Castle laws

[geo]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

The point of Castle doctrine is to ensure the law abiding citizen isn't ruined by the police, crown, and criminal going after them in criminal and civil court. Once a review panel rules the defensive action is justified, the law abiding citizen is free to live their life, without fear of the crown bankrupting them, or a criminal making a big score in a lawsuit.

So let me get this straight, we're going to create a million dollar review panel (we know how governments work) to prevent the one or two guys a year that get charged with this from paying out $20-30k? Million for $20k?

Or perhaps pick up the legal tab for those not convicted, but I know the same crowd will yap endless when we are paying the legal bills for gangsters off on some technicality.

Maybe all the Castle support guys should just create a defense fund and stop wasting my tax dollars for such a rare occurance.

Who oversees such a panel? Who is it accountable to?

Remember that the Crown reviews cases for prosecution prior to anyone being charged with a major offense. Is this not the review panel right there? If it's a cut and dry case, they will not prosecute.

I'm ok with the intent of a Castle doctrine, but I think the current process and laws on the book work well enough for such a rare event. If this was happening everyday, then yes, I would agree with you. But it's not. We should not be spending millions on such a rare event.

[geo]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Not a done deal, the law is NOT already on the books, and this is VERY important.

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



Here ya go. This is what a real castle law should look like...Note the important differences. AND if you think being able to defend yourself and property without fear of prosecution isn't important...

The conditions in your Wikipedia article are more restrictive than the Criminal Code. You have to attempt to retreat and all sorts of nonsense.

In the Criminal Code, one conducts an assault when someone give the impression of intending to cause you bodily harm (which common law agrees an intruder in your house presents a intention of bodily harm). So an assault has occured. And you have all ability to use reasonable force to repeal such an intruder. Done deal. Less complicated than your Castle Doctrine Wikipedia article.

The case of the Police officer in Quebec is somewhat precendent setting. If you feel someone may be invading your home and you shoot them you will likely be acquited because of this case. You can point to the case and say hey, look at this example.

There is so much intent crap in your Castle Doctine that I think it's actually weaker than what you have currently for rights in Canada. If you think someone is threatening you, you have all rights to extinguish that threat. End of story.

There is nothing in the Castle Doctrine that you don't already have.

[rugatika]

I don't see a need for a review panel or anything like it. The police present their evidence to the crown and they decide whether to proceed with charges or not...(correct me if I'm wrong...but I believe that's how it works now).

So the police would say..Joe Blow here shot this guy while he was kicking his door in. We found the door half off it's hinges and the invader laying in the doorway with a chest full of buckshot. And the crown prosecutor would say...Joe Blow has no criminal past, the invader has a clear criminal history...clear case of legally defending one's property...no need to press charges.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by geo

The conditions in your Wikipedia article are more restrictive than the Criminal Code. You have to attempt to retreat and all sorts of nonsense.

In the Criminal Code, one conducts an assault when someone give the impression of intending to cause you bodily harm (which common law agrees an intruder in your house presents a intention of bodily harm). So an assault has occured. And you have all ability to use reasonable force to repeal such an intruder. Done deal. Less complicated than your Castle Doctrine Wikipedia article.

The case of the Police officer in Quebec is somewhat precendent setting. If you feel someone may be invading your home and you shoot them you will likely be acquited because of this case. You can point to the case and say hey, look at this example.

There is so much intent crap in your Castle Doctine that I think it's actually weaker than what you have currently for rights in Canada. If you think someone is threatening you, you have all rights to extinguish that threat. End of story.

There is nothing in the Castle Doctrine that you don't already have.

I'm trying to be patient. The castle doctrine specifically REMOVES the need to retreat. Read the article again. You obviously missed all the points in it, because the whole of your above argument is completely and totally erroneous and based in what I can only surmise to be creations of your imagination.


In general, (one) or a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)
In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

[geo]

Originally Posted by rugatika

I don't see a need for a review panel or anything like it. The police present their evidence to the crown and they decide whether to proceed with charges or not...(correct me if I'm wrong...but I believe that's how it works now).

So the police would say..Joe Blow here shot this guy while he was kicking his door in. We found the door half off it's hinges and the invader laying in the doorway with a chest full of buckshot. And the crown prosecutor would say...Joe Blow has no criminal past, the invader has a clear criminal history...clear case of legally defending one's property...no need to press charges.

And that's exactly how it currently works. The Crown will look at the self-defense sections of the Code and ask if the guy should walk. Same reason the Chinatown shop keeper had his charges dropped... there was no legal grounds for prosecution.

