As the world turns - Recent Canadian self-defence

Status
Not open for further replies.

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
52,245
Location
Ontario, Canada
With firearms: http://www.torontosun.com/2015/01/24/defending-self-defence
Quote:
Self-defence is legal in Canada. So how come police and Crown prosecutors keep charging victims who have the courage to fight back against their attackers? Two weeks ago I wrote about Michael Woodard, a 68-year-old from Honeydale, N.B. On Dec. 19, Woodard found three burglars in his remote home, a 20-minute drive down a gravel road from the nearest blacktop. The cops are nearly an hour away. When one of the burglars clocked Woodard in the head with a tire iron, he managed to get to one of his legally owned long guns. He shot the skull-cracker in the leg, then followed the perps outside and fired a shot at their car as they sped off. When police arrived, they arrested Woodard. He spent the weekend in jail until he could arrange bail. Now he faces more serious charges and longer jail time than the three little miscreants who invaded his home. Another example of police and prosecutors’ war on self-defence came this weekend in Rouyn-Noranda, a mining community in northern Quebec near the Ontario border. Tuesday evening, two robbers entered Leo Boulet’s tiny depanneur (convenience store) in the remote Quebec community. The store is tiny, only a couple of hundred square feet, with a residence in the back, but it has been the scene of frequent robberies. Boulet, who is 75, took out a gun from behind the counter and shot at his assailants, seriously wounding one. Once again, when police arrived, they arrested Boulet, and charged him with more serious crimes than his attackers, including discharging a firearm with intent, reckless use of a firearm and aggravated assault. Boulet is still in a provincial jail about three hours from his home because the Crown opposed his bail application. Boulet’s is a bit of a tricky case. The gun he used was a handgun he kept loaded under the counter – a handgun that was unregistered and for which, according to police, Boulet had no licence. And this is not the first time Boulet has shot someone who was trying to hold him up. He shot another robber in 1990. No charges were laid. Sure it’s wrong of Boulet to have an unregistered handgun and to have no possession licence. Our gun laws are overly restrictive. These probably shouldn’t be crimes. Still, if the Crown proceeds with illegal possession charges against Boulet, he will have to face a judge on those counts. But the rest of the charges against Boulet are rubbish. Discharging a firearm with intent? Yeah. His intent was not to get killed or beaten badly by the two criminals holding him up. Reckless use of a firearm? How was his use reckless? He hit the robber he was aiming at. And aggravated assault? If the robber didn’t want to wind up in hospital with a bullet wound he shouldn’t have entered the Chez Lou depanneur with the intent to commit a robbery. What's next from our politically correct criminal justice system? Declaring armed robbery a profession and demanding workers’ comp for thieves who get “injured” at “work?” An online petition supporting Boulet and demanding that charges be dropped had more than 2,000 signatures, and a march in support of the septuagenarian shopkeeper was planned for Saturday. But both had to be dropped when organizers were threatened with violence on their Facebook page. Gee, isn’t uttering threats a criminal offence in Canada? Wouldn’t Quebec provincial police’s time be better used running down the threat-makers? In 2012, the federal Tories changed the Criminal Code to make self-defence easier. Too many police officers and Crown prosecutors still haven’t received the memo.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
2,190
Location
SW Ontario Canada
well clearly he forgot to ask them nicely to leave, or offer them a piece of sugar pie. Once manners are forgotten, anarchy follows. Seriously, the old guy should get a medal.
 
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
5,133
Location
chicago, Illinois
This isn't going to change until the citizens reverse such draconian gun laws. As far as I am concerned it is a crime for the gov't to be charging these innocent citizens for defending themselves against imminent and likely fatal injuries by the perps.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
52,245
Location
Ontario, Canada
I know. Even though the charges are usually eventually dropped, it is a huge embarrassment, not to mention the EXPENSE for people to go through this when all they are doing is exercising their right to defend themselves and their family/home. frown
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
33,645
Location
PNW
I'm sure if it was an off-duty police officer getting cracked over the skull in his own home he would have smoked them all and nobody would say anything except "well done". Yes, it's an obvious double-standard but seems more so in Canada.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
52,245
Location
Ontario, Canada
Exactly. Like when Vickers defended parliament with his personal gun, he didn't have to go through any legalese afterwards. There is a serious double-standard in play.
 
