...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Actually it might be more like:
A) Do intelligence gathering about your target.
B) Find weaknesses in target setting and context.
C) Determine strenght of posible opposition.
C) Determine plan of attack.
D) Determine effective tools and weapons or target neutralization.
E) Determine exit options for post action extraction.
F)) Take a tactical position near your target.
G) Exicute plan.
H) Pick up pieces of you life should you have any.
Notice that a deep moral or ethical evaluation need not be of concern....;p(.
I love laws like this. In the microseconds one may have to react, one is supposed to review the law and apply it and then "man up," whereas those who second-guess afterward (prosecutor, judge, jury) get pretty much as long as they like to decide if one applied the law correctly.
This is why the U.S. doctrine makes a lot more sense.
You are interpreting the law as it pleases you, not as it stands.
Oh? Where did I go wrong?
Under those conditions, you do not need to know that a trespasser is going to kill or maim you; you simply require reasonable belief that they will and also reasonable belief (not absolute knowledge or anything) that violent defence is your only reliable option.
This is not, to a judge or a jury, a 'microseconds' scenario unless your trespasser moves at hypersonic speeds.
CBC News: You hear a noise and go downstairs in the middle of the night and find a burglar, and you can't tell if he's armed. Legally, what are your options?
“Your dwelling house seems to be the property you’re allowed to protect the most," Nichols says.
Under Section 40 of the Criminal Code, which deals with the defence of dwellings, Nichols says, “everyone who is in possession of a dwelling house is justified in using as much force as necessary, to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or entering the dwelling house without lawful authority.”
Cohen echoes Nichols' sentiments, adding that when it comes to defending themselves, Canadians have the most rights inside their own homes.
“This area is less grey than others. The rule of reasonable force still applies, but most judges will give you the benefit of the doubt,” Cohen says. “… You can use any force you deem necessary to remove the burglar from the house and eliminate the threat to yourself.”
“You could use a significant amount of force. If you knocked them out and rendered them unconscious, you will probably not be charged with assault,” Cohen adds. “But if he was retreating and you hit him in the head with a bat and he was [critically injured], you might have a problem.”
Nichols says the words “as much force as is necessary” are one of the things taken into account by judges.
“It might depend on where the person was, and what they were doing. A judge would look at what degree of force was used and where you struck the person,” Cohen says.
“There's a ton of case law out there where people have been charged in these types of situations,” Nichols adds, referring to situations where an intruder has entered and a dwelling occupant has used lethal force.
“Generally they're treated very, very leniently, or the charges are dropped altogether,” she says.
Cohen says the judge's decision revolves around the specifics of the individual situation.
“Every scenario in criminal law tends to be very unique, so that's a judge's job is to sift through the facts and make a determination based on them, and all kinds of factors play into it,” Cohen says.
And when I say 'man up' I mean don't spend time feeling persecuted because the law states that you can't shoot someone for taking your stuff, especially if you are shooting them in the back as they are running away.
Bad stuff happens. sometimes you just have to do what you think is right without worrying if society agrees or if you've been dealt a bad hand.
That doesn't surprise me at all. I'm only for leniency when it comes to someone shooting a stranger who has broken into their home and is not in the act of leaving. Shooting someone in the back who is running down the street after having left your premises is gratuitous even if they have your HDTV in their arms.
So, in practice, Canadian law is actually about the same as the way U.S. law is written.
Depends on the state, I think. There is no castle law, or don't back down la anywhere in Canada of which I am aware.
NRA wet dreams, you mean?
No. I think the toll might have even been larger if a shoot out between guards and a gunman had taken place. The purpose of a guard is not to shoot back at gunman but to prevent would be gunman from taking action in the first place. Any guards main responsibility is to be present. A mad man dead set on shooting people and not deterred by a security presence would still be able to achieve a high death toll regardless of an armed guard or even stricter gun control laws.
I don't believe crimes like these really have a solution. Laws and security are made to prevent crime by those who are mostly honest and might only commit a crime if presented with an opportunity to completely get away with something. A hardened criminal has no respect for the law and the security of others.
I would suggest that staff have access to a silent alarm system similar to that of a bank. Police could be aware sooner of a serious crime and respond swiftly with a properly trained force. I wouldn't call it a solution but an idea more probable of reducing the damage done by a mad gunman.
I am also in favor of stricter background checks for gun consumers and an improved mental health system in this country.
First, "the toll might have been larger if a shoot out between guards and a gunman had taken place" is the fallacy of the unavailable statistic.
Second, who's talking about a movie western-style shootout? I'm thinking of the intervening party taking decisive action, not hiding behind a desk and trading shots.
Third, someone intervening is going to become a distraction and even if he doesn't immediately take the shooter down, he's buying time for people to escape the building.
Third, I'm betting that people who can afford it, meaning people who send their kids to private schools, make sure that there's some plan in case an active shooter shows up.
Finally, you say "i don't believe crimes like these really have a solution," and I agree, but to be unprepared to the point of "Let him shoot the kids without interference till the cops get there" is just insane.