Self Defence and Canadian Law: The Need to Retreat
ttruscott @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:25 pm
Does Canadian self defence law demand that we must retreat before we can legally use force likely to cause death in self defence?
Canadian self defence law is a Federal jurisdiction. It is written up in the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC). This means that one rule applies to all of Canada, side stepping the myriad state laws about self defence in the US that are often contradictory.
The so called Need to Retreat law in the Criminal Code of Canada is misused mre often than not...
Read more: Need to Retreat...
sasquatch2 @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:09 pm
Yeah UN Rules Of Engagement---we have the right and obligation to....RUN AWAY.
Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
RoyalHighlander @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:19 pm
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
Yeah UN Rules Of Engagement---we have the right and obligation to....RUN AWAY.
Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
I would defend myself or my family first and foremost then worry about shit afterwards in a court of law.. Id rather be judges by 12 than carried by 6 any day
Freakinoldguy @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:21 am
I'd only retreat far enough to pick up what I intended to use to dispatch the perpetrator to the great hear after.
The first thing they tell you when attacked by a wild animal is to stand your ground make yourself look larger and if you have a weapon use it.
So why in the F*$k should you react to some humanoid who is threatening you differently than a wild animal.
As the matter of fact I have considerably more respect and love for all creatures great and small, with the exception of some human beings whom, I'd have no trouble dispatching if they gave me the opportunity and excuse.
Government stupidity will definately get you killed.
ttruscott @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:49 pm
Might I say it again, since I obviously was not clear the first time?
Canadian Law does NOT REQUIRE US TO RETREAT...
unless you provoked the fight without cause and he tries to kill you.
Then and only then, to prove your good will,
you must retreat.
Freakinoldguy @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:33 pm
Okay I think I got it.
If you start a fight and the guy tries to kill you, you must retreat to show your good will, but if he starts the fight and tries to kill you, he must retreat to show his goodwill.
Whats with goodwill in a fight whether you started it or not?????????????
Neither of these seem like realistic scenarios for real life. If your stupid enough to start a fight and the guy tries to kill you, to freakin bad. But if he started the fight, my quess would be he wouldn't retreat one step, so it's free to kill him time.
Personally I think it's ridiculous to even think in these terms. In the heat of battle who's going to remember any of this legal crap. My gut instinct would be to defend myself first and then worry about what the lawyers thought later.
After reading the link I can see why there are so many lawyers in Canada. They're a self perpetuating species.
ttruscott @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:51 pm
"To show good will" is my phrase to indicate that it is clear to all that you do not want to engage in life or death combat and decline to go that far.
Your actions (retreating) must confirm that you wanted a bit of physical contesting, a bit of a punch up, not life or death combat.
If you want to claim self defence when it is you in the dock, there it is...
sasquatch2 @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:36 am
$1:
The art of diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" while reaching for a rock.
Will Rogers
ttruscott @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:26 pm
I like it.....!
JohnHurt @ Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:54 am
Nice Rule!
<a href="http://www.liquidprinter.com/custom-boxes.html">Custom Boxes</a>
Public_Domain @ Sat Nov 02, 2013 1:11 am
Hyack @ Sat Nov 02, 2013 1:25 am
Public_Domain Public_Domain:
What fucking forums do you visit that let you use direct HTML in posts? 
He be gone.......
Benn @ Sat Nov 02, 2013 4:36 pm
But just in case someone links into the OPs site, just FYI parts of the Criminal Code he quotes have since been repealed. Basically, like this thread, some of his advice it out of date.
llama66 @ Sun Nov 03, 2013 12:40 am
With the Citizen's Arrest and Self Defense Act receiving Royal Assent and coming into force earlier this year, as Benn has said, all this is incorrect. S.34 now reads
$1:
Defence — use or threat of force
34. (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
Marginal note:Factors
(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
(a) the nature of the force or threat;
(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
(c) the person’s role in the incident;
(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and
(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
Marginal note:No defence
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F); 2012, c. 9, s. 2.
34. (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
Marginal note:Factors
(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
(a) the nature of the force or threat;
(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
(c) the person’s role in the incident;
(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and
(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
Marginal note:No defence
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F); 2012, c. 9, s. 2.
The concept behind stepping back was to show you performed your due diligence and attempted to escape/de-escalate the situation - before you defended your self.