今天孩子上summer camp被一个中国孩子打了。
- 主题发起人 SuperC
- 开始时间
做人不fight back还怎么活？－ 这叫保卫自己的尊严
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 240,598
- 荣誉分数
- 37,773
- 声望点数
- 1,393
这类事情，是刑法范畴，不是宪法范畴。也万万不能顺嘴胡说。
自卫，得看你如何自卫。如果你把对方吓跑了，肯定不犯法；你如果把对方致残、致死，你说是否犯法？别说百姓，就是警察使用武力不当，照样犯法。
别忘记是在哪里谈自卫。这里是加拿大。别忘记是在哪里谈自卫。这里是加拿大。加拿大与美国在这个方面是截然不同的。
Reference: Departartment of Justice Canada: Criminal Code
<TABLE cellPadding=10 width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>SELF DEFENSE AND CANADIAN LAW
When it comes to the issue of self defense and the use of intelligent and reasonable force it is important to understand the law as it applies to you and your situation. In this article we will touch on this subject and how it applies to Canadians.
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left>
How much force is "reasonable force"?
This is the most important and most difficult question to answer when it comes to your legal right to defend yourself and your loved ones. The definition of "reasonable force" can differ from one area to another so it is important that your are aware of your legal rights and obligations for where you live. The use of force also differs for civilians and law enforcement officers. The the purpose of this article we will be focussing on the use of force as it applies to civilians.
In general, reasonable force can be defined as the minimal force required to deter or prevent an assault from occuring or being repeated. This would include removing yourself from a potentially violent situation before an assault occurs, verbal de-escalation, posturing, and physically defending oneself. When training in self defense it is important to practise scenarios that will allow you to assess the threat level and act accordingly. If you can leave safely without risking injury to yourself or another, then you must leave. If your are being assaulted or an assault is imminent then you can use only the amount of force necessary to stop the assault. You are not permitted to punish the assailant or seek revenge. You have to ask yourself the question "what would another reasonable person do in the same circumstances".
By training this way you will be able to more appropriately respond to a violent altercation and protect yourself from physical harm and from prosecution by the law. Look at your self defense techniques and ask yourself if the amount of damage being inflicted on the assailant would be deemed reasonable for the type of assault. A smaller, weaker or more volnerable person for example, may reasonably inflict more damage than a larger or stronger person in the same situation. It is important to "injure to degree" according to the threat level.
Self Defense and the Canadian Criminal Code:
Below is how self defense is defined by the Canadian Criminal Code:
Defense of Person
Self-Defence Against Unprovoked Assault
... / Extent of justification.
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 <DL><DD>(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 <DD>(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. [R.S. c.C-34, s.34.] </DD></DL>
Self-Defence In Case Of Aggression.
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 <DL><DD>(a) he uses the force <DL><DD>(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and <DD>(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm; </DD></DL><DD>(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 <DD>(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. [R.S. c.C-34, s.35.] </DD></DL>
Provocation.
36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures. [R.S. c.C-34, s.36.]
Preventing Assault
... / Extent of justification. 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. [R.S. c.C-34, s.37.]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
- 注册
- 2005-04-18
- 消息
- 5,395
- 荣誉分数
- 1,067
- 声望点数
- 373
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.
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 240,598
- 荣誉分数
- 37,773
- 声望点数
- 1,393
Reference: Departartment of Justice Canada: Criminal Code
Below is how self defense is defined by the Canadian Criminal Code:
Defense of Person
Self-Defence Against Unprovoked Assault
... / Extent of justification.
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
<DL><DD>(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 <DD>(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. [R.S. c.C-34, s.34.] </DD></DL>
Self-Defence In Case Of Aggression.
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
<DL><DD>(a) he uses the force <DL><DD>(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and <DD>(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm; </DD></DL><DD>(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 <DD>(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. [R.S. c.C-34, s.35.] </DD></DL>
Provocation.
36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures. [R.S. c.C-34, s.36.]
Preventing Assault
... / Extent of justification. 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. [R.S. c.C-34, s.37.]
- 注册
- 2005-04-18
- 消息
- 5,395
- 荣誉分数
- 1,067
- 声望点数
- 373
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.
