcement elites creates the urge to re-enact the Charge of the Light Brigade, blundering into a barrage every time laid down by Lorne Gunter and other eminent editorialists. What is it, I wonder?

If the concern is safety — not just the cops’ own, but the public’s — obliging citizens to arm themselves might achieve more than attempting to disarm them. In 1996, the University of Chicago released a nationwide survey examining the impact of gun laws on crime over a period of eight years. Between 1988-1996, U.S. state laws permitting private citizens to carry concealed handguns multiplied from nine to 31. The study found that in states where people could carry, homicide went down by 8.5%, rape by 5% and aggravated assault by 7%.

The reduction wasn’t due to victims whipping out six-shooters, the study found, but mainly to general deterrence, i.e., perpetrator-awareness of crime-targets being potentially armed. No surprise here; criminals aren’t necessarily suicidal or crazy, and it’s no wonder if one out of 20 rapists doesn’t want to take a chance on being shot.

Just as crime has no single cause, it has no single solution. A gun in every purse isn’t like a chicken in every pot or a car in every garage. Still, there’s increasing evidence that when some people arm themselves, not as a substitute for law and order, but as an extension of it, all people benefit. Why stop them?

What makes law enforcement officials uneasy when citizens do anything beyond dialling 911? Is it perhaps the state trying to sweep under the carpet its inability to protect individuals?

You bet; a citizen defending himself or his property telegraphs the limitation of state power. This not only irks officials but scares them. The police don’t want to go the way of the Post Office.

Self-defence as a concept erodes the foundation of the interventionist state. Only a monopoly on coercion assures the supremacy of the public official over the private citizen, the regulator over the regulated, the tax collector over the taxpayer. But without a monopoly on protection, government’s monopoly on coercion becomes endangered. Civilians carrying guns reveal the authorities for the paper tigers they are. This, ultimately, is what worries officials. In places where people “carry’ and regard their homes as their castles, meter maids may need body armour, with Census Bureau officials having to prepare papers about the advantages of switching from cars to tanks.

Mr. Thomson ran afoul of a doctrine dominant in interventionist societies. It holds that anything for which the state has no solution, is insoluble. If the government can’t put a cop outside every farm house targeted by arsonists, burn, baby, burn. Citizens can’t take the law into their own hands just because the authorities have run out of remedies.

Luckily there’s a better view. It’s that the law is in the hands of citizens in free societies. Citizens delegate the powers of law enforcement to the police, not the other way around. Whatever a cop could legitimately do to prevent Mr. Thomson’s farm house from being firebombed, Mr. Thomson can do himself. And if he does, the state must pin a medal on Mr. Thomson instead of mobilizing gowned minions and martinets to obfuscate him into oblivion.

National Post
George Jonas: The state’s protection racket | Full Comment | National Post

Always Remember: When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
 
#2 ·
kps: Sadly, many Canadians are perfectly willing to let the police be their sole protection, and because of that want to refuse others the right to defend themselves. By eliminating possible examples of others defending themselves successfully, they lower the bar on what might be expected of them to defend their families and property. They'd rather cluck at the cops and allow a spouse or child to be harmed, then countenance the possession of a firearm.
 
#4 ·
By eliminating possible examples of others defending themselves successfully, they lower the bar on what might be expected of them to defend their families and property. They'd rather cluck at the cops and allow a spouse or child to be harmed, then countenance the possession of a firearm.
The fly in the ointment of that superficial analysis is that for every example of a citizen successfully protecting themselves by using a gun, there are 10 accidental shootings, suicides, or examples of domestic violence using those guns.

While everyone thinks they're the exception, and they wouldn't shoot themselves accidentally while cleaning the damn thing (or on purpose while in a depressive drunken fit over something that, in the sober light of dawn, isn't such a big deal), it turns out that these tragedies are far more common outcomes of private gun ownership than the heroic individualist successfully protecting himself and his property.

Thus, from the point of view of public policy, the fewer guns we have in society the better.
 
#3 ·
It's worse than that. Even the use of pepper spray (Bear spray, dog spray) when used in self defence is illegal and charges will be laid. Civilian versions of Tazers for defence? Not a chance. Severe criminal charges if you're caught with one of those devices.

Yet the cops can use all those indiscriminately, go figure. Citizens OTOH are neutered when it comes to defending themselves should the need arise.
 
#5 ·
You think that's bad.. How about the cases where crook breaks your window to get in the house, cuts himself on said glass, sues home owner because it's their glass.. AND WINS!!

My dad Left the RCMP 10 years ago after 26 years, because he was tired of how corrupt and pathetic our legal system has become
 
#6 ·
When the first reaction is to grab something as common as a baseball bat to investigate "a noise" it signals an offensive "state of mind."

The law in Canada is written based upon the notion of meeting escalating danger with escalating force.

Seems there is a concerted effort to import the notion, from the Excited States, of the rugged frontier man's notion of aggressively attacking a situation with pre-emptive strikes. This is, in my opinion, simple minded and an over the top proposition.

