Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: anil dahar
Post Volume: Total: 919,516 Year: 6,773/9,624 Month: 113/238 Week: 30/83 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Castle Doctrine

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Castle Doctrine
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 453 (573026)
08-09-2010 2:29 PM


I have a question regarding the Castle Doctrine for citizens in countries where it is illegal to possess a firearm in your home.
For instance, the link I provided states that the Castle Doctrine stems from English Common Law. Since it is illegal for most ordinary citizens in Europe to own firearms, with limited exceptions, are you allowed to kill an intruder who is on your property and in your home? Does justifiable homicide exist, and if so, or if not, are there extenuating circumstances?
Given the prevailing law in your country, do you find the laws are reasonable or unreasonable? State why you find them (un)reasonable.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Edit to add

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by ringo, posted 08-09-2010 3:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 3 by Huntard, posted 08-09-2010 3:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-09-2010 9:47 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 19 by caffeine, posted 08-10-2010 6:38 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 22 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-10-2010 9:39 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 672 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2 of 453 (573051)
08-09-2010 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
08-09-2010 2:29 PM


It isn't illegal in Canada but it's pretty uncommon. I think I've only seen one privately-owned handgun in my life (and it was on a boat).
Living next to the U.S., we have a pretty clear understanding that the enemy is likely to be better armed than we are as well as more inclined to use his weapons. It isn't a fair fight and shooting back is likely to get more people hurt (including children) instead of "protecting" anybody.
Long story short, you don't necessarily need legislation against a bad idea.

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-09-2010 2:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2010 8:41 PM ringo has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2555 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 3 of 453 (573053)
08-09-2010 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
08-09-2010 2:29 PM


Hyroglyphx writes:
For instance, the link I provided states that the Castle Doctrine stems from English Common Law. Since it is illegal for most ordinary citizens in Europe to own firearms, with limited exceptions, are you allowed to kill an intruder who is on your property and in your home? Does justifiable homicide exist, and if so, or if not, are there extenuating circumstances?
It all depends on the circumstances, yes you are allowed to defend yourself, but not "excessively" whatever that might be. Well, I can think of an example. Say, a burglar has broken into your home, and he has a knfe, he is threatening you with it, you get hold of a baseball bat and knock him out. So far, it's fine. What you are not allowed to do, is to then beat him to a pulp. He was incapacitated, that's your job doen.
However, in my country, I wouldn't be surprised of you got sued by the bastard even if you only knocked him out.
Given the prevailing law in your country, do you find the laws are reasonable or unreasonable? State why you find them (un)reasonable.
Unreasonable to an extent. I do not think you have the right to kill someone just because he was illegally in your home, I do however think that say, in the example I gave above, you should be free from persecution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-09-2010 2:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1727 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 453 (573109)
08-09-2010 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by ringo
08-09-2010 3:29 PM


Living next to the U.S., we have a pretty clear understanding that the enemy is likely to be better armed than we are as well as more inclined to use his weapons.
So then why do your police have weapons? Also, I think "more inclined" isn't true. The homeowner is fighting for their life and the lives of their loved ones. The invader is looking for portable things of value he can easily take (like, well, handguns.)
It isn't a fair fight and shooting back is likely to get more people hurt (including children) instead of "protecting" anybody.
In your own home, where you know the terrain intimately and he's never been there before? Where he's potentially outnumbered? Where he's subject to the full legal ramifications of home invasion with a weapon, and you're largely immune to prosecution under self-defense and castle doctrine?
Yeah, it's not a fair fight at all, it's heavily weighted in favor of the homeowner. Handguns do work for home defense in the hands of those trained to use them - that's why police, security forces, and soldiers all use them - and the training is not tremendously difficult (probably the easiest part of those professions I just named.)
There are pluses and minuses to gun ownership. But the stats seem pretty clear; they're a very effective tool for the prevention of crime, though the owning of a handgun dramatically increases the risk that residents of the home will be accidentally shot by it or use it to kill themselves. I don't advocate for or against guns for these reasons - it's just not clear-cut, and people have to use their own sense about whether or not they're capable of the care and training that make gun use effective in a self-defense context.
But people whose job it is to defend things, even in Canada, use guns to do so. That strikes me as pretty compelling evidence that they're effective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by ringo, posted 08-09-2010 3:29 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ringo, posted 08-09-2010 9:58 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 5 of 453 (573115)
08-09-2010 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
08-09-2010 2:29 PM