I'm not so sure your guy in Ontario would have fallen under the Castle Doctrine either... as his home was not invaded. Someone was just chucking firebombs at it... not sure if it applies.

But the Criminal Code sure does and he'll walk on any charges related to the defense of his property. If he illegally stored his weapons, well, that's another story.

Shoulda used a long gun....

EDIT: And I agree I mis-read the need to retreat... but it's irrelevant.

[elkhunter11]

There is so much intent crap in your Castle Doctine that I think it's actually weaker than what you have currently for rights in Canada. If you think someone is threatening you, you have all rights to extinguish that threat. End of story.

Let me correct that for you.

If the authorities, as in the crown prosecutor, and the police think someone is threatening you, you have all rights to extinguish that threat by using no more force than is necessary. End of story.

[Okotokian]

Wouldn't mind seeing this law, but I also think it's unlikely to pass. I also think there are more useful laws that could be passed first, like harsher sentencing for repeat offenders. I'd prefer seeing a 3 strikes law to a Castle law.

[geo]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Let me correct that for you.

If the authorities, as in the crown prosecutor, and the police think someone is threatening you, you have all rights to extinguish that threat by using no more force than is necessary. End of story.

I'm not going hand to hand with an intruder and I don't think courts would expect you to (again, there is no case of a conviction in this area that anyone can point to).

That said, where exactly are you storing the gun you're going to use in the 1:10,000,000 occurance that you might have to defend your "Castle." By the time you unlock it, find your seperately stored ammo and load up, your dead.

So it's irrelevant. Unless of course your legally allowed to keep a firearm available for predation, but 85% of Canadians would not have that right.

The Louisville Slugger defense is probably your best legal option.

Remember, the Ontario gent is charged with (amongst other things) improperly storing a firearm. That's not a charge you'll be able to duck under a Castle law unless you want to throw out that law altogether (which is something I'd disagree with).

[geo]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Wouldn't mind seeing this law, but I also think it's unlikely to pass. I also think there are more useful laws that could be passed first, like harsher sentencing for repeat offenders. I'd prefer seeing a 3 strikes law to a Castle law.

x10

...

On another note, you've also got Section 40 to help ya out:

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.

If the guy keeps coming, keep escalating. Well within the existing law.

[elkhunter11]

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.

Of course the investigating authorities get to decide if you used more force than was necessary.

That said, where exactly are you storing the gun you're going to use in the 1:10,000,000 occurance that you might have to defend your "Castle." By the time you unlock it, find your seperately stored ammo and load up, your dead.

You can purchase small handgun safes(will fit under a bed, or in an end table drawer) that have separate compartments for the gun, and a loaded magazine, but one door opens both compartments. You unlock them just by placing your fingers on the recognition pad. Using this type of safe, you can access the gun and ammunition, insert the magazine, and load the chamber in under a minute.

http://www.buyasafe.com/Small-Gun-Sa...vb2000-bio.htm

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Of course the investigating authorities get to decide if you used more force than was necessary.

And there is the problem right there. YOU don't get to decide how much force you can use...someone with the gift of hindsight gets to decide after the fact, if you used too much force.

If I catch someone coming in through a window for example, how do I know he doesn't have a gun or a knife or if he's there to steal a couple movies or my guns, or if he's there to rape my dog, or if he has a blue belt in tae kwon do or spent his entire life studying under jet li? lol. Sure its easy to say, gosh, you didn't need to smash his face in with that baseball bat. What if I just yelled at him to leave and he came at me like a spider monkey on crack and killed me?

And yes....I realize the odds of any of this are very rare.

[Redfrog]

"What if I just yelled at him to leave and he came at me like a spider monkey on crack and killed me?

And yes....I realize the odds of any of this are very rare."

Hey it only has to happen 3 or 4 times to make you lose your pleasant disposition.

[gopher]

If someone Brecks into your home and you are present I believe there more than prepared to die.

[parfleche]

rugat, Read sentence three and four of my post, You may go ahead and do as you think you should , BUT you might find it awfull hard to argue your deed after it,s done on those basis, That means once you have acted , a judge may find it very difficult to accept the fact you felt threatened . Remember he wasnt there and HE is always protected, heck I am of the opinion these felows carry a gun most times anyway!and you are always just another stepping stone to the next paycheck, he doesnt give a damn about your future or about your wife and kids! and further ,I completely agree , IF someone is in your home , IT IS NOT to teach you hopscotch! So at that point in time when you do find someone uninvited , YOU will be making the biggest decision of your life ! YOU cannot make an assumption, The law will not tolerate an excuse of I THOUGHT!

