In my opinion this is just murder.

[Patroklos]

Neither was I, I was just commenting on how retarded that portion of Canadian law is.

I can defend myself against fists, but as soon as my attacker breaks out a baseball bat/knife/gun I just have to let him kill me. Awesome.

[Kontiki]

Except, of course, that's not what the law says.

http://www.self-defender.net/law5.htm

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Neither was I, I was just commenting on how retarded that portion of Canadian law is.

I can defend myself against fists, but as soon as my attacker breaks out a baseball bat/knife/gun I just have to let him kill me. Awesome.

You are not stating the law correctly as Canadians are allowed to use necessary force. If you want to rolleyes at our system I can provide you plenty of reasons (I have a thread on it), this just isn't one of them.

[Patroklos]

Except, of course, that's not what the law says.

Then the article should have said that. It specifically states, falsely it seems, you can't use deadly force or force that causes grevious bodily harm while protecting yourself.

You are not stating the law correctly as Canadians are allowed to use necessary force.

Not I, but your article, and I figured as much. When we can't nitpick shoddy journelism for fun, we shall know the end is near.

[Wezil]

Nope, the article was correct. You were wrong.

[Patroklos]

Then please my dear Wezil, reconcile this...

Canada's Criminal Code authorizes people to use the amount of force necessary to protect themselves and their property.

...with this...

However, the law stresses such force should not be used to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

[DirtyMartini]

should not be used, not cannot be used. I think that's a reasonable phrasing of the statute. As in, deadly force should not be used if you don't have to use it.

It's probably written that way to avoid the "He was a tris-pass-in on a my pru-per-tay, so I shooted him deed" defense.

[Wezil]

DirtyMartini - Spot on.

[Patroklos]

should not be used, not cannot be used. I think that's a reasonable phrasing of the statute. As in, deadly force should not be used if you don't have to use it.

No. If deadly force is required to protect yourself or your property, according to the first statment it CAN be used.

It is in compete contrast to the second statment, which very clearly is saying that deadly force/greavious injury should not be used regardless of the circumstances.

DirtyMartini - Spot on.

Spot on wrong. DM is using his good logic to make up for lack of it in the article, but since this thread is very much about the letter of the law, it doesn't save your article.

It very clearly says one thing about Canadian law, while actual Canadian law says something else. Why you are so dogged in defending an obvious mistake in an article, a mistake that does nothing to take away for the reason you posted it, is beyond me. Canadian pride runs deep I guess.

[Wezil]

We've explained and you still don't get it.

Time to move on...

[DirtyMartini]

OK,

I'll admit, the writer would have been more clear if s/he had added "if it can be avoided", to the end of "However, the law stresses such force should not be used to cause death or grievous bodily harm".

I would still argue that the use of the word "should" implies the whole "if it can be avoided" bit.

Then again perhaps the writer meant to be obtuse. While I think the law itself is written very well, the point of the article was to make you go "WTF! He's being charged for murder for defending his helpless girlfriend and his own life?!? Doooooode, Canada sux!!!" Which makes you keep reading. By making that sentence a little burry around the edges, the goal of the article was advanced somewhat.

[Patroklos]

Then again perhaps the writer meant to be obtuse. While I think the law itself is written very well, the point of the article was to make you go "WTF! He's being charged for murder for defending his helpless girlfriend and his own life?!? Doooooode, Canada sux!!!" Which makes you keep reading. By making that sentence a little burry around the edges, the goal of the article was advanced somewhat.

Exactly.

That is in fact the very reason Wezil posted it, to give a counter example to the OP where someone was justified in using deadly force and might get charged for murder.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Patroklos
That is in fact the very reason Wezil posted it, to give a counter example to the OP where someone was justified in using deadly force and might get charged for murder.

Does the "where" phrase apply to the OP or to the counterargument?

If it refers to the Canada article I conditionally agree:

if I recall the OP -- that's a case where someone was not justified and should be charged with murder, but may not be.

Despite the somewhat infammatory tone, in the Canada article -- a case where someone may have been justified in using deadly force, but where there is a statue in place to prosecute him if it is determined that it wasn't necessary.

I don't know that my comment about the article making you say "Canada sux" has anything to do with why Wezil posted it -- it's just an illustration of a point which had been brought up in the original discussion. (But perhaps I should let Wezil speak for himself)

[Patroklos]

Yes, in the OP there was a person who killed someone when he was not protecting himself or his property and was not charged with murder.

So this would be an example of someone who was justified, and might actually get murder charges (if you took the article at face value).

Despite the somewhat infammatory tone, in the Canada article -- a case where someone may have been justified in using deadly force, but where there is a statue in place to prosecute him if it is determined that it wasn't necessary.

That was all covered in the first statment.

"Canada's Criminal Code authorizes people to use the amount of force necessary to protect themselves and their property."

This is correct concerning Canadian law it appears, and it is how it works in the US as well. After the event, law enforcement will determine if they force used was necessary. If they think it wasn't, they will charge them with whatever.

This author, however, didn't stop there and immediately posted the second statment. You were correct in why he did that.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini

I don't know that my comment about the article making you say "Canada sux" has anything to do with why Wezil posted it -- it's just an illustration of a point which had been brought up in the original discussion. (But perhaps I should let Wezil speak for himself)

I posted it to demonstrate that in this country just b/c someone is not lawfully in a residence you don't just get to start blasting carte blanche. Some jurisdictions allow lethal force to protect property, ours does not. It fit with the point Flubber was originally making.

As to this particular case - I have no idea of the facts surrounding this home invasion/killing to really know if the force was justified or not.