If you ever go to Canada and someone tries to steal from you don&#x27;t fight back

OP

You can use reasonable force in the uk and you would be unlikely to be charged for this here I believe.

Reply 2

Matzo Balls

therebel isn't a very accurate news sauce come on

Reply 3

Sabertooth

20

Original post by joecphillips

You can use reasonable force in the uk and you would be unlikely to be charged for this here I believe.

Beating someone with a baseball bat? Pretty sure you'd be charged for that in the UK. There was that guy not too long ago who defended himself with a cricket bat.

"to make it absolutely clear that, whatever the circumstances, persons cannot take the law into their own hands"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/14/jail-brothers-burglar-cricket-bat

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 4

OP

Original post by Sabertooth

Beating someone with a baseball bat? Pretty sure you'd be charged for that in the UK. There was that guy not too long ago who defended himself with a cricket bat.

"to make it absolutely clear that, whatever the circumstances, persons cannot take the law into their own hands"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/14/jail-brothers-burglar-cricket-bat

You can use a baseball bat in self defence against people, he went out with a baseball bat to stop a crime in progress whereas the people from that case went out and hunted down the people who had committed then fled from the scene of the crime.

Reply 5

Original post by joecphillips

You will face the possibility of a longer jail sentence than the theif.

http://www.therebel.media/edmonton_man_stops_violent_carjacking_guess_who_s_getting_charged

Such weasel words from you.

He has been charged because he beat the men up with a baseball bat.

There will be a trial and the court cna look at the evidence to see whether it was proportionate, they could acquit him. You dont have a right to use undue violence against someone just becayse they have commited a crime. Its quite right your rsponse should be proportionate.

You would face the same sort of issues if you were in the UK, so maybe think about emigrating and follow your own advice.

Reply 6

OP

Original post by 999tigger

Such weasel words from you.

He has been charged because he beat the men up with a baseball bat.

There will be a trial and the court cna look at the evidence to see whether it was proportionate, they could acquit him. You dont have a right to use undue violence against someone just becayse they have commited a crime. Its quite right your rsponse should be proportionate.

You would face the same sort of issues if you were in the UK, so maybe think about emigrating and follow your own advice.

It isn't beating someone up because they have committed a crime, it is protecting your mother in this case when a crime is in progress but I guess protecting criminals attacking your mother rather than your mother is more important to you.

You can also use a baseball bat to defend yourself, that is why my criminal law lecturer recommends it.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 7

user73867

Original post by Sabertooth

x

Under UK law, everyone has an inherent right to self-defense. If you genuinely believe that your life is in danger or that someone else's life is in danger, you can use any force upto and including lethal force to defend life.

What you can't do is use that force to protect property, there has to be a life involved. In the US, you may use lethal force to defend your property. In this case, there clearly was life to defend and not just property.

With the victim being an elderly woman and the attackers outnumbering him, I think the use of a baseball bat would certainly be considered proportionate under UK law. Just because they're unarmed doesn't mean they're not a threat (particularly to an elderly woman) and it doesn't mean you have to go out and duel them without weaponry yourself.

That's UK law, though. Canadian law is obviously different. :smile:

SS

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 8

Original post by joecphillips

It isn't beating someone up because they have committed a crime, it is protecting your mother in this case when a crime is in progress but I guess protecting criminals attacking your mother rather than your mother is more important to you.

the problem is with your thread is:

1. Its from an unreliable source.
2. Neither you nor the author explain or can show what the exact charges in Canadian law have been or what the law says. If you know when feel free to link it.
Knowing what the law is helps people to understand the issue and whether or not it is as you say it is.
3. Being charged is different from being convicted.
4. In the UK there might alos be a trial so its no different from canada in that respect.

Link the law and then we can make out own mind ups rather than have to look at your twisted slant on things.

Reply 9

OP

Original post by 999tigger

the problem is with your thread is:

1. Its from an unreliable source.
2. Neither you nor the author explain or can show what the exact charges in Canadian law have been or what the law says. If you know when feel free to link it.
Knowing what the law is helps people to understand the issue and whether or not it is as you say it is.
3. Being charged is different from being convicted.
4. In the UK there might alos be a trial so its no different from canada in that respect.