[hockey1099]

Originally Posted by rugatika

And there is the problem right there. YOU don't get to decide how much force you can use...someone with the gift of hindsight gets to decide after the fact, if you used too much force.

If I catch someone coming in through a window for example, how do I know he doesn't have a gun or a knife or if he's there to steal a couple movies or my guns, or if he's there to rape my dog, or if he has a blue belt in tae kwon do or spent his entire life studying under jet li? lol. Sure its easy to say, gosh, you didn't need to smash his face in with that baseball bat. What if I just yelled at him to leave and he came at me like a spider monkey on crack and killed me?

And yes....I realize the odds of any of this are very rare.

Here is a true story. My good friend lives in a downtown highrise with about 10 units per floor. One night he woke up to a man in his home. This man is a professional fighter if i gave his name you could find his record on sherdog. My friend had never met this man and was quite surprised to see a large black man in his kitchen at 3 in the morning. Under the castle laws you want my friend could have shot him twice in the chest and ended this mans life with no charges.

Thank god he didnt. Turns out this guy was staying at his buddies apartment on the same floor. He was from out of town. He got drunk at a bar downtown and when he came home he forgot which apartment was his buddies. What he did know was the floor and that the door would be unlocked. My idiot buddy didnt lock his door that night. Had he locked the door this dude never would have entered his home. Nevertheless he didnt and through a few coincidences this guy ends up in his kitchen next to all of the kitchen knives.

My buddy talks to the guy instead of taking other actions and discovers the mistake. No harm no foul. He had a bat in his hand that he keeps in his room. turns out both of them scared each other. Perhaps both needed clean shorts.

There are a lot of what if scenarios. Our current laws do a good enough job protecting home owners. id rather live in a country where 1 man is bankrupted every year for being unnecessarily charged than a country where one person is killed because someone thinks they have free reign to shoot anyone who enters their house.

BTW a criminal defence on a murder charge is gonna cost 75k plus if the matter goes all the way to trial

[elkhunter11]

id rather live in a country where 1 man is bankrupted every year for being unnecessarily charged than a country where one person is killed because someone thinks they have free reign to shoot anyone who enters their house.

Have you ever heard of Barb Danelesko? I would rather live in a country where one prowler was shot and killed every year, than have someone like her murdered in her own home by prowlers.

[Dan the Saskbertan]

When I first opened this thread I thought it was changes to the Castle River regs..................guess not

[hockey1099]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Have you ever heard of Barb Danelesko? I would rather live in a country where one prowler was shot and killed every year, than have someone like her murdered in her own home by prowlers.

Had barb killed the intruder im certain it would have been deemed self defence. A castle doctrine will not prevent break ins nor murders. Laws dont deter criminals. If they did we would have no crime.

I would like to see the stats on break and enters in States with castle doctrines and states with out. I would also like to see the stats both pre and post castle doctrine in each state. I doubt there is any drop in the actual rate for break and enters.

I would also be interested to see the stats on accidental shootings in homes in those states both pre and post castle doctrines. Although i doubt those would change either.

Shooting people is a dangerous and final solution. When my buddy dick turned 18 we got him way too drunk at Richards pub in castle downs. he walked home and broke into his neighbours house thinking it was his. The cops were called he paid for the broken window and was made fun of for months. There are alot of situations where shooting first is a big problem. Whats the name of the girl who was shoot on Weebo Ludwig's farm? Did she deserve to die for trespassing? Should her killer be walking free?

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by hockey1099

Here is a true story. My good friend lives in a downtown highrise with about 10 units per floor. One night he woke up to a man in his home. This man is a professional fighter if i gave his name you could find his record on sherdog. My friend had never met this man and was quite surprised to see a large black man in his kitchen at 3 in the morning. Under the castle laws you want my friend could have shot him twice in the chest and ended this mans life with no charges.

Thank god he didnt. Turns out this guy was staying at his buddies apartment on the same floor. He was from out of town. He got drunk at a bar downtown and when he came home he forgot which apartment was his buddies. What he did know was the floor and that the door would be unlocked. My idiot buddy didnt lock his door that night. Had he locked the door this dude never would have entered his home. Nevertheless he didnt and through a few coincidences this guy ends up in his kitchen next to all of the kitchen knives.