From a moral viewpoint, I think I have the right to use force to protect myself from attack (if threatened) protect my home from invasion (if I catch someone in the act of breaking in) or to apprehend the criminal (he's committing a felony, I can arrest him, if I'm feeling brave that day).
But only necessary force. Otherwise I'd basically be killing someone for fun.
Like these guys:
A reclusive East Texas couple, Gale and Sheila Muhs, both 45-years-old, stand accused of opening fire on an off-roading family group they mistakenly thought were trespassing, wounding four, including a 5-year-old girl and a 7-year-old boy. The victims briefly stopped their two vehicles on a public dirt road, by a levee near the Muhs’ house, so one of the children could go to the bathroom.
The Muhs, known by neighbors for their unsociable behavior, came out of their house armed with a 12-gauge shotgun, shouting at the family group to get out of their vehicles and immediately opened fire.
Sheila Muhs took the first shot at the victims, then handed the shotgun to her husband Gale, who shot next, continuing to take turns shooing at the unarmed victims.
The victims were at the end of a daylong excursion on off-road vehicles through wooded paths along the Trinity River in the town of Westlake. Donald Coffee Sr., 36, his wife and two children, Donald Jr., 7 and Destiny, 5 were all together in one SUV. A family friend, Patrick Cammack, 30, drove a second vehicle. An unidentified 11-year-old boy was also with the group of victims.
The Muhs shot 7-year old Donald, Jr. in his head, 5-year-old Destiny in her elbow and Donald, Sr. in the shoulder. Donald’s wife was unharmed. The family friend, Patrick Cammack was not so lucky. He was shot in his neck.
One report has Cammack fleeing in his vehicle in close pursuit by Sheila Muhs in her own four-wheeler. He abandoned his vehicle and started running for his life when Sheila Muhs shined her lights on his vehicle.
At some point, the Muhs stopped their shooting and Sheila called the police and said, They’re out here tearing up the levee, so I shot them.
They shot a seven-year old boy in the head ... because they thought the law was on their side. But that's not a reason unless you're a psychopath.
The Castle Doctrine seems designed to appeal to people who would like one day to shoot someone, get away with it, and feel smug about it. I am not one of those people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-09-2010 2:29 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 08-09-2010 9:57 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 9:33 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 6 of 453 (573116)
08-09-2010 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Adequate
08-09-2010 9:47 PM


DrA writes:
The Castle Doctrine seems designed to appeal to people who would like one day to shoot someone, get away with it, and feel smug about it.
Personally I hope I never have to shoot someone, but I would to protect myself or others. If I did ever have to shoot someone it would only be as a last resort to stop a threat.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-09-2010 9:47 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 672 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 7 of 453 (573117)
08-09-2010 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
08-09-2010 8:41 PM


crashfrog writes:
So then why do your police have weapons?
The police are only allowed to use their weapons in the case of a direct threat to their own lives or somebody else's. Even the use of pepper spray by police is extremely controverisal.
Home defense is not considered a legitimate reason for acquiring a weapon. Business owners can be prosecuted for firing at robbers.
crashfrog writes:
But the stats seem pretty clear; they're a very effective tool for the prevention of crime....
Since we really don't use guns to prevent crime, I don't see how your stats are applicable to Canada.

