# Oh Canada!



## Lisa (Dec 21, 2004)

This link was emailed to me today.  All I can say is... I wish things were different.  It scares me that someone can come into my house and I can end up in jail.

http://www.lufa.ca/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=4378

 Preserving our right to defend: Courts in England and Canada are giving protection to the criminal elements
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Quick now: Which two countries have the highest crime rates in Europe
and North America? Russia? Turkey? The United States? 

The answer is England and Canada. In a recent report by the British Home
Office, England had the worst score among 35 countries, with a crime
rate nearly triple some of its neighbours. Law-abiding Canada came in
second. 

While these rankings hold up across most categories, one area stands
out: Both countries have shocking levels of domestic burglary. Canada's
rate is more than twice that of many European countries. 

Worse still, the frequency of "hot" break-ins -- where the occupants are
at home when the thieves arrive -- is much higher in Canada and the "old
country" than elsewhere. 

In England, nearly two-thirds of burglaries are of the "hot" variety,
and in Canada, nearly half. By comparison, the figure is only 13 per
cent in the U.S. 

While burglary is often discounted as a mere "property crime," its
impact can be devastating. 

Many victims are traumatized far beyond the impact of lost or damaged
property. Sometimes the trauma is physical: A study in Toronto showed
almost half the "hot" break-ins involved a confrontation. 

The causes of criminal behaviour are no doubt complex. However, recent
changes in legal thinking about some long-held beliefs may be partly
responsible. 

Traditionally, common law placed the right to defend oneself, along with
sanctity of the home, above all other considerations. 

Preservation of the self was seen as a virtually unqualified right,
while it was understood that our safekeeping, at the most basic level,
rests on the security of our home. 

It appears now that legal authorities in Canada and Britain are
increasingly uncomfortable with these notions. Several recent court
decisions in both countries suggest a shift in doctrine. 

One night in August 1999, Tony Martin heard burglars break into his
farmhouse in the south of England. Martin's home had been burglarized
several times, and he went downstairs armed with a shotgun. 

In the dark, one of the burglars shone a flashlight in his face. Martin
fired, hitting two men and killing one of them. 

In a case that polarized the country, prosecutors argued Martin could
not claim the right of self defence, because he used more force than
necessary. 

He was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. (In the
ensuing uproar, his sentence was subsequently reduced.) 

Last year in Edmonton, thieves crashed an SUV through a shop window late
at night. The owner, who also lived there, drove them off with a .22
rifle, wounding one in the shoulder. 

Charges of aggravated assault and intent to endanger life were laid
against the owner, along with several lesser offences. Although some of
the charges were eventually dropped, he was fined and banned from owning
a gun for 10 years. 

It's unlikely either of these men would have been prosecuted 50 years
ago. Each woke to find burglars on the premises, and had reason to feel
threatened. 

In both cases, however, prosecutors raised the bar. While they
acknowledged the men feared for their safety, they argued this was not
sufficient to warrant their actions. 

Similarly, though in both cases thieves entered a domestic residence,
that was not held to justify the degree of force used. 

These cases are by no means an exception. By some estimates, victims of
burglary and home invasion in Canada who use violent force to defend
themselves are now almost as likely to be prosecuted as their attackers.


Perhaps some of this stems from a desire to discourage gun-related
incidents, though statistics show no significant increase over the last
half-century. Moreover, since defensive weapons like mace or pepper
spray are already banned, you might reasonably wonder what kind of force
is permitted. 

It appears more radical thinking lies at the root of these changes. 

Some in the legal community believe that in an ideal world, only civil
authorities should be authorized to employ force. 

They trace much that is wrong with contemporary society to individuals
taking matters into their own hands. Such an argument resonates
powerfully in Britain, still in the shadow of two world wars. 

If this reduces somewhat the right of personal self defence, the
argument goes, that is a price worth paying. If it requires burglary
victims to offer no more than passive resistance, well, damage to
property can never excuse loss of life. 

Unfortunately, that brings us back to burglary statistics and to human
nature. It may be these changes in legal doctrine were just what the
thieves were waiting for.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 21, 2004)

Not suprising...there are even some Americans that believe this should be the case in the US....one should be arriving in this thread shortly. If I were a betting man Id even place a wager with you (via PM of course) as to who will be the first.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 21, 2004)

This is 1 of the reasons why there are sharp, shiny and round, blunt things in every room of my apartment.


----------



## Lisa (Dec 21, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> This is 1 of the reasons why there are sharp, shiny and round, blunt things in every room of my apartment.


 I just can't believe that I can't defend what is mine?  Ya know?  I am in the sanctity of my own home and some Yahoo comes in to burglarize or do whatever and I can't defend myself or my loved ones.  That is just plain scary.


----------



## dearnis.com (Dec 21, 2004)

> one should be arriving in this thread shortly.



 :2xBird2:


----------



## Satt (Dec 21, 2004)

No matter what laws they pass, there will allways be crazy asses like me that are willing to do whatever it takes to defend my family and home. ANYONE that breaks into my house is INSTANTLY a threat in my mind to my family regardless what their intentions were towards my home. If for some reason it becomes illegal to have guns, I will have swords. If I can't have those, I will have knives. If not those, well you get the point. It would be worth it for me to go to jail to protect my loved ones. Obviously the criminals don't value their lives as much as I value my family's. Just my 2 cents.