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
5,133
Location
chicago, Illinois
@ OVERKILL: I asked you this previously but I don't recall you responding to my question.... Didn't Canada have gun regulations/laws which were somewhat similar to the US up until the 70s? That included the ability and right to defend against imminent danger from a assailant..
 
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
7,485
Location
S California
Our government thinks Canada is on the right track. Our government wants us to accept being shot or otherwise injured while we wait for the police to arrive, even if it will be long after the bad guys have already left. Our government wants only their departments, agents and criminals to have guns even though it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between these 3 groups.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
52,245
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
@ OVERKILL: I asked you this previously but I don't recall you responding to my question.... Didn't Canada have gun regulations/laws which were somewhat similar to the US up until the 70s? That included the ability and right to defend against imminent danger from a assailant..
We still do. But you still end up "charged". It is actually covered in the first part of the article. The charges usually get dropped but there is still the massive inconvenience and expense of the court process.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
Chicago
I'm with you overkill.... Is it just me or does there seem to be a correlation in loving all things car/engine and beliving in the right to defend yourself?
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
1,895
Location
Villa Park, IL
sounds like a great law and country, IMO. Absolutely BRILLIANT! arrest the man who tries to save his own life! world never ceases to amaze me.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,656
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted By: CT8
The Subjects needn't defend themselves as it is the governments duty.
At least in Australia, it has been determined that the Police/Govt have zero responsibility to protect, their role is solving crime.
 
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
5,532
Location
Canada
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
We still do. But you still end up "charged". It is actually covered in the first part of the article. The charges usually get dropped but there is still the massive inconvenience and expense of the court process.
I had this explained to me once: Say the cops show up, one guy is bleeding and holding a gun, one guy is shot. The guy with the gun says he was defending himself. Are the cops to say "OK, that' alright then"? No, something serious has happened and the parties concerned are taken in and it is determined what charges the parties might face. They then face those charges in a court of law. OK it's kind of rough if you were only trying to protect yourself. But harming or killing someone is a serious business. If I were to shoot your son, would you not want a full explanation (possibly in front of a Judge and jury) as to why and how it happened. ? Charges are just charges, it does not mean guilt. It's just reason for detention or older to attend court.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,656
Location
'Stralia
expat, that's entirely reasonable, and I'm glad that you added to the thread that way. From an Oz perspective, they (the authorities/cops/whatever) are desperate to nail gun owners. Former captain of our rifle club was due to represent the country in England some time ago, and at a major shoot in Sydney "allowed" his guns to be stolen...they were chained to the structure of his caravan, the bolts and ammunition in separate locked containers in his SUV when he and his wife went to dinner...the thieves had two perfectly useless tomato stakes, as being custom target rifles, bolts don't grow on trees. He was charged with 11 specific firearms offences, had to get an injunction to allow the local gunsmith to collect his other firearms rather than have the Police ransack the place (after my Dad's suicide...they DO ransack the place). 8 months of "training" on the loungeroom floor with a broomstick, he got to court, and it was thrown out in it's entirety with prejudice...costs were awarded against the cops which is unheard of. Yes, judge decided that they overstepped badly, but that's the culture that they approach these issues with.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
6,638
Location
South Florida
Originally Posted By: expat
I had this explained to me once: Say the cops show up, one guy is bleeding and holding a gun, one guy is shot. The guy with the gun says he was defending himself. Are the cops to say "OK, that' alright then"? No, something serious has happened and the parties concerned are taken in and it is determined what charges the parties might face. They then face those charges in a court of law. OK it's kind of rough if you were only trying to protect yourself. But harming or killing someone is a serious business. If I were to shoot your son, would you not want a full explanation (possibly in front of a Judge and jury) as to why and how it happened. ? Charges are just charges, it does not mean guilt. It's just reason for detention or older to attend court.
So lets made a victim out of someone who has already been victimized. In some locations in USA, people get charged and it is their duty to prove their innocence. In some others, the police have to prove they are guilty of a crime before any charges can be filed. I tend to think that the police should have overwhelming evidence in these types of cases that a crime has been committed before they are allowed to file charges.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
2,995
Location
Cedarbrae, Ontario
Things definitely need to change up here. It is pathetic how you can't defend yourself in a life threatening situation without worrying about going to jail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top