Self Defence, or Murder?

[Plume]

What I was trying to say is that the police will try to help you if you let your attackers do whatever they want, but if you raise the finger on your attacker, in general the police "won't be able to help you".

However, I'm not sure if it's part of any law or if it's just what most of the police officers use as an excuse.

...My anecdote didn't have any purpose, the rather low crime rate in Canada makes me glad to be here.
I simply hear many stories about the police not protecting you if you defend yourself. Basically having balls is a bad thing, be a good sheep and we'll protect you the "best" we can.

(I'm not really talking about extreme cases such as the guy from the original post's story.)

 

[The-Instigator]

Murder by far. What idiot would shoot a guy multiple times AFTER the threat was extinguished? If the guy wasn't moving and he was being watched by the same pharmacist to make sure he wouldn't pose any more threats, WHY WOULD YOU CONTINUE TO SHOOT HIM?! Fucking retard! I would love to hear the police report on this guy:

C.S.I Analyst: So in your own words, what happened?
Pharmacist: Well, these two teens entered the store, one flashed a gun and demanded the money from the register. I took out my own gun and shot one of the teens.... the other fled... yadda yadda blah blah.
C.S.I Analyst: So what did you do next?
Pharmacist: Well, I went up to the injured suspect, check for any weapons, went back for a quick chat with my other employees, came back to the suspect, and unloaded the rest of my clip into the crotch of the suspect.
C.S.I Analyst: o_O This was self defence, right?
Pharmacist: Absolutely!

XD

I hope this guy brought some roofies with him... he's gonna need to take them if he doesn't want to remember all the butt sex he'll be receiving in prison X/.

 

[page]

What I was trying to say is that the police will try to help you if you let your attackers do whatever they want, but if you raise the finger on your attacker, in general the police "won't be able to help you".

However, I'm not sure if it's part of any law or if it's just what most of the police officers use as an excuse.

...My anecdote didn't have any purpose, the rather low crime rate in Canada makes me glad to be here.
I simply hear many stories about the police not protecting you if you defend yourself. Basically having balls is a bad thing, be a good sheep and we'll protect you the "best" we can.

(I'm not really talking about extreme cases such as the guy from the original post's story.)

I don't get it. What kind of scenario are you talking about where you're defending yourself and the police show up and just stand back. A fistfight in a parking lot? Or are you suggesting that if you have a break in and call the cops the emergency operator will tell you that if you try and do anything they won't send any help. I've never heard of such a case, and I'm sure that if it had happened it would have been front page news.

 

[Plume]

I can't remember of any particular example.

Let's say that a husband gets beaten (continually) by his wife.
Finally one day he decides that he had enough. He slams her into a wall, punches her a few times in the face and leaves.
She calls the police.

What happens?
I wouldn't be surprised if he had to go to court and would do some prison.
Maybe the wife would do prison, but he would too.

I think recently there was a story about a girl doing prison because she killed her father who abused or used to abuse her.


Same thing at school, if other kids beat you up, none of the teachers will do anything.
The day that you decide to defend yourself, you and the other kid are both punished.

 

[page]

Uh, neither of those really qualify.

If a husband is in the process of being beaten up when he fights back, sure. But if he just snaps one day during dinner, slaps his wife around some and, quits the house then that's clearly not self defence. He'll probably get a lesser sentence because of the circumstances, but if he's not actually in danger at the time then there's no reason for him to be attacking. Either way, if he could have left without beating her up first then that's what he should have done. The self defence laws are very clear about not covering revenge or vigilante attacks, e.g. if the husband leaves the house but then comes back and attacks his wife he's way over the line.

Kid's in school is pretty iffy. Teachers aren't really allowed to manhandle the kids, whether they're breaking up a fight or just trying to remove someone from the class. I don't see it specifically being the fight that they won't stop, and when I was in school I still saw plenty of fights get broken up, mind that was a slightly different era, but not that different.

You may recall the Kim Joseph Walker case from years back where a man (Walker), went to the house of his 16 year old daughter's boyfriend (she was living with him) and shot him 5 times, killing him. His reasoning was that the boyfriend, James Hayward (24), was a drug dealer who had gotten his daughter addicted to morphine and Walker, fearing for her life, decided to put a stop to things himself.

Walker was convicted of murder, although the jury could have gone for the lesser charge of manslaughter. They decided that Walker had gone to Hayward's house with the intent to kill, where Walker said that he hadn't meant to kill the man, only get his daughter out safely.

Obviously this isn't a self defence case, but it still makes the point that violence, however someone justifies it, is clearly against the law, and that the use of deadly force outside of a life-or-death situation will get you brought up on some sort of murder charge. Perhaps to Walker it was worth spending 10 years (the minimum sentence, and he doesn't pose any real threat to society so he'll probably get off) of his life in jail to save his daughter, but that shouldn't change the law.