Link the law and then we can make out own mind ups rather than have to look at your twisted slant on things.

1. It is a fact there are many other sources you could go to if you prefer
2. It mentions the charges in the video aggravated assault.

3. I know that is why I said facing as that is a commonly used term when someone is charged.

Reply 10

Original post by joecphillips

1. It is a fact there are many other sources you could go to if you prefer
2. It mentions the charges in the video aggravated assault.

3. I know that is why I said facing as that is a commonly used term when someone is charged.

Your the one making the claim.
Back it up from a credible source and link us to the actual police or porsecution charges as well as an explanation of Canadian assault laws, so we can understand what he has been charged, the legal perspective and the full circumstances of the situation.

Your title makes no sense and looks foolish unless you can back it up.

Reply 11

username2810140

7

I'm sick of this extreme liberal PC nonsense. There was a case in Ireland I think 20 or 30 years ago, travellers were harassing a man on his property. The man then shot the traveller, beat him with a stick and then shot him again dead. That was legal as self defense.
Recently I've heard of robbers falling inside a person's home and suing for damages....

Reply 12

OP

Original post by 999tigger

Your the one making the claim.
Back it up from a credible source and link us to the actual police or porsecution charges as well as an explanation of Canadian assault laws, so we can understand what he has been charged, the legal perspective and the full circumstances of the situation.

Your title makes no sense and looks foolish unless you can back it up.

Yes and I provided a link to back up my stance, you don't like the source fine but I have provided one.

I can back it up he has been charged with 2 counts of aggravated assault which carries 18 months to 6 years on average and the car jackers are looking at 2 to 3 years

Reply 13

Original post by joecphillips

Yes and I provided a link to back up my stance, you don't like the source fine but I have provided one.

I can back it up he has been charged with 2 counts of aggravated assault which carries 18 months to 6 years on average and the car jackers are looking at 2 to 3 years

Nope youve provided a link to a poor source.

Sparse on detail and then youve just decided to twist it into a ridiculous thread.
being charged is completely different from being convicted.

Credible source that has proper legal anaylaysis of the situation. one of the broadsheets or a newspaper with some journalistic credibility or an officiual statement from the prosecutors would suffice.

Reply 14

OP

Original post by 999tigger

Nope youve provided a link to a poor source.

Sparse on detail and then youve just decided to twist it into a ridiculous thread.
being charged is completely different from being convicted.

Credible source that has proper legal anaylaysis of the situation. one of the broadsheets or a newspaper with some journalistic credibility or an officiual statement from the prosecutors would suffice.

Where exactly did I say he had been convicted?

Would you rank cnn ahead of the rebel? Consider the fact that cnn has been shown to disregard video taped evidence to push their agenda, every news source is biased but you want me to go to one that is biased in your favour don't you.

Reply 15

Original post by joecphillips

Where exactly did I say he had been convicted?

Would you rank cnn ahead of the rebel? Consider the fact that cnn has been shown to disregard video taped evidence to push their agenda, every news source is biased but you want me to go to one that is biased in your favour don't you.

Just provide a source that gives more detail and is credivle. Statement by the police or the prosecutors would do. I wnat more actual detail so I can see the context of what hes been charged with and why the prosecutors decided to charge plus what they have to prove.

I never said he had been convicted I jst opiunred out yoyr tendency to make misleading or stupid claims based on very little. Its woeful.

Reply 16

redbronze1

11

Original post by mcneill98

Recently I've heard of robbers falling inside a person's home and suing for damages....

Reply 17

OP

Original post by 999tigger

Just provide a source that gives more detail and is credivle. Statement by the police or the prosecutors would do. I wnat more actual detail so I can see the context of what hes been charged with and why the prosecutors decided to charge plus what they have to prove.

I never said he had been convicted I jst opiunred out yoyr tendency to make misleading or stupid claims based on very little. Its woeful.

So basically this is because you don't like what I post, you are saying charged and convicted are 2 different things I never said that they were not, I hadn't even suggested he had been convicted I said he is facing the possibility of a longer jail sentence than the people who tried to car jack his mother.

on this as it is clear that you don't actually care about the issue you just care that it is me who has posted this.

The title wasn't misleading and it isn't stupid he has been charged and he could get a longer sentence than the 2 car jackers,

Reply 18