The Sheepdog Mindset — Part 5: Know the Rules of Engagement.

Welcome back to another ‘Mindset Monday’ at the Sheepdog Survival Blog.

Last week, you established moral and ethical mission parameters for yourself — a set of technical drawings and specification sheets, outlining precisely how you intend to construct your personal safety and security methodology, so that the finished project turns out exactly like the 3D model you envision in your head.

Today, in part-5 in our series on The sheepdog Mindset, we’re going to get to the subject that inspired this entire series: Canadian self-defence law, which — in the context of our construction analogy — equate to the government-imposed building codes and bylaws that govern the development of our personal safety and security methodology.

In Canada, our rights and responsibilities around defence of persons and property are outlined and described in the Criminal Code of Canada, Sections 34 (persons) and 35 (property). While the wording used in these sections is pretty clear and concise, most people outside of the law enforcement and legal professions tend to misunderstand the spirit of the law, or disregard it entirely, which leaves them to make potentially life-changing decisions around their safety and security based on incorrect assumptions gleaned from movies, books and/or other uninformed or misinformed individuals who may not have their best interests at heart.

To be clear, I work in the criminal justice system, but I am not a police officer or lawyer. I am well-versed in the Canada’s Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), and pertinent regulations (CCRR), but have no direct experience prosecuting or defending self-defence cases in a court of law. That said, I will do my best to bring some clarity to this important subject for you, but it is your responsibility to determine the veracity of my claims and opinions, before accepting them as valid.

Okay, let’s dig in…

 

What is self-defence?

Under Section 34 of the Criminal Code of Canada, a person is permitted to take reasonable action to protect themselves or others without being guilty of an offence.

The relevant code states:

(1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

      (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of              force is being made against them or another person;

      (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the               other person from that use or threat of force; and

      (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

Okay, great… so what does that mean in layman’s terms… ?

It means that Canadian citizens have a fundamental right to safeguard themselves and their property, and this right must be upheld as long as their defensive actions are reasonable, and proportional to the circumstances.

It is important to note that injuring an intruder / assailant, or using lethal force, is only justified when it is the only available option for self-defence against a perceived threat of severe bodily harm or loss of life. Any actions taken beyond what is deemed reasonable and necessary will not be condoned by the law. In essence, Canadians have the right to use force to protect their homes and themselves, but only to the extent that is reasonable and necessary.

If the intruder / assailant is injured or killed as a result of your defensive actions, and you wish to proceed with a defence of self-defence, it first must be demonstrated that there is an air of reality to this defence. That is to say it must be determined whether or not a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could acquit on the basis of the available evidence. It is important to note that a defence of self-defence may be supportable even if your perception of imminent danger or violence was mistaken, as long as it is determined that such a mistaken perception would be reasonable under the circumstances.

Once it has been satisfied that there is an air of reality to the defence, in order to successfully raise a defence of self-defence it must be proven, on a balance of probabilities, that:

• you believed, on reasonable grounds, that a force, or a threat of force, was being used against you, or another person;
• you acted for the purposes of defending yourself or others from that use of force or threat of force; and
• your act, purportedly committed in self-defence, was reasonable within the totality of circumstances.

Sooooo… how will you know whether or not your actions are reasonable… ? I’m glad you asked…

The factors that should be taken into consideration include (but are not limited to):

• The nature of the force or threat;
• The extent to which the force was imminent, and whether or not there were other means available to respond to that potential use of force;
• The person’s role in the incident;
• Whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
• The relative size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
• The nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and
• Whether the act was committed in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful (for example: Resisting lawful arrest by a sworn law enforcement officer).

 

Is this helping, so far… ? It’s kinda hard to convey this information in common language, without losing something important in translation. Please bear with me, and feel free to ask questions if you do not immediately understand.

 

What is a “Citizens’ Arrest”, and how does it relate to self-defence… ?

On March 11, 2013, the Citizens Arrest and Self-Defence Act was enacted which gave private citizens the power to make an arrest if they believe that a person committing a crime has committed it. That said, if you are a civilian, with no government-endorsed powers or protections, nor the sworn duty to protect the public, preserve the peace and apprehend suspected criminals, I recommend you stick to the mission and mission objectives you clearly-defined and articulated earlier in this series, and work within your established moral and ethical mission parameters.