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2010 8:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2010 10:34 PM ringo has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1727 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 453 (573120)
08-09-2010 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ringo
08-09-2010 9:58 PM


The police are only allowed to use their weapons in the case of a direct threat to their own lives or somebody else's.
Right. So, why do they have them if a handgun isn't an effective way to protect yourself from an attack by an assailant?
Do your police draw their weapons when apprehending suspects?
Business owners can be prosecuted for firing at robbers.
That can happen here, too, though we give wider latitude to self-defense. The principle is that one is put at risk simply by someone else's act of committing a crime involving a weapon.
Since we really don't use guns to prevent crime, I don't see how your stats are applicable to Canada.
You just said that they do. Isn't assaulting an officer of the law a crime in Canada? Isn't it a crime to assault a regular citizen?
I'm not saying handguns reduce all crimes - it's hard to see how embezzlement or littering could be averted by a .45 Desert Eagle - but they clearly have utility as an item for personal defense. That's not one of our goofy American myths (like "health care waiting times"), that's sound science, and the reason that firearms are employed by those who have a need for protecting themselves and others.
I'm not familiar with your gun laws in Canada, though. Under what circumstances can a private citizen own a modern firearm? (I'm assuming there's at least some latitude for antiques and nonfunctional replicas.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ringo, posted 08-09-2010 9:58 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by DrJones*, posted 08-09-2010 10:49 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 08-09-2010 11:18 PM crashfrog has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2341
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 9 of 453 (573121)
08-09-2010 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
08-09-2010 10:34 PM


I'm not familiar with your gun laws in Canada, though. Under what circumstances can a private citizen own a modern firearm?
Define "modern firearm". There are three classes of firearms in Canada: regular, restriced and prohibited. All pistols are at the least restricted and some semi-auto rifles are as well. Pistols of a barrel length of 4" or less are prohibited, as well as pistols of some smaller calibers (.32/.25/.35 i think). There are various erifles/shotguns that are prohibited (lik the AK-47 and all its variants). There are various requirements to get a licsence for a restricted weapon, and the government has stopped issuing licenses for prohibited weapons though there are some grandfathered in.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2010 10:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2010 11:38 PM DrJones* has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 672 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 10 of 453 (573124)
08-09-2010 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
08-09-2010 10:34 PM


crashfrog writes:
Do your police draw their weapons when apprehending suspects?
Generally, no. As far as I know, the general principle in effect is don't point a weapon at anything you don't intend to kill. It would take a fairly escalated situation for weapons to be drawn.
crashfrog writes:
ringo writes:
Since we really don't use guns to prevent crime, I don't see how your stats are applicable to Canada.
You just said that they do. Isn't assaulting an officer of the law a crime in Canada? Isn't it a crime to assault a regular citizen?
Neither of those are actually prevented by the use of weapons. Weapons might be used after the fact.
I doubt that the use of weapons in prevention of crime is common enough to draw statistical conclusions - and I doubt that foreign statistics would be relevant.

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2010 10:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2010 12:02 AM ringo has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1727 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 453 (573125)
08-09-2010 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by DrJones*
08-09-2010 10:49 PM


Define "modern firearm".
Something whose interest is primarily function (i.e. shooting), as opposed to historic, aesthetic, or personal value.
There are three classes of firearms in Canada: regular, restriced and prohibited. All pistols are at the least restricted and some semi-auto rifles are as well. Pistols of a barrel length of 4" or less are prohibited, as well as pistols of some smaller calibers (.32/.25/.35 i think). There are various erifles/shotguns that are prohibited (lik the AK-47 and all its variants). There are various requirements to get a licsence for a restricted weapon, and the government has stopped issuing licenses for prohibited weapons though there are some grandfathered in.
Very informative. What if any are the license requirements for a "regular" firearm, and what weapons would fall under that classification?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by DrJones*, posted 08-09-2010 10:49 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by DrJones*, posted 08-09-2010 11:55 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 14 by Dogmafood, posted 08-10-2010 12:05 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2341
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 12 of 453 (573127)
08-09-2010 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
08-09-2010 11:38 PM