那里说self-defence违法啦？
那里说self-defence违法啦？
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 240,598
- 荣誉分数
- 37,773
- 声望点数
- 1,393
http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575/cdn-firearms/Buckner/Chapter%2010.htm
Chapter 10. Self Defense
Self defense is a troublesome right. On the one hand, it would seem obvious that all people have ­­ or should have ­­ the inherent right to use force to defend themselves from assault. Criminal codes in many countries include self defense as a legitimate justification for the use of deadly force. On the other hand, the right of self defense threatens the rule of law. It is too easy for revenge or even aggression to be confused with legitimate self defense. Canadians typically view the debate on self protection as restricted to the United States. The prevailing attitude is that there is no need for self defense in Canada as superior social systems have eliminated these problems. Many Canadians prefer to believe that problems of violent crime are limited to the rather tumultuous republic to the south.
It should come as no surprise that there are surprisingly few organized groups that officially support self defense, even in principle, or that teach self defense in any form. Talk show hosts discuss violence against women for hours without mentioning the possibility of women using physical force to defend against those who seek to assault or rape them. Not only do the police actively discourage self defense in general, but armed self defense is widely considered illegal.
In Canada the topic of weapon use in self defense has been almost completely ignored. Only recently have studies been published that attempted to estimate the frequency with which firearms are used in self defense in Canada. (Gun Control is not Crime Control - Fraser Institute), there was an immediate derogatory response from the Coalition for Gun control:
"I would no more rely on the arguments put forth by the gun lobby about arming for self-protection than I would rely on the advice of the tobacco lobby, which steadfastly insists that smoking is not addictive," said Wendy Cukier, president of the coalition. ... Ms. Cukier said respondents could also have meant that they felt the presence of a gun in their homes offered protection, even if they didn't use it. "Mauser's study only measures perceptions. There is no evidence these perceptions are based on fact. And the police report very few cases where there is evidence to support these claims." (Globe & Mail, 19 Mar 95, p A6). Why is it so important for the Coalition for Gun Control to deny that guns are sometimes used for self defense? Why does a government spokesman say: "The questions are too vague, protection against an animal could mean the treat from a skunk. That's not self defense." James Hayes, head of the Justice Department's task force on firearms. (Globe & Mail, 19 Mar 95, p A6).
Denying that guns are sometimes used for self-protection is absurd. If there is to be a debate, it should be on the relative merits of having a firearm for self-protection or not having one.
Given the Canadian legal climate it is not surprising that the police are not informed of the use of guns for self defense in the overwhelming majority of situations where the gun was not fired. To report such an incident is just asking to be charged with some offense. Given the complexity of the law neither a home owner nor the average police officer is likely to be sure whether the self defense was legal. Moreover, why would a geologist report to the police that she had fired her rifle to scare off a bear? Why would a farmer report to the police that he had fired a shotgun at coyotes who were menacing his sheep? Would the police bother to make a formal written report if they did? The wonder is that any incidents at all are reported.
Respondents were asked, "Within the last five years have you, yourself, or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work or work as a security guard."
Respondents were asked, "Within the last five years have you, yourself, or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work or work as a security guard."
<CENTER><TABLE border=1><TBODY><TR><TD width=413 colSpan=3>Q19. Within the last five years have you, yourself, or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or the protection of property at home, work or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work or work as a security guard. </TD></TR><TR><TD width=221>Responses</TD><TD width=96>Number </TD><TD width=96>Percent</TD></TR><TR><TD width=221>Yes</TD><TD width=96>31 </TD><TD width=96>2.1</TD></TR><TR><TD width=221>No</TD><TD width=96>1468 </TD><TD width=96>97.5</TD></TR><TR><TD width=221>Don't Know</TD><TD width=96>3 </TD><TD width=96>.2</TD></TR><TR><TD width=221>Refused</TD><TD width=96>3 </TD><TD width=96>.2</TD></TR><TR><TD width=221>Total Responses</TD><TD width=96>1,505 </TD><TD width=96>100.0</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>
The figures reported here, and in subsequent tables, are from the un-weighted sample as it deals with a small number of discrete cases, not at attempt to estimate a national average.