Be blessed,
Jason


----------



## dearnis.com (Dec 21, 2004)

> I will have swords. If I can't have those, I will have knives.



Well, they are banning these in the UK as well....  I might suggest that you re-think your battle plans.  If defensive act I puts you in jail, then who provides for and protects your family.  Plan ahead and fight smart; give some thought to surviving the aftermath of an incident.


----------



## Satt (Dec 21, 2004)

My point is there is allways a weapon to use. If I am in jail, my wife will shoot the intruders. Then we can have a happy family in jail. We will be safer too!!! He he. (I don't have kids by the way) I am curious though, what is the most relaxed area in the world for being able to defend yourself? I heard Texas is a good place to live. I was thinking about moving there one day if that is true. He he. What other coutries though???


----------



## dearnis.com (Dec 21, 2004)

The south and the west are usually better bets...as to other countries...no suggestions.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 21, 2004)

I'm partial to New Zealand myself.  

I was considering Australia, but they passed some rather anal Internet laws there...the US is spiraling into Fascism, and Canada is just too bloody cold.  I also have a problem with England, mostly due to that stupid TV tax and 'detector patrols' to find unlicensed screens.  With how many I have, I'd be bankrupt in a week.


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 21, 2004)

My friend was told by the local sheriff that he could shot someone on his property, but to just make sure that he dragged the thief back into his house if it was outside and all would be fine (this is NM).  According to my coworkers who live in Texas you can shot someone who is running down the street with your TV in he back and still be ok, just go to say you feared for your personal safety.  Now I have never tested these interpretation of the laws, but wouldn't surprise me if they were true.  Especailly seeing some of the stuff that happens around here.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 21, 2004)

I wouldn't just go by heresay when it comes to personal safety and self-defense. I would check by my local laws regarding many aspects of self- defense including weapons laws and home defense, I'd learn about things like what justifies lethal force, and I would try to abide by these laws.

I hope to God that the laws never become so intrusive that I cannot rightfully defend myself. However, so far I have a lot of options within the limits of the law.

I am with Chad, in that your self-defense is not very good if you rot in jail because you weren't prepared to defend in a prudent and legal manner.

 :ultracool


----------



## dearnis.com (Dec 22, 2004)

> My friend was told by the local sheriff that he could shot someone on his property, but to just make sure that he dragged the thief back into his house if it was outside and all would be fine (this is NM).



One word- BULLS***
This is tampering with a crime scene- at a minimum.  Folks, what do you think happens when the first officer on scene finds a body in the house, bloody drag marks in the hall way and  on the porch, and a puddle of blood along with cases from your pistol outside?  (pet peeve-public assumption assumption that after 5 years on the street and 2.5 conducting death investigations I am stupid enough to buy any line of drivel someone puts out.)
As a general rule, do not get legal advise from cops.  NEVER, EVER, get legal advise from cops on deadly force issues.  I consider myself knowledgeable, but I am held to a different standard that you are....  Consult an attorney.  If you are ever in a lethal force situation immediately afterwards- call 911; get the perp a medic, get the police in route, hang up.  CALL A LAWYER.  RIGHT NOW.  When the police get there KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.  If you say the wrong thing an over zealous officer or prosecutor WILL charge you.
Well, enough of this; off to see what tall tales the public will share with me today.

PS- Buy and read Ayoob's "In the Gravest Extreme."


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 22, 2004)

You beat me to it Chad.


> BULLS***


 Well Said 


As far as the whole anti-self defense culture in Canada, England, Australia (and for that matter, in New York, Chicago, and D.C.).  That's what happens when the wrong people get voted into office.  If you live in an area like this you have my sympathy. Your options are to either decide which laws you are willing to break, and then accept the consequenses.  Or, Move.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 22, 2004)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> One word- BULLS***
> This is tampering with a crime scene- at a minimum.  Folks, what do you think happens when the first officer on scene finds a body in the house, bloody drag marks in the hall way and  on the porch, and a puddle of blood along with cases from your pistol outside?  (pet peeve-public assumption assumption that after 5 years on the street and 2.5 conducting death investigations I am stupid enough to buy any line of drivel someone puts out.)
> As a general rule, do not get legal advise from cops.  NEVER, EVER, get legal advise from cops on deadly force issues.  I consider myself knowledgeable, but I am held to a different standard that you are....  Consult an attorney.  If you are ever in a lethal force situation immediately afterwards- call 911; get the perp a medic, get the police in route, hang up.  CALL A LAWYER.  RIGHT NOW.  When the police get there KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.  If you say the wrong thing an over zealous officer or prosecutor WILL charge you.
> Well, enough of this; off to see what tall tales the public will share with me today.
> ...



Oh yea...I forgot to say consult an attorney in my last post. Particularly a good one, who you can have his business card in your wallet if the stuff goes down...

Paul


----------



## Tgace (Dec 23, 2004)

You could always move to England....not!!


http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1377062004



> So what do you do when your home is burgled?
> 
> DR IAN STEPHEN
> 
> ...


 
Why not just shoot your family and yourself a few times to spare the BG the trouble...they would appreciate your making their job easier.


----------



## dearnis.com (Dec 24, 2004)

Really amazing.  This from a nation that once ruled the world.  Chamberlin's ghost must love it (though I'm certain Churchill is rolling in his grave).


----------

