Mr. Coffee wrote:Norade wrote:I listed at least some of it in posts above if you care to read. Unless you think I would lie about attacking somebody when they didn't know it was a fight, and hitting below the belt. I'd much rather break up a fight peacefully to be honest, and I haven't needed to fight since I was in high school. I have reviewed self defense laws though as a friend wanted to be a bouncer. With a decent lawyer you can drive a truck through those holes.
Yes, try to bring a weapon into a fight against an unarmed opponent and see how far your lawyer can help you. Because that's what you've been saying, you goalpost shifting fucktard.
You can, and you will get off with a decent lawyer and a not retarded judge.
Holding a hammer and hitting someone with a hammer are two totally different things. Had you actually been in a fight and produced, much less hit someone with it, we'd hopefully wouldn't be having this conversation as your posturing wannabe toughguy ass would be in pound-me-in-the-ass prison getting shagged by Mr. Bubba.
Also note that holding a hammer isn't the same as you previous claims that it is (or even should be) perfectly legal to bring weapons into a fight against unarmed opponents simply because they are bigger than you or they swung first, you dishonest shithead.
Sorry, we have, or had, prisons in BC where I would be golfing and hitting the gym right now. Not that I'd be in one, because I wouldn't have been charged. I had all the witnesses on my side and would have gotten away with dick all besides an investigation. The law works as well as you can game it Coffee, you have witnesses and a good lawyer you'll walk.
No, as a matter of fact it's not. If you bring a knife or a gun into a fight against an unarmed person you are now clearly in the wrong as you're offering deadly force in response to a non-deadly force threat.
Which is legal in Canada if you can justify it and made escape attempts first.
Has nothing at all to do with what I asked about relevant use of force laws in your area. Jesus, you've moved the goal post so far I'm not even sure what fucking sport you're trying to play at now.
Yes it does actually. It says if you come into my house, I can first try and tell you to fuck off, and then I can beat you until you run away. If I hang a sign, i can just straight up lay you out as that constitutes valid warning in my area.
Yeah, to bad you cited an appellate court case that had to do with setting aside a verdict base don poor evidence. The judges saying "By way of clarification, we should not be taken as endorsing the view that “defense of property alone will never justify the use of anything more than minor force being used against a trespasser” (para. 15) or that, in all cases, “the defense of property alone will not justify the intentional use of a weapon against a trespasser”, isnt them saying that it's perfectly fine to use deadly fucking force against an unarmed person, you fucking idiot. They're clarifying that their statements on that particular case are not to be construed as such.
Goddamn, you are dense.
it is saying you can use force and that the force can include weapons however. It flatly says you can indeed use a weapon, it doesn't outline when however.
So you're response is basically a whole bunch of bullshit about trespassing laws that has nothing to do with supporting your claims that use of deadly force is justified in self defensive situations against unarmed people based on them hitting first or being bigger than you are.
Trespassing is a lot less of an offense than assault. If you can use force there you can use it elsewhere with even greater ease. That much should be obvious even to your alcoholic ass.
No, you cannot. You grossly misapplied that "precedent" and no fucking law you've cited says that you have the right to use deadly force on an unarmed person for theft, much left for a fist fight, you dishonest fuck.
Now, I'll askyou once again to either so me a single fucking city, country, or state/province in either the US or Canada that allows you to use deadly force against an unarmed opponent based on them hitting first or being bigger than you. Fail to answer and I'll start invoking relevant DRs and politely ask Thanas or another mod to take appropriate measures. Keep being a dishonest shit head and I'll resume my offers to bribe Dalton to simply ban your lame posturing ass.
I did no such thing, in fact that precedent actually shows that you can use weapons in the defense of property.
However here is a more the actual law for self defense.
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.
(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.
35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if
(a) he uses the force
(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
( b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.
36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.
37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.
You will note that I never said that you could kill somebody, in fact I've stated that you would be in shit if you did do so. The line about the amount of force you deem needed was open ended enough to include that though. However I was meaning it to say that you can certainly use a weapon on people that you feel are a threat, you may do this even if they aren't armed.
It says I need to have intent to cause injury or grievous bodily harm. Having a weapon isn't intent to cause that level of harm, nor is using it. Not section 34, subsection 2, clause B for further evidence that they need not be armed for you to be justified in killing them.
See also Section 36. Which shows that something like a death threat can mean that you can kill a person in self defense if you think they are capable of making good on the threat.
Section 37, subsection 1 says you can actually harm them to prevent future harm. So if you feel that in the future things will escalate, you can make a good case for using a high degree of force. Of course you need to have witnesses and a good lawyer or you're going to have headaches no matter what you do.
Anyway, you can go fuck yourself Coffee. You've cited nothing, you've shown no cases against the precedent I've shown and you really have no arguments left.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
