To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).

What the fuck is wrong with this country

edited October 2009 in General
This guy should get a god damn medal not be investigated for using his knife to DEFEND himself. Fucking stupid country.


http://www.630ched.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?id=1145608


Violent personal robbery
5:15AM
Click here to email Ed Mason
9/30/2009

A robbery victim who was being brutalized by a pair of thugs in central Edmonton pulled a knife and turned the tables on the crooks.

The man in his early fifties was ignoring up to four men who demanded money until one of the cowards attacked from behind and slammed his head hard onto the sidewalk near 92nd Street and 105th Avenue. Two men punched and kicked the victim in the head and upper body.

They took cash from his pocket and when he tried to run away they chased him and resumed the vicious attack. That's when the man pulled a small knife and slashed one of the thugs across the lower neck and upper chest, causing wounds that needed stitches.

Charges of robbery and assault causing bodily harm have been laid against two men and the victim, recovering from a dislocated shoulder, a concussion and other injuries is under investigation for using his knife. (ED, ccg)

Comments

  • edited October 2009
    Whats the laws concerning knives in Canada? Sometimes you're not allowed to carry switchblades and only assisted-open ones.
    Are you allowed to carry a concealed one?
  • edited October 2009
    Dude... it's Edmonton. It's the Newark of Canada.
  • edited October 2009
    lazyGUY;61143 said:
    Whats the laws concerning knives in Canada? Sometimes you're not allowed to carry switchblades and only assisted-open ones.
    Are you allowed to carry a concealed one?
    There is no blade length requirement in canada, you can carry whatever sized blade you want. You are not allowed to carry switchblades, centrifugal opening knives, or butterfly knives. Assisted openers are fine as they rely on torsion bars and not a spring.


    No you are not allowed to carry a concealed knife.



    I dont think that 50 year old guy was carrying a fancy italian switch blade, he was probably carrying something like a buck 110 folder or a swiss army knife.
  • edited October 2009
    SpectreFire;61144 said:
    Dude... it's Edmonton. It's the Newark of Canada.
    no kidding eh.
  • edited October 2009
    from my understanding,

    you're only allowed to " respond " with less or equal force/brutality.

    as in some dude comes swinging with fists, you cannot bring a chainsaw/knife/gun.
  • edited October 2009
    Dammit, what do I use my chainsaw for now?
  • edited October 2009
    lazyGUY;61160 said:
    Dammit, what do I use my chainsaw for now?
    cutting down trees.
  • edited October 2009
    illicit;61156 said:
    from my understanding,

    you're only allowed to " respond " with less or equal force/brutality.

    as in some dude comes swinging with fists, you cannot bring a chainsaw/knife/gun.
    i think its fair for the 50 year old guy to use a pocket knife against two people. however, the law may not see this the same way, fucking dumb law.
  • edited October 2009
    hikin;61163 said:
    i think its fair for the 50 year old guy to use a pocket knife against two people. however, the law may not see this the same way, fucking dumb law.
    There is some inconsistency in the story, if what you quoted was true then no charges would be laid (or they will be dropped), as his life would be in danger, you don't actually have to use less or equal force, which is a common misconception. I think it applies to something else, but not when your life can be seen to be in danger, which would be the case if they continued the assault after the robbery.
  • edited October 2009
    iirc its just "within reason" when it comes to self defence
    ie. if some guy breaks in your house with a crowbar, pulling out a tommy gun and going to town on him is probably not within reason

    objective test..? forgot, I'm too old for this stuff
  • edited October 2009
    omg!! randomuser is back...
    yyyyyayyyyy....=)
  • edited October 2009
    siuying;61191 said:
    omg!! randomuser is back...
    yyyyyayyyyy....=)
    agreed :D
  • edited October 2009
    DaNoobie;61189 said:
    iirc its just "within reason" when it comes to self defence
    ie. if some guy breaks in your house with a crowbar, pulling out a tommy gun and going to town on him is probably not within reason

    objective test..? forgot, I'm too old for this stuff
    tommy guns are hard to come by these days :(
  • edited October 2009
    I've always been curious about this law. It seems to a gray area, and at what point do you get the right to defend yourself? "Equal" force and "within reason" seems to be completely arbitrary

    So, if a guy breaks into my apartment, rape my girlfriend, rape my dog, eat my goldfish and use my toilet but does not physical harm me in any way, do I have the right to shoot him in the face with a 16-gauge?

    After all, mental pain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physical pain.
  • edited October 2009
    sure.. make sure you blow his face to pieces and make it has horrific as possible.. then you could go plea temporary insanity or crime of passion.. =P

    there are a lot of gray areas in the law.. that's where hiring a good lawyer come into play and methods on how the facts are presented is crucial..
  • edited October 2009
    Actually, self defense would work in the old man's favor.

    The Code for Canada states that as long as the victim felt himself in mortal danger (which this man could easily prove) then he is able to respond with as much force as possible.

    And even though charges were filed against the victim, it's just a formality. A lot of charges are filed unreasonably--defense lawyers need work, too. Old man will get out of it without a scratch.

    Lot's of questions about what's unreasonable and reasonable in self defense... so I'll quote the Code instead.


    Defence of Person:

    34. (1) Self defence against unprovoked assault -- 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) Extent of justification -- Every on who is unlawfully assaulted and who cases death or 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 bodily harm.
    The bolded part. From what I can see if the news story, the old man tried to get away and was pursued. With that and the fact that the old man was already under grievous bodily harm (being beaten up by four guys), the victim was WELL WITHIN his rights to respond with force equal to death or grievous bodily harm.

Leave a Comment