Thirty­one respondents, 2.1% of the sample, said they had used a firearm for self-protection, three said they did not know, and three refused to answer. Those who responded "don't know" may have meant that they did not know if another member of their household had used a gun for self-protection, or they were unclear whether the use constituted self-protection. Two of the three who refused to answer also refused to answer whether or not they had a gun in their home, the other was a gun owner. These people are perhaps unsure of the legal status of their guns, or of their actions.
Defensive uses of firearms were reported in every region of Canada, but were somewhat higher in the western half of the country. It was more frequently reported in rural areas and big cities than in small and medium sized cities. Male respondents were somewhat more likely to report defensive use than female respondents. Younger people were slightly more likely to report defensive use than older people, higher income respondents somewhat more likely to report defensive use than lower income respondents. There was no consistent pattern by educational level.
In terms of attitudes, defensive use was more likely to be reported by those who feel that Canadians should have a right to own a gun, by those who have a gun in their home or are gun owners, by those who say they are "very" familiar with the law, by those who discuss firearms and gun control "frequently," by those who oppose registration, oppose confiscation of handguns, favour hunting, and think gun control ineffective.
Logically, it is unlikely that those without a gun in their home would have the opportunity to use a gun for self-protection. While the attitudinal correlations are clear, the direction of causality is not. Most of the self-protection users simply have the attitudes of most gun owners, but in some cases these attitudes may have been developed or reinforced after successful self-protection.
The next question was, "Was this to protect against an animal or person?"
<CENTER><TABLE border=1><TBODY><TR><TD width=134>IF Q19 (YES), ASK: </TD><TD width=96></TD><TD width=96></TD></TR><TR><TD width=326 colSpan=3>Q20. Was this to protect against an animal or person? </TD></TR><TR><TD width=134>Responses</TD><TD width=96>Number </TD><TD width=96>Percent</TD></TR><TR><TD width=134>Animal</TD><TD width=96>19 </TD><TD width=96>61.3</TD></TR><TR><TD width=134>Person</TD><TD width=96>4 </TD><TD width=96>12.9</TD></TR><TR><TD width=134>Both</TD><TD width=96>1 </TD><TD width=96>3.2</TD></TR><TR><TD width=134>Refused</TD><TD width=96>7 </TD><TD width=96>22.6</TD></TR><TR><TD width=134>Total Responses</TD><TD width=96>31 </TD><TD width=96>100.0</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>
A total of twenty uses against animals and five against person were acknowledged. The high level of refusals, seven, possibly reflects an unwillingness to discuss use against a person - more consequential from a legal point of view.
Protection from animals was principally reported in the West, with four instances in Ontario, ten in the Prairie provinces and six in British Columbia. Protection against persons was reported in Quebec and Ontario with two cases each, and one in British Columbia. Respondents in rural areas and in small and medium sized cities reported only use against animals, while all reports of use against persons came from respondents in big cities. Men were more likely to report use against animals than women (but most women may have been reporting on male use). Younger people were more likely to report use against a person than older respondents. Uses against persons were reported by middle and higher income respondents, almost all of who had college or some university education.
Finally, "Was it you who used a gun defensively or did someone else in your household do this?"
<CENTER><TABLE border=1><TBODY><TR><TD width=326 colSpan=3>Q23. Was it you who used a gun defensively, or did someone else in your household do that? </TD></TR><TR><TD width=134>Responses</TD><TD width=96>Number </TD><TD width=96>Percent</TD></TR><TR><TD width=134>Respondent</TD><TD width=96>13 </TD><TD width=96>41.9</TD></TR><TR><TD width=134>Someone else</TD><TD width=96>12 </TD><TD width=96>38.7</TD></TR><TR><TD width=134>Refused</TD><TD width=96>6 </TD><TD width=96>19.4</TD></TR><TR><TD width=134>Total Responses</TD><TD width=96>31 </TD><TD width=96>100.0</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>
No women reported having used a firearm for self-protection, they all said someone else had done so or refused to answer. Men mostly reported that they themselves had used a gun defensively, or refused to answer, with only two reporting that someone else in the household had been the user. A majority (8) of those who said they did not have a gun in their home said that another member of the household had used a gun for self-protection, while gun owners reported that they themselves had used a gun in seven of the eight reported cases.
Conclusions
A majority of Canadians say they would use a gun to defend themselves or their family from death or serious injury. Some have had to do so.
