Victoria is facing a public-safety crisis

[Halifax Tar]

A dead criminal may mean nothing to you, but if you are the one to put them in that state, you had better be prepared to justify your actions or you may be arguing your case to a cell-mate.

The actions and force must be justified and proportionate. We've moved on from mobs.

Thank you for your input.

 

[lenaitch]

Thank you for your input.

You're welcome?

 

[brihard]

Am I the only one who finds it odd that folks found it necessary to explain to you the fundamental rule of engagement - self-defence - on this forum of all places?

I thought it was very clear from the get go that your stance is a moral one, not a legal or technical one.

Why do you find it weird? Troops as a generality don’t know any more about the law around self defense and use of force in Canada than the rest of the population- case in point, you’re using the term ‘rule of engagement’, which is utterly meaningless outside of the military. The actions you can take to defend yourself in theatre can be, depending on your ROE, very different from what our law allows for both police and civilians.

I’ve heard some profoundly dumb takes out of people who’ve carried arms overseas and thinks that gives them insight into here at home. (This isn’t a shot I’m taking at anyone in this thread, just so that’s clear.)

Very good, it's all a word salad that I've read before. And I fully expect you're in everyway correct.

It's still changes nothing for me. A dead criminal means nothing to me.

Yup, I know. I’m not trying to change yours or anyone else’s emotional response to dead criminals. Just offering what insight I have into what the law says, and how good people can stay out of shit in a really bad situation.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A dead criminal may mean nothing to you, but if you are the one to put them in that state, you had better be prepared to justify your actions or you may be arguing your case to a cell-mate.

The actions and force must be justified and proportionate. We've moved on from mobs.

and going from the actions of some Crown Prosecutors, into the realm of public show trials to keep the peasants in line.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Why do you find it weird? Troops as a generality don’t know any more about the law around self defense and use of force in Canada than the rest of the population- case in point, you’re using the term ‘rule of engagement’, which is utterly meaningless outside of the military.

Cue fond memories of trying to explain to (some CAF military) people why you can't shoot someone throwing molotov cocktails

 

[Halifax Tar]

Why do you find it weird? Troops as a generality don’t know any more about the law around self defense and use of force in Canada than the rest of the population- case in point, you’re using the term ‘rule of engagement’, which is utterly meaningless outside of the military. The actions you can take to defend yourself in theatre can be, depending on your ROE, very different from what our law allows for both police and civilians.

I’ve heard some profoundly dumb takes out of people who’ve carried arms overseas and thinks that gives them insight into here at home. (This isn’t a shot I’m taking at anyone in this thread, just so that’s clear.)

I have been trained in UoF as follows:

Capability
Proximity
Intent

Capability - Do they have the capability to cause harm or destruction?

Proximity - Are they close enough to engage us/me ?

Intent - Do they have dangerous or destructive intent ?

That in conjunction with the RoE (very mission specific) governs the application of violence as I have been taught.

 

[TacticalTea]

Why do you find it weird? Troops as a generality don’t know any more about the law around self defense and use of force in Canada than the rest of the population-

Respectfully, I think that's completely false. I don't know how the Army does things but I would expect sailors at OFP to be more than familiar with the principles you outlined in your previous comment.

case in point, you’re using the term ‘rule of engagement’, which is utterly meaningless outside of the military.

I purposely wrote ''rule'' singular, as opposed to ''Rules of engagement'', a defined term, to differentiate the two. I know, it may have been too subtle. My bad.
Nonetheless words are not, in fact, meaningless. I think most people with at least a vague interest in military matters would readily understand why I used that term:
Because the laws and regulations concerning self-defence are, in effect, a rule that dictates whether or not you may engage a threat to your life. A civilian would also generally not know of the technical ramifications of ROEs, despite knowing about those as a concept (such as from watching the movie... Rules of Engagement!).

The actions you can take to defend yourself in theatre can be, depending on your ROE, very different from what our law allows for both police and civilians.

That's cool. But we're specifically talking about self-defence, which is no different for uniformed and non-uniformed Canadians alike, and, as I highlighted above, is not really one of ''the ROEs'', but an underlying principle in service of your right to life.