I should imagine, the maximum protection of stuff, resonates with the materialistic amongst us.

I will not wish you any luck with this campaign of importing foreign ideas.
 
#8 ·
I will not wish you any luck with this campaign of importing foreign ideas.
Good grief, man has been protecting himself, his family, his companions and his possessions, from predators (including other humans), since he appeared on this earth. He has always used weapons of one kind or another, be it clubs or spears or arrows or firearms to do that as technology improved.

There is nothing 'imported' about it, least of all from your pathetic paranoia with the U.S.A.'s version of allowing citizens to protect themselves, guaranteed under law.

A pre-emptive attack has long served man as a survival of the fittest, like it or not.
 
#9 ·
Just so those who who don't know you should read the firearms act and learn what are the laws in terms of own a gun and how it is stored in house. Just so you know if someone breaks into a house you would never have enough time to go get a gun it would be too late.

hear noise
go get hidden keys (you might have to pass criminal on the way there)
go unlock safe
unlock gun
unlock ammo safe (you cannot by law keep gun and ammo locked together)
then load gun

already to late.
 
#12 ·
I'm not 6 foot 5. I might hide my family members in the attic. But not me.

If someone is firebombing my house, I don't suddenly look for materials to make a firebomb so I can meet their escalating force.
 
#15 ·
Just knew this one was going to be lively.

Generally I fall into the live and let live category but a direct threat to myself or family is going to be met head-on. If my life is threatened, I will at least leave my mark on the piece of 5#!t that did it and will use whatever weapons I can find to accomplish that.

Does get me to thinking. With modern Police forces increasingly resorting to SWAT teams for what are truly misdemeanor infractions, would homeowners be justified in having cannons loaded with grapeshot as part of their arsenal? <insert sarcasm emoticon here>
 
#16 ·
This is how it should be!

OPP won?t lay charges in fatal stabbing during Arnprior home break-in | Ontario News24:Ontario Latest News

This idiot broke into a house, and in self defense was killed by the dad and son. No charges would be laid. Thanks you! If someone breaks into my house they better hope I do not get to them first because I would have no problem standing up to them... well, if they had a gun that would be different...then again, if I got behind him and he didn't notice me...hmmm....I will have to go out and buy a few bats to leave around the house. 80)
 
#18 · (Edited)
the article seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. besides the 2 high profile cases i don't think it's really a rampant problem plaguing our court system.

the case against the chinatown shop owner was silly, and the judge said as much. the case against ian thomson is a bit different. from the article:

He fired in the air
The householder, a licensed gun owner and firearms instructor, broke no law.
i'm not sure about canada's specific firearm laws, but i know in many countries it's illegal to fire a gun in the air because of the danger of falling bullets. now on sparsely populated farm land it might not be a problem, but imagine a home owner in toronto did what he did? that could be very dangerous.

still, in the specific case of ian thomson i wish the crown would drop the case as it doesn't serve the public interest to prosecute him.
 
#23 ·
the article seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. besides the 2 high profile cases i don't think it's really a rampant problem plaguing our court system.

the case against the chinatown shop owner was silly, and the judge said as much. the case against ian thomson is a bit different. from the article:





i'm not sure about canada's specific firearm laws, but i know in many countries it's illegal to fire a gun in the air because of the danger of falling bullets. now on sparely populated farm land it might not be a problem, but imagine a home owner in toronto did what he did? that could be very dangerous.

still, in the specific case of ian thomson i wish the crown would drop the case as it doesn't serve the public interest to prosecute him.
Point I'm making is that Jonas is right even though he made a mistake about the "shooting in the air bit". Thomson actually fired one into the grownd and two into a tree.

Fact remains the state continues to prosecute those that rightfully defend themselves and their property. Even if they win in court, it costs them thousands in legal fees and the's no guarantee that some overzealous crown attorney will not use our tax dollars to continuously appeal the verdicts.

"not plaguing our system"? What has that got to do with it and how do you know that? Not all these cases make it into the national news, but there was a slew of these just this past 12 months reported in local and national media. Cases in Alberta, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba... I could spend a few hours and google all the cases for you, but I won't and you'll just have to take my word for it. Obviously many of these didn't involve firearms, but showed the law enforcement's determination to maintain the security monopoly at a high cost to law abiding citizens.
 
#21 ·
Right...it's only been there 900 years as English common law which our system is based on. Don't recall ever giving that up.

Give yer self a shake there, DL.
 
#22 ·
It was a good article until the last 4 paragraphs. The last 4 paragraphs seem to go overboard into the paranoia of a goverment conspiracy theorist. He sounds scaringly like one of those ******* US militia groups.

I frankly think that today's police and citizens forget that citizens CAN protect themselves. People have just become so dependant on others doing things for them. After all, the perfect example of a citizen playing the role of a cop are security guards. They can citizen arrest someone and detain them until the cops arrive. Security guards are just normal citizens, though.
 
#24 ·
Security guards run at the sight of any armed criminals, because they are not allowed to carry, but even if they were, most would run or die.

