[Newsbot]

Title: Self-defence: What's acceptable under Canadian law?
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2012-05-12 13:03:44
Canadian

[andyt]

The problem with all this is that just being charged is going to cost you a fortune in lawyer's fees and disrupt your life. OTOH, as we've seen in the Treyvor Martin case, just having the cops make the decision is not a good solution either. In many ways our justice system is broken, where somebody who's the victim can have a severe financial impact trying to clear their name, aggravated by how complex and slow the justice system is. Maybe there should be pre-trials, where a judge judges somebody's evidence without lawyers, just let them tell their side of it. Then, if the judge hands the case over for trial if he's not satisfied with innocence of the person charged. Ie you could be found not guilty in this informal process, but to be found guilty still requires a full trial.

[Richard]

I am not a lawyer but doesn't the crown prosecutor have say in what goes to trial? Going from personal experiance I was charged for excessive force when a coke head wouldn't leave me and my then pregnant wife alone. I knocked him on his ass three times and he kept getting up and coming so I finally tossed his ass throught the front window of a Topaz. We made a haste retreat to the car and left. I was arrested the next day but it was dropped as fast as it started.

[andyt]

Richard Richard:

I am not a lawyer but doesn't the crown prosecutor have say in what goes to trial? Going from personal experiance I was charged for excessive force when a coke head wouldn't leave me and my then pregnant wife alone. I knocked him on his ass three times and he kept getting up and coming so I finally tossed his ass throught the front window of a Topaz. We made a haste retreat to the car and left. I was arrested the next day but it was dropped as fast as it started.

In BC the crown prosecutor has all the say - they have to approve charges, the police can't do it. But, as we've seen in some cases, the prosecutors go ahead with charges even if the case seems ridiculous. Often they'll do so for political reasons. And once you're charged, it's going to cost you lawyers fees. If it goes to trial it's going to cost you a lot of time and money, even if you get off. Law is so expensive now, even middle class people can't afford it for a case of any complexity. So you're being punished even if you're the victim and did nothing wrong, just defended yourself. It's a tricky area, and I'm glad the Reformacons are trying to bring at least a bit of clarity to it.

[Thanos]

Depends on the jury you get. In Calgary back in the 1980's we had two stand-out incidents:

1) A drug store owner, after suffering a string of armed robberies, chased a drug addict who robbed him out into the street and gunned him down with a shotgun;

2) A 98-pound weakling of a drug addict who owed money to a dealer was assaulted by a steroided-up goon who the dealer sent to collect. He shot the juice monkey a point-blank range and killed him.

In both instances the accused were found not guilty of murder.

I'm not sure what the lesson here is but it's not an automatic conviction, at least not with a jury. So we're not at the same place Britain tragically is at, where thanks to Tony Blair's government, even the slightest hint of self-defence (even in a potentially lethal situation) will be met with public prosecution and a jail sentence. Canada seems to be occupying that safe middle ground between a lunatic's paradise in the US, where the likes of inept vigilantes like George Zimmermann can escape prosecution if the good ol' boys circle the wagons around him (face it, if it weren't for the media frenzy Zimmermann would still be walking around free right now) and the insanity of Britain where criminals have all the rights and their victims have literally none.

And that Stand-Your-Ground nonsense in Florida that encouraged George Zimmermann to behave so stupidly? Turns out it applies to white males only.

[andyt]

Certainly not the point I was making. Even if you are found not guilty, it's going to cost you a bundle to defend yourself, as well as a lot of time where you won't be at your work earning income. You may lost your job or business because people assume if you're charged you must be guilty. If we look at some of the ridiculous cases prosecutors chose to try, and of course lost, those people have paid a big cost just for defending themselves. That's what I'm on about.

[Brenda]

Thanos Thanos:

And that Stand-Your-Ground nonsense in Florida that encouraged George Zimmermann to behave so stupidly? Turns out it applies to white males only.

If Zimmerman is white, then so is Barack Obama.

That said, I know it was not the point you are trying to make, Andy.

[ShepherdsDog]

The term 'white' is silly when you describe someone. I know lots of caucasians who can't be described as 'white' and plenty of non caucasians who'd make Barnabas Collins look sun kissed by comparison. It wasn't until moving to east Asia that I was was confronted with fish belly, three days in the grave, nosferatu white

[Proculation]

I know you are talking about the process but I will add a case that happened in Montreal: Basil Parasiris. His home was stormed by police officers at dawn and thinking that it was a home invasion, he used a gun that he held in his nightstand to fire at what he thought were attackers to 'protect his family' and killed a police sergeant. The storming from the police was deemed illegal and Parasiris was found not guilty because it was self defence in the context. He only got prison time for the inappropriate store and use of a firearm.

But, it took a trial, a 100,000$ bond and over one year. His life and the life of a lot of people is changed forever.