We all tend to romanticize the hero, and fantasize about saving the day / damsel / world, but remember what I said last week: Ego and heroics have put a lot of really good people in the ground.

Stick to the mission.

 

What, exactly, is ‘Defence of Property’… ?

The laws around defence of property are significantly different in Canada than they are in the US. We have no specific equivalents to the American “Castle Doctrine” or “Stand your Ground” laws. This fact surprises a lot of Canadians — especially those who get their legal education from Hollywood action movies and police dramas.

Section 35 of the Criminal Code of Canada states:

(1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they either believe on reasonable grounds that they are in peaceable possession of property, or are acting                       under the authority of, or lawfully assisting, a person whom they believe on reasonable grounds is in peaceable             possession of property;

(b) they believe on reasonable grounds that another person

• • (i) is about to enter, is entering, or has entered the property without being entitled to by law to do so,
  • (ii) is about to take the property, is doing so, or has just done so, or
  • (iii) is about to damage or destroy the property, or make it inoperative, or is doing so;

(c) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of

• • (i) preventing the other person from entering the property, or removing that person from the property, or
  • (ii)preventing the other person from taking, damaging or destroying the property or from making it inoperative, or retaking the property from that person; and

(d) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

In other words…

In Canada, the legal term Defence of Property is engaged when you have a reasonable belief of peaceful possession of property, and another’s specific actions are threatening your property. As it is with defence of person cases, to be able to raise a legal defence of property, it will have to be determined that your defence has an air of reality to it, you had a legally justifiable purpose in defending the property, and that any actions you took in defending your property could be considered reasonable in the circumstances.

 

What’s the deal with weapons… ?

In Canada, you may use a weapon in defending yourself, but it can only be used to defend yourself from a threat, or a force of threat, that you reasonably believe will be used against you. However, buying weapons for the purpose of using them in situations where you do not have a defensive purpose is not legal.

Many self-defence and martial arts weapons commonly sold in the US are prohibited for sale in Canada. You can get them, and train with them at home or in the dojo, but you probably shouldn’t carry them on your person in public, or use them to defend yourself. Why… ? Well, many of those items are either restricted or prohibited in Canada, which means even being in possession of them is considered an offence.

Another reason is that, after any assault or self-defence situation to which police respond, there will be an investigation. If you injured or killed your assailant, the investigation will be treated as an assault or homicide investigation, and every detail surrounding the event will be closely scrutinized. This includes an inventory of any “weapons” or other items you had on you at the time, whether or not they were used in your defence.

If you had a fixed-blade knife on your belt, a tactical folder clipped into your pocket, or you were carrying one of those cool-ass tac-lites with the razor-sharp bezel, you will have to justify your gear choices to the police, and a judge.

If you were carrying a pipe wrench or 10″ screw driver when you were attacked, and you are not a licensed tradesman on your way to or from a job site, you will have some explaining to do.

If you are in possession of a baseball bat, but no glove or ball, and you weren’t on your way to or from your beer league slow-pitch game, your possession of the bat will earn you some extra scrutiny.

Also, in Canada, the purchase of firearms for the exclusive purpose of self-defence is prohibited, and the use of legally-owned firearms to defend yourself and/or your family is legal only in the most extreme of circumstances, where it is the only viable response option, and your life or the life of another is in imminent danger.

If you use a firearm to defend yourself, and it is determined that your actions were not reasonable in the circumstances, you will be held criminally responsible for any injury or loss of life that resulted from your actions.

This is where some folks might pipe up and say something like, Well, it’s better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. But is it… ? Really… ? Like I’ve said before, I’d rather die than spend 10-15 years locked away in a federal prison, thinking about how I might have done things differently.

You may see things very differently than I do, and that’s okay. You do you. Just make sure the actions you take to defend yourself, and protect your family and property, serve your mission — and that your self-imposed moral and ethical mission parameters are congruent with the legal rules of engagement imposed upon you by the government.

 

There’s so much more we could unpack and kick around, but this post is about to cross the 2000-word threshold, (and I can see your eyes glazing over), so we’ll leave it at that for now. If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please leave a comment below, or contact me directly at: [email protected].

Next week, we’ll wrap up this series with some discussion around The Fight, and the fights after The Fight. I hope you will join us.

Until next time, take good care — and prepare to prevail!