My buddy talks to the guy instead of taking other actions and discovers the mistake. No harm no foul. He had a bat in his hand that he keeps in his room. turns out both of them scared each other. Perhaps both needed clean shorts.

There are a lot of what if scenarios. Our current laws do a good enough job protecting home owners. id rather live in a country where 1 man is bankrupted every year for being unnecessarily charged than a country where one person is killed because someone thinks they have free reign to shoot anyone who enters their house.

BTW a criminal defence on a murder charge is gonna cost 75k plus if the matter goes all the way to trial

I don't think the castle law advocates throwing common sense out the window. For someone to start shooting indiscriminately at someone in their house with no evidence of breaking and entering is kind of silly if you ask me. In the scenario you describe it was an honest mistake with no malicious entry, just like you said, an unfortunate series of coincidences.

Now under the castle law, if your friend did happen to kill this guy, I am not sure he would be protected from being charged given that there was no malice intended or forcible entry. If you read through the generalities of the castle laws it would appear to me your friend would be on the hook for shooting this guy. The castle doctrine does not give you the right to start blasting away at someone who mistakenly enters an unlocked home.



In general, (one) or a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
etc...

[hockey1099]

Originally Posted by rugatika

I don't think the castle law advocates throwing common sense out the window. For someone to start shooting indiscriminately at someone in their house with no evidence of breaking and entering is kind of silly if you ask me. In the scenario you describe it was an honest mistake with no malicious entry, just like you said, an unfortunate series of coincidences.

Now under the castle law, if your friend did happen to kill this guy, I am not sure he would be protected from being charged given that there was no malice intended or forcible entry. If you read through the generalities of the castle laws it would appear to me your friend would be on the hook for shooting this guy. The castle doctrine does not give you the right to start blasting away at someone who mistakenly enters an unlocked home.


In general, (one) or a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
etc...

My friend didnt realize he left the door unlocked. He locks it 99% of the time. At the time he saw the guy in his kitchen he was under the impression it was a break in. He assumed the guy was searching the kitchen for money. Who doesnt keep money in the cookie jar? So he thought a crime was in progress.

What you want is covered by our current self defence laws. You hear about the one or two home owners that are charged every year but you never hear about those not charged. Cops can make the call to lay charges or not. Generally when a death occurs they lay the charge and then let the crown decide to proceed or not.

The case you posted about the fire bombing has a whole back story. I would be interested to read the trial decision. I believe the man charged has a history of problems with neighbours

[elkhunter11]

Whats the name of the girl who was shoot on Weebo Ludwig's farm? Did she deserve to die for trespassing? Should her killer be walking free?

Do you suppose that it could be due to the fact, that the RCMP have no proof all as to who did the shooting?

[nanuk-O-dah-Nort]

Originally Posted by parfleche

J BUT finding someone in your home DOES NOT justify killing , But it wouldnt justify killing him , UNLESS. he shows intent on doing me or mine great harm. .

parfleche: You are wrong, and I will tell why I think so...

a 90yo gramma comes back from shopping, and after closing the door and locking it behind her, she is confronted by a burgler.

1) He is not there to make her tea, but to do her harm
2) he is now in a position where he most likely WILL do her harm
3) as soon as he entered her house uninvited, he lost all rights as a member of society!

If you are in someones home without permission, the resident Must have the right to use LETHAL force. NOTHING less is Justice!

[nanuk-O-dah-Nort]

Originally Posted by geo

When's the last time someone was CONVICTED in Canada of defending their family in self-defense?

But then again if you have a long history of forum posts saying you'll blow away anyone walking on your property, perhaps you may/should be locked up...

Why does CONVICTION play into it??? Just being CHARGED will ruin your life!!

And YES, if you are trespassing in someones home, you should be met with any and ALL force the resident deems necessary and reasonable.

and the choice should be up to the resident

[nanuk-O-dah-Nort]

Originally Posted by geo

So how do you propose a system that can determine whether self-defense or not is appropriate?
Really, even with a "Castle Law", it would work the same. You'd be charged and your defense would be the Castle Law.

There needs to be some kind of judical oversight when someone is killed.

Castle Doctrine has nothing to do with Self-Defense, so much as it is a statement about the inherent right to be safe within your own home

there needs to be NO determination of self-defense. the only determination is if the intruder was indeed in the home without permission!

[nanuk-O-dah-Nort]

Originally Posted by geo

No, but how is one to determine it was self-defense? Clearly there needs to be an investigation. And I'd personally rather have a judge decide than a police officer whether or not a crime has been committed.