Troops as a generality don’t know any more about the law around self defense and use of force in Canada than the rest of the population

[...]
I’ve heard some profoundly dumb takes out of people who’ve carried arms overseas and thinks that gives them insight into here at home.

I like to think that the people on this forum are some of the more thoughtful types amongst their peers.

(This isn’t a shot I’m taking at anyone in this thread, just so that’s clear.)

None perceived, none taken, and none intended.

 

[brihard]

I have been trained in UoF as follows:

Capability
Proximity
Intent

Capability - Do they have the capability to cause harm or destruction?

Proximity - Are they close enough to engage us/me ?

Intent - Do they have dangerous or destructive intent ?

That in conjunction with the RoE (very mission specific) governs the application of violence as I have been taught.

Yup, and in a military context where hostilities are ongoing or imminently expected, that’s a very useful structure that every soldier should be able to be trained in and grasp. Domestic law is simply more restrictive than ROE generally are.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yup, and in a military context where hostilities are ongoing or imminently expected, that’s a very useful structure that every soldier should be able to be trained in and grasp. Domestic law is simply more restrictive than ROE generally are.

Are we talking in a military or civilian scenario?

I have plans and methods in place to defend my house and family. Our batty neighbor next door and the rising crime and violence in our neighborhood has really awakened me to the fact in a situation akin to a home invasion, I'm probably on my own for a bit. And I'd rather go to jail and know my family is safe than be free and know I didn't stand up when needed. As well I would rather have the tools and means and not need them; than wish I had them if I ever do.

You guys are way over tasked. We need more of you so I don't have to take these things as seriously as I have now.

 

[Good2Golf]

Domestic law is simply more restrictive than most serious nations’ ROE generally are.

Canadian ROE…

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Canadian ROE…

View attachment 75709

Canadian when questioned about ROE.....

 

[brihard]

Respectfully, I think that's completely false. I don't know how the Army does things but I would expect sailors at OFP to be more than familiar with the principles you outlined in your previous comment.

I purposely wrote ''rule'' singular, as opposed to ''Rules of engagement'', a defined term, to differentiate the two. I know, it may have been too subtle. My bad.
Nonetheless words are not, in fact, meaningless. I think most people with at least a vague interest in military matters would readily understand why I used that term:
Because the laws and regulations concerning self-defence are, in effect, a rule that dictates whether or not you may engage a threat to your life. A civilian would also generally not know of the technical ramifications of ROEs, despite knowing about those as a concept (such as from watching the movie... Rules of Engagement!).


That's cool. But we're specifically talking about self-defence, which is no different for uniformed and non-uniformed Canadians alike, and, as I highlighted above, is not really one of ''the ROEs'', but an underlying principle in service of your right to life.

I like to think that the people on this forum are some of the more thoughtful types amongst their peers.

None perceived, none taken, and none intended.

I did actually note the singular, which is why I used the same.

I'm not trying to cut you down here, and I'm not saying that you personally may not have a better grasp on this than most. Frankly, I think that most people who participate actively on this board are more thoughtful than the average bear. I'm drawing not just on policing experience here, but on my experience as an infantry dismount in Kandahar, and as a section commander in a DOMOPS security context for Op Cadence, the G8/G20, where we had some... questionable training in being prepared to use force in a domestic context. I wish I'd have known then what I know now, because as a section commander I would have been better prepared for eventualities that, fortunately, did not come to pass.

The sort of terminology we use in rules of engagement discussions can be useful for thinking through scenarios,a nd for articulating your actions after the fact if you have to. Self defense in Canada will always be judged by what's in s.34 of the Criminal Code, and the caselaw that's fleshed that out. When I say certain words are 'meaningless', I mean that they have no significance in and of themselves legally. You aren't concerned with explaining how you 'engaged a threat', but rather why you 'used force', and why the force used was for the purpose of 'defending or protecting themselves or another person', and why 'the act committed was reasonable in the circumstances'. Imminence of the force you're defending against, and proportionality of the force you used are also factors.