Very informative. What if any are the license requirements for a "regular" firearm, and what weapons would fall under that classification?
Have to apply for a possession and acquisition license, and complete an approved firearms safety course. Some restricted weapons are listed by name (the M-16 and all its variants are restricted) and there also combinations of barrel length/overall length that would make a weapon restricted. Like all laws there are some oddities: this shotgun is non-restricted because it comes from the factory at this length but if I took a regular shotgun and chopped the barrel and altered the stock to match the length I'd be guilty of creating a restricted firearm (at least to the best of knowledge).
The RCMP fact sheet on restricted firearms
A list of restricted and prohibited firearms
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2010 11:38 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1727 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 453 (573128)
08-10-2010 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by ringo
08-09-2010 11:18 PM


As far as I know, the general principle in effect is don't point a weapon at anything you don't intend to kill.
That's certainly not how our police operate. I think I like it your way better.
Like I said I'm not a major proponent of guns, I don't own any, and the knowledge I have about them comes solely from some target shooting in the Boy Scouts and various video games (with the result that I'm aware of the properties of a surprising amount of fictional guns.) I think the Second Amendment in our country has had the unfortunate effect of making much reasonable gun regulation impossible, and I believe that guns should be very well-regulated indeed.
Neither of those are actually prevented by the use of weapons.
I don't think you have the basis to conclude that. If guns couldn't prevent the murder of a policeman, why would policemen carry them? If a firearm wasn't to some extent a deterrent to being victimized, why would police carry theirs prominently on their belts, and draw and aim them to force compliance and deter attackers?
I doubt that the use of weapons in prevention of crime is common enough to draw statistical conclusions
In one fairly old study, it was estimated that as many as 1.5 million incidents occur in a year where a gun owner uses a firearm to defend himself from crime in the US. In less than 8% of these cases was the weapon actually used to hurt someone.
Gary Kleck , Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminality.
That's what I could find with a quick Google, I guess. If you want to speak specifically to home invasion, I can try to narrow it down, but of course home invasion isn't the only crime you can use a gun to defend against. If you're convinced that US stats can't apply to Canada, I'd like you to elaborate on that notion. One website estimates almost 300,000 home invasions occur in Canada every year.
Also Canada's legal code seems to be somewhat different than has been portrayed here:
quote:
Canadian law states that in your home, you are able to defend yourself, and your household with the necessary force to prevent the attack from continuing:
Canadian Criminal code sections:
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.
Extent of justification
(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.
Defence of house or real property
41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.canadacarry.org/subdream/index.php?categoryid=12&p2_articleid=151
From what is apparently Canada's gun rights lobby, for whatever that's worth. Are they wrong? Relevant to the topic, it seems worth noting that Canada must have inherited the Castle Doctrine from the same place the US did - English common law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 08-09-2010 11:18 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ringo, posted 08-10-2010 12:49 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2010 1:38 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 14 of 453 (573129)
08-10-2010 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
08-09-2010 11:38 PM


Very informative. What if any are the license requirements for a "regular" firearm, and what weapons would fall under that classification?
Any type of long arm that is not automatic and will not hold more than 3 shells if they are center fire. You also have to pass a proficiency test and background checks. It takes months.
It looks like there are somewhere between 7.2 and 11 million guns in Canada. (Just a moment...) As Dr Jones points out, they are pretty much all long guns. We spent something like $2 Billion just trying to count them all and finally gave up. With governments this astute at protecting its citizens who needs a gun.
The law allows me sufficient latitude to protect my home. I also feel that it reduces the likely hood that any intruder would be armed with anything more than a knife.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2010 11:38 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by DrJones*, posted 08-10-2010 12:09 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2341
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 15 of 453 (573130)
08-10-2010 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dogmafood
08-10-2010 12:05 AM


Any type of long arm that is not automatic and will not hold more than 3 shells if they are center fire
Its too late in the day for me to wade through the interwebs but I'm pretty sure the magazine limit is 5 rounds not 3. I've heard, though I'm not certain of it that there are exceptions for Lee-Enfields and Garands.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dogmafood, posted 08-10-2010 12:05 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Dogmafood, posted 08-10-2010 12:14 AM DrJones* has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024