You are in my home, you are not invited, I get to decide how I choose to defend my Castle.

if you do not want to get shot while doing a B&E, Don't do the B&E!!!

what is so hard to understand?

No judge or cop needs to decide if the homeowner committed a crime, as the Intruder was the Criminal

[j m]

Originally Posted by geo

Charged, not convincted. Find a conviction (other than the hooligan that shot a guy in the back miles from home for stealing a quad...).

That guy won't be convicted of attempted murder or anything substantial. Maybe he did violate storage laws.

The current process of charged/acquitted works well and prevents people like those above that would just shoot anyone that comes onto their property. Or chase someone down and kill them once they've left. Those people should go to jail.

Editted because I called someone an idiot and thought better of it....

I would refer to the one on the quad as the hooligan. If castle law was in place that spineless little **** wouldn't have had the nerve to steal that quad in the first place. I still say the quad's owner deserves a medal. He shouldn't have been charged at all.

[hillbillyreefer]

Castle doctrines do not allow you to kill an intruder with a bat just because the law is there. You still need to be threatened by the criminal. The current duty to retreat is removed, you are fully within your rights to stand and fight. Once the altercation is over the police have a much stricter set of guidelines for laying charges against the law abiding citizen. The *****rat that was ruffed up has no recourse to sue or charge the law abiding citizen. It really is pretty simple, it doesn't allow anyone to shoot anyone for a cross eyed glance. it is much harder for the authorities to bankrupt a law abiding citizen with false, misleading or trumped up charges.

There hasn't been blood running in the streets in the States it has been enacted in, much to the hug a thug crowds chagrin. Why are Canadians so hesitant to allow themselves freedoms, in this case the freedom to defend ones self without repercussions. The government is not there to defend you, there is no duty to defend others in the policing business. I have no idea why a bunch of you advocate for double victimization, once at the hands of the criminal, and again at the hands of the state.

[elkhunter11]

The government is not there to defend you, there is no duty to defend others in the policing business. I have no idea why a bunch of you advocate for double victimization, once at the hands of the criminal, and again at the hands of the state.

Do you really expect anything different, being that we live in a country that doesn't even make all citizens equal under the law?

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by geo

So let me get this straight, we're going to create a million dollar review panel (we know how governments work) to prevent the one or two guys a year that get charged with this from paying out $20-30k? Million for $20k?

Or perhaps pick up the legal tab for those not convicted, but I know the same crowd will yap endless when we are paying the legal bills for gangsters off on some technicality.

Maybe all the Castle support guys should just create a defense fund and stop wasting my tax dollars for such a rare occurance.

Who oversees such a panel? Who is it accountable to?

Remember that the Crown reviews cases for prosecution prior to anyone being
charged with a major offense. Is this not the review panel right there? If it's a cut and dry case, they will not prosecute.

I'm ok with the intent of a Castle doctrine, but I think the current process and laws on the book work well enough for such a rare event. If this was happening everyday, then yes, I would agree with you. But it's not. We should not be spending millions on such a rare event.

Your right on the board crap, a moment of weakness on my part. In the Castle law a very specific set of tests would need to be satisfied before the law abiding citizen could be charged.

The Castle doctrine would not change change much of the laws that are already on the books. All it would do is shift some of the freedoms and privileges of being a citizen, to the law abiding from the criminals. It would strengthen our current laws of self defense, making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to be ruined for protecting their families lives.

[Scar270]

All you guys need to do, is read the statements made by police in states with castle doctrine after a shooting in self defense, vs the statements made here to see the difference it makes.

In the states bad guy gets shot, police investigate, say it was a justified shoot and congratulate the home owner on a job well done.

Up here, victim is charged, police run against him with every charge they can find. In the media the police recommend against doing such actions, and tell everyone not to take the law into their own hands etc. I don't think I've ever heard the police up here call a self defense case as justified and walk away from it.

It's partly about protecting our rights, it's also partly about changing the attitudes in this country to accept self defense as a human right. Right now the law may be on the books, however it's intent is certainly not generally respected by LEO's and Crown prosecutors.

If you are in my home uninvited, that's your choice to run that risk, not mine. I shouldn't have to wait to be attacked before I can take action, because by then it can be too late.

Judging self defense afterwards, makes about as much sense as the CFO telling me I can't get a wilderness carry permit because I've never had a run in with a bear, I guess I have to survive my first several encounters before I become responsible enough to be able to carry tools for my personal protection.