Interestingly, on the subject of military training and experience in articulating use of force decisions- just a few weeks ago there was finally a verdict on the retrial of Peter Khill, the former reservist from Hamilton who shot and killed a man who was trying to steal his truck. Khill relied extensively on his military training in his defense. The first trial (acquittal) was overturned on appeal, as the judge was found to have given faulty jury instructions. Specifically, the judge failed to instruct the jury adequately in considering the role Khill himself played in the incident. Khill unsuccessfully appealed this all the way to the Supreme Court. The second trial ended in mistrial. Finally, in a third trial this fall, he was just convicted of manslaughter (acquitted of murder). All said and done, the case is a caution on anyone wanting to rely on articulating their military training in why they used force civilly. In this case Khill exited his residence and basically snuck up to very close range before announcing his presence. I think that screwed him. Very different from, say, a home invasion situation.

Are we talking in a military or civilian scenario?

I have plans and methods in place to defend my house and family. Our batty neighbor next door and the rising crime and violence in our neighborhood has really awakened me to the fact in a situation akin to a home invasion, I'm probably on my own for a bit. And I'd rather go to jail and know my family is safe than be free and know I didn't stand up when needed. As well I would rather have the tools and means and not need them; than wish I had them if I ever do.

You guys are way over tasked. We need more of you so I don't have to take these things as seriously as I have now.

Needless to say there are very big differences in what force can be used legally to defend persons versus defend property. As a general rule of thumb- by all means be prepared to act to defend persons, with force if needed. Give the other guy a way out if you can. If possible, let the other guy know he's in for a fight so he has the chance to disengage and get out. If someone is fleeing, don't use weapons against them. If you have the option of safely withdrawing and don't, you need to be prepared to explain why you didn't. Doesn't mean this can't be explained, but you need to be live to it.

But, all that said, if you're in a situation where you have to act now and violently to defend yourself or those with you against someone trying to hurt you, absolutely you can do that. And shut the fuck up and get a lawyer. Articulating use of force immediately after it happens (e.g., in a statement to police) is not a good idea. Human memory in a critical incident or its immediate wake is a mess. Better a night in jail than committing yourself to a recounting of events that is skewed by the absolute shit situation you're in. Get legal counsel before explaining yourself.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I did actually note the singular, which is why I used the same.

I'm not trying to cut you down here, and I'm not saying that you personally may not have a better grasp on this than most. Frankly, I think that most people who participate actively on this board are more thoughtful than the average bear. I'm drawing not just on policing experience here, but on my experience as an infantry dismount in Kandahar, and as a section commander in a DOMOPS security context for Op Cadence, the G8/G20, where we had some... questionable training in being prepared to use force in a domestic context. I wish I'd have known then what I know now, because as a section commander I would have been better prepared for eventualities that, fortunately, did not come to pass.

The sort of terminology we use in rules of engagement discussions can be useful for thinking through scenarios,a nd for articulating your actions after the fact if you have to. Self defense in Canada will always be judged by what's in s.34 of the Criminal Code, and the caselaw that's fleshed that out. When I say certain words are 'meaningless', I mean that they have no significance in and of themselves legally. You aren't concerned with explaining how you 'engaged a threat', but rather why you 'used force', and why the force used was for the purpose of 'defending or protecting themselves or another person', and why 'the act committed was reasonable in the circumstances'. Imminence of the force you're defending against, and proportionality of the force you used are also factors.

Interestingly, on the subject of military training and experience in articulating use of force decisions- just a few weeks ago there was finally a verdict on the retrial of Peter Khill, the former reservist from Hamilton who shot and killed a man who was trying to steal his truck. Khill relied extensively on his military training in his defense. The first trial (acquittal) was overturned on appeal, as the judge was found to have given faulty jury instructions. Specifically, the judge failed to instruct the jury adequately in considering the role Khill himself played in the incident. Khill unsuccessfully appealed this all the way to the Supreme Court. The second trial ended in mistrial. Finally, in a third trial this fall, he was just convicted of manslaughter (acquitted of murder). All said and done, the case is a caution on anyone wanting to rely on articulating their military training in why they used force civilly. In this case Khill exited his residence and basically snuck up to very close range before announcing his presence. I think that screwed him. Very different from, say, a home invasion situation.