Three surveys (including this one) in Canada on the self defense use of firearms have found, within the range of sampling error, the same general results.(<A href="http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575/cdn-firearms/Buckner/References.htm#Mauser, Gary; " Defense? Self Armed>Mauser 96) While it is only a small percentage of households that report defensive use, there are over ten million households in Canada. By projecting the survey results to the total number of households, estimates of the total defensive use of firearms from the three studies range from 62,500 to 80,000 per year, and defense against persons from 19,000 to 37,500 per year. Whether the actual figures are at the lower or higher end of this range, they certainly exceed the 1,400 deaths inflicted by firearms every year.
How could so many Canadians use firearms in self defense without it becoming common knowledge? Self defense activity is basically invisible to government. There is no reason to report it, such as there is with property crimes or serious victimization.. This is especially true given that a firearm used in self defence is not discharged in three out of four occasions (Kleck and Gertz 95). Given the moral ambiguity of the act, both the defender and aggressor have strong reason not to report the incident. If someone used a firearm or other weapon, there may even be a motive not to report the incident, since there is a strong possibility that they would face legal charges for defending themselves. Finally, although medical doctors are required to report gun­shot wounds, the available statistics suggest that few self defense uses of firearms result in serious physical injury, so that there are few injuries that would require reporting (<A href="http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575/cdn-firearms/Buckner/References.htm#Kleck, Gary">Kleck, 1991:116).
If anything, the survey estimates presented here of the number of people who use firearms in self defense are probably too low. A number of criminologists have shown that survey estimates of criminal and defensive gun uses have been underestimated (Kleck 1991)
These survey results show that firearms are used in Canada more often than many may believe in the defense of people and property. Indeed, Canadians use firearms defensively about half as often as Americans do, but tend to use firearms disproportionately against animal threats, not against human threats, as in the U.S. Of necessity, these estimates are only approximate, given the small sample sizes and the low incidence rates. However, the high level of agreement among the three samples of the general public in Canada provides strong support that firearms are used in Canada to protect people.
More research is needed to provide a firm estimate of how many Canadians use firearms to protect themselves or their families from violence. In addition, further research must be conducted into what respondents meant when they reported they had "used" a firearm in defense - did they shoot to kill, fire a warning shot or merely display the weapon? Given the sensitive nature of defensive use of firearms, it is possible that many respondents have concealed actual incidents so the true number may be even higher than reported here. It is even possible that some respondents may have included carrying or having the firearm available in case of an attack as an example of "use." The only way to answer these questions would be to study this issue by using a larger sample survey.
A larger sample size would enable researchers to understand what Canadians do to defend themselves in repelling animal and human threats. It would be particularly important to study defensive efforts to repel aggression by violent criminals, either in sexual assaults or armed robberies, and how effective these efforts are. Policy makers should know the frequency with which defensive weapons of all kinds are used in personal self defense in Canada.
If firearms are actually used in Canada to defend against either human or animal threats, then the private ownership of firearms may contribute significantly to public safety as well as pose a danger through firearms misuse. It is unknown how many lives are actually saved, but if a life were saved in only 5% of these incidents, then the private ownership of firearms would save more than 3,000 lives annually in Canada. This study shows that the private ownership of firearms has benefits for the Canadian public as well as costs. Additional firearms legislation may not act to save lives as claimed, but may actually cost lives by rendering it difficult to obtain a firearm when one is needed.
todd_zhang
新手上路
- 注册
- 2009-08-10
- 消息
- 83
- 荣誉分数
- 20
- 声望点数
- 18
建议NB人或想NB的人, 去练枪,买枪. 否则NB的时候,容易出大事.
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 240,598
- 荣誉分数
- 37,773
- 声望点数
- 1,393
自卫，得看你如何自卫。如果你把对方吓跑了，肯定不犯法；你如果把对方致残、致死，你说是否犯法？别说百姓，就是警察使用武力不当，照样犯法。
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 240,598
- 荣誉分数
- 37,773
- 声望点数
- 1,393
这类人，十有八九是从美国转过来的，到了加拿大还以为自己在美国。
不一定是很牛的，是有些人真的很不怕死的。
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 240,598
- 荣誉分数
- 37,773
- 声望点数
- 1,393
