"Criminals have right to remain silent and for speedy trial by their peers"Criminals also have the right to life and liberty (and, where I'm at, security of the person), and
the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process (where I'm at, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice). You've heard of that thing called an INALIENABLE right -- the kind of right that we all have, and we don't and can't give up?
The right to life is the basis on which we regard it as unacceptable to punish someone for an assault or homicide committed in the course of preserving his/her own life or body from an unlawful assault that s/he reasonably believes will cause his/her death or cause him/her serious injury, and that s/he reasonably believes s/he has no alternative way of avoiding.
An assault of that nature (likely to cause death or serious injury) that is committed for the purpose of protecting property is an unlawful assault, where I'm at and in a lot of (I believe most) jurisdictions in the US.
"Can you quote the exact law that allows a criminal to defend himself during the commission of his crime?"Sure enough. Keeping in mind, of course, that what *I* said was:
If a burglar carrying a concealed weapon shot a security guard who had fired first, that would be self-defence (whether y'all like it or not). (From which it would be reasonable, and correct, to assume that I was talking about the attempted burlary of commercial premises, not a dwelling house.)
I mean, I would hope you weren't attempting to portray my statement as a general rule about
all criminals, engaged in the commission of
any type of offence.
Here's my law. If you don't like it, you're welcome to find your own.
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec34.html
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causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and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.
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec35.html
35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if
(a) he uses the force
(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec36.html
36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec38.html
38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified
(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or
(b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it, if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.
(2) Where a person who is in peaceable possession of personal property lays hands on it, a trespasser who persists in attempting to keep it or take it from him or from any one lawfully assisting him shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.
Put it all together and it spells: a security guard is not justified in shooting at a burglar who has not done anything to present a threat to the life or body of the security guard and who has not "provoked" the security guard as defined by the law.
So if the security guard did shoot someone caught in the commission of a burlary who had neither assaulted nor provoked him/her, s/he would be committing an unlawful assault. The burglar would be acting in self-defence if s/he shoots the security guard "under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm" and "believes, on reasonable grounds, that <s/he> cannot otherwise preserve <him/herself> from death or grievous bodily harm".
Does this apply to defense against his armed victim or the police?I'm sure you are quite aware that a situation in which police are present is an entirely different kettle of herring. The police would be acting with authority to arrest persons in the commission of an offence that non-police actors do not have. An individual who used force against a police officer who was using reasonable force to effect the arrest would not be acting in self-defence. (That does not mean that there may not be situations in which an individual
could be acting in self-defence, if a police officer were using unreasonable force to effect the arrest -- i.e. committing an unlawful assault -- and the individual met the tests for self-defence set out above.)
"The only defense claim I am aware of is if the victim gets the upper hand in defending himself and the criminal gives up or surrenders - stops his attack and drops his weapon. The victim may not fire on the criminal if the criminal surrenders because that constitutes excessive force."Then you may need to study your law a little more. Assuming, again, that you are not engaged in beating a straw horse, by pretending that I was talking about something I was not talking about.
I mean, we do recall that I have never said that the individual in the lead story was *not* acting lawfully in self-defence. (Although, of course, if he had used more force than was necessary and/or
intended to cause the death of the would-be robber, the act would not have been self-defence. This would commonly be a very difficult thing to prove, and prosecutorial discretion would likely be exercised on the basis that a conviction could not be expected even if the prosecutor believed that the force used had not been lawful, and no charge laid.)
"The only right a felon has during and after the commission of a crime is the right to remain silent and for a speedy trial by his peers. As soon as someone decides to commit a crime that compromises the right to safety of another person, the criminal looses <sic> his."And there, of course, you are simply blowing smoke out your hat. Your statement is flat-out wrong, and nonsense. The right to life and not to be deprived thereof without due process is inalienable. Look it up.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(143 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