Needless to say there are very big differences in what force can be used legally to defend persons versus defend property. As a general rule of thumb- by all means be prepared to act to defend persons, with force if needed. Give the other guy a way out if you can. If possible, let the other guy know he's in for a fight so he has the chance to disengage and get out. If someone is fleeing, don't use weapons against them. If you have the option of safely withdrawing and don't, you need to be prepared to explain why you didn't. Doesn't mean this can't be explained, but you need to be live to it.

But, all that said, if you're in a situation where you have to act now and violently to defend yourself or those with you against someone trying to hurt you, absolutely you can do that. And shut the fuck up and get a lawyer. Articulating use of force immediately after it happens (e.g., in a statement to police) is not a good idea. Human memory in a critical incident or its immediate wake is a mess. Better a night in jail than committing yourself to a recounting of events that is skewed by the absolute shit situation you're in. Get legal counsel before explaining yourself.

I understand the implications and difficulty we in Canada have with a scenario like this, I don't agree with it, but I understand it. Some choose to leave these things to existing agencies, and that's a choice, the same as mine to take a level of person responsibly for it.

I have a lawyer friend from Rugby and we've discussed this at length. I'd rather not have to act, but if I do I'd rather be judged by a jury than leave my fate in the hands of a criminal.

I say again, you guys are over tasked and we need more of you, so I don't have to take these things so seriously.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Overwhelmingly, most defensive firearm uses don't require a lethally aimed shot, or even any shot at all.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Overwhelmingly, most defensive firearm uses don't require a lethally aimed shot, or even any shot at all.

There is something about a yelled warning and the racking of a pump action shotgun that generally makes people change direction.

It's a distinct sound.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The entire episode is what I call an abortion of justice. A miscarriage of justice is when a bad man walks free, an abortion of justice is when they keep trying you until they get the result they want.

I'd give Khill a job the minute he gets out of prison. Thieves are the worst kind of criminal and Styres is now going to be turned in to some kind of 'martyr' when he's really just another loser scumbag who just so happened to also be indigenous.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I suppose my point is that the greatest legal risk to a defendant is losing temper and shooting after the battle of wills is won.

 

[OldSolduer]

In the local paper this morning there was a story about an fire in which two people died. It was arson and the alleged arsonist has been arrested and detained.

He was out on the streets - his previous charges were arson. So here we have a guy who is a proven arsonist allowed to walk the streets, and allegedly cause the deaths of two people.

 

[brihard]

The entire episode is what I call an abortion of justice. A miscarriage of justice is when a bad man walks free, an abortion of justice is when they keep trying you until they get the result they want.

I'd give Khill a job the minute he gets out of prison. Thieves are the worst kind of criminal and Styres is now going to be turned in to some kind of 'martyr' when he's really just another loser scumbag who just so happened to also be indigenous.

No, legal mistakes were made that necessitated appeal and a retrial. The judge has an important role to play in instructing a jury, and in this case the judge botched it the first time round- I think in part there had been relatively recent changes to the Crim Code regarding self defense, and this wasn't instructed correctly. That was appealed, which is how the system is supposed to work. The appeals court judge ordered a new trial. There was no 'they' 'wanting' anything in this who were in a position to impact it. Obviously crown argued their case in the appeal, and that's what supposed to happen.

The second trial was mistrialled after a day of evidence; they lost a juror who suffered a death in the family and had too few to go on. They proceeded with the third trial nearly immediately, there was minimal delay.

Ultimately a reasonable verdict was delivered. If acting to defend property you have to behave reasonably; you exit your house, can't sneak up on someone, surprise them, and then shoot them if they haven't presented the threat to you that justifies that. Any car thief is going to fuck off at the high port the second you shout at them. They're there to take stuff, not get in a fight. Khill was armed with a shotgun and very much able to yell at the thief from a position of cover with the shotgun ready to use if needed.

 

[Good2Golf]

In the local paper this morning there was a story about an fire in which two people died. It was arson and the alleged arsonist has been arrested and detained.

He was out on the streets - his previous charges were arson. So here we have a guy who is a proven arsonist allowed to walk the streets, and allegedly cause the deaths of two people.

Clearly the solution is for the Government to take away the fire permits of law abiding citizens and outlaw fires.