Don't kid yourself, the cops have a vested interest in all this and that includes maintaining their security monopoly. Why else would they attempt to dissuade the public from protecting themselves by laying unwarranted charges?

Keep this in mind: The supreme court has ruled that the police are under no duty to protect you. The vinyl graphics on the side of their cars is nothing but a lie.
 
#42 ·
well IMO if you're that troubled by the above you should start up a movement to tighten up the standards for which the crown uses to bring all criminal cases to trial. Hell, i'd sign a petition for that if you do.

you do realize that this would run counter to the whole "tough on crime" BS that Harper and co. ran on?
 
#44 ·
I seriously believe that some of these Crown attorneys and even some police are way too overzealous. Perhaps there should be a movement to rein them in a little.

Not sure how "counter" it would really be, we're only talking right to self defence and castle laws. I think Harper is sympathetic to that.
 
#54 ·
Personally, I found Jonas' piece in the Post rather jaded and obtuse. He takes these two distinct, sensational incidents and attempts to manipulate them into a piece that both bashes the justice system and advocates arming citizens. The only thing this circus needed was a couple of clowns and a dancing bear.

Maybe Mr. Jonas had spent the weekend watching the Die Hard series and found himself caught up in the action. Perhaps that's why he forgot to mention that other statistic --the one that shows far more Americans are injured or killed with their own guns than ever manage to get the bad guy. Maybe he forgot about the young Canadian student in Texas who got lost and knocked on a door to ask for directions but got a chest full of lead instead because he was "foreign looking".

I'm quite happy to live in a civilized country where citizens who take the law into their own hands are held up to vigorous scrutiny.
 
#57 ·
So Joker and krs believe all cases of protection of yourself and your property are cut and dry and that police should be judge, jury and executioner of sentence.

Man, tell what city you live in cause I don't want to get anywhere near you!

You also know that it's a judge, not a police officer that issues an arrest warrant. Police do not make the decision to arrest someone.
 
#65 ·
IMO, there's only one way to look at this:

The second you break into my house, or threaten my family/property, you give up your right to life. I would be completely supportive of laws that permitted burglars to be shot on sight - there's simply no excuse for breaking into one's home.

If you break into someone's house, you deserve whatever happens - be it a dog bite or a shotgun to the chest.
 
#67 ·
imo, there's only one way to look at this:

The second you break into my house, or threaten my family/property, you give up your right to life. I would be completely supportive of laws that permitted burglars to be shot on sight - there's simply no excuse for breaking into one's home.

If you break into someone's house, you deserve whatever happens - be it a dog bite or a shotgun to the chest.
+1000
 
#71 ·
Section 348 of the Criminal Code establishes the main modern prohibitions against burglary. It creates 3 indictable offences: a) breaking and entering a place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein; b) breaking and entering a place and committing an indictable offence therein; and c) breaking out of a place after committing an indictable offence therein or after entering the place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein. If the offence was committed in relation to a dwelling-house, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment; otherwise, the maximum sentence is 14 years.

The Criminal Code establishes offences for activities related to burglary. Anyone who, without lawful excuse, entered or was in a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence, is guilty of an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment. Other offences include possession of break-in instruments, wearing a disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence, and the unauthorized sale, purchase or possession of automobile master keys (including lock picks).

Perhaps we need only enforce the laws already in place. My source was Burglary - The Canadian Encyclopedia
 
#72 ·
I'm sorry, but 10 or 14 years doesn't cut it. A shorter sentence is far more likely, given the pathetic sentences our justices hand out. Reform my ass - bring back the gallows.

If anything, a mandatory minimum of life in prison without chance of parole would be an acceptable compromise. As a citizen and tax payer, I would still prefer to have a home invader dealt with by the homeowner than pay for a trial and the subsequent imprisonment.
 
#74 ·
My guess is, with all due respect to my fellow ehMacers, that despite all the tough (internet forum) talk, when confronted with a situation like this, most would be quivering under the bed fumbling with the phone to dial 911.

It is cathartic to fantasize about what should be done in an unfair and unjust world and it is quite another thing to act upon it.

Whether you like to admit it or not, we have evolved as a society. In doing this, lawless, knee jerk vigilantism went the way of the dodo. No right wing fear mongering government is going to bring it back.
 
#75 ·
Even if that is the case for some here, that doesn't negate the fact that it should be a homeowner's right to defend them and theirs.

An Ontario court recently (September 2011) rejected a guilty verdict, with the presiding judge saying " I conclude that the trial judge erred in one respect: by permitting the jury to consider the appellant's failure to retreat from his home in assessing the reasonableness of the appellant's response to the threat he perceived from McNabb. That error was fatal in my view, and thus a new trial is required."

The police will still arrest first, and you'll have to prove your actions were in self defense, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

Full ruling here:
R. v. Forde, 2011 ONCA 592
 
#83 ·
I remember that movie...never saw it tho, you know us conservatives, eh...we can't read the subtitles 'cause they go by so fast.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top