68 Replies to “No Self Defense For You”

  1. Lindsey Civiero goes on about how if you are carrying a weapon you are more likely to get into a confrontation, which is a bit of a bizarre take, and probably not what she read actually said.

    The criminal defence lawyer, also brought up “reasonableness” which of course isn’t really properly defined, and his example was “if 4 teens break into your house, and you arm yourself with a golf club, the judge won’t see that as reasonable”, which I get is a great take if your primary clients are actual criminals.

    1. Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. The court is mostly populated with liberals who have never, ever been threatened or actually hit, do not believe in self defense, have no training in self defense. In short, it is their view of reasonableness (luxurious in its ignorance) that will decide your fate and they are woefully ignorant of what happens in a home invasion or a fight. And if i have to choose between an invader’s life and mine, I know what I will pick.

      As to the mythology of encouraging violence by caring a weapon, that is bovine excrement. I have lots of weapons on my person, and you can see all of them. namely my hands, feet, knees, teeth, elbows, hips and shoulders. I have trained for 20 years to know how to use them. It is the posture of the person that determines vulnerability, not a weapon. If you slouch, ignore your surroundings, put your hands in your pockets, wear ear buds constantly, diddle incessantly with your phone, you are transmitting your status as potential prey.

    2. “Lindsey Civiero goes on about how if you are carrying a weapon you are more likely to get into a confrontation, which is a bit of a bizarre take, and probably not what she read actually said.”

      Oh, no…that is *exactly* what she meant. ‘Progressives’ have been telling that particular lie for decades already. When you inform them that no, that is NOT what has actually happened in any of the US states that have implemented concealed carry laws, they will just glare at you and call you a ‘gun nut’.

      These people are delusional control freaks.

    1. ^^^^

      When you’re fighting for your life, or the life of loved ones, you have no time to consider what’s “reasonable.”

      The laws in this country are a joke. They’re not applied to defend citizens. They’re applied to protect the criminals.

      You can thank Turd Sr’s constitutional reform for that.

      1. “The laws in this country are a joke. They’re not applied to defend citizens. They’re applied to protect the criminals. ”

        Absolutely they are. You can be attacked by someone trying to kill you with a knife in front of numerous witnesses, but if you somehow manage to knock the person down as you are fighting for your life and they hit their head and die, you WILL be arrested for it…make no mistake about that.

  3. I’m on the side of the hot blonde.
    Never ever let the government decide how you can defend yourself.
    And you can buy stun batons of a million volts in Canada, but they have to be over 480mm in length – I assume that length makes it less easy to “hide”.
    And you can’t carry brass knuckles, but polymer ones are legal!

    2. I know a guy that just had polymer knuckles seized by RCMP while he was a bystander (NOT a participant) at a protest, earlier this summer. The cops saw it sitting in a mesh pouch on his backpack and immediately seized it.
      They didn’t charge him, just took the knuckles.

      Later, the local media when reporting on the demonstration mentioned that “a weapon was seized by police” at the event.

    3. If a cop finds you carrying polymer knuckles, you will probably be charged, and if the judge decides its a weapon, you will be convicted.

    4. Brass knuckles are illegal everywhere in the US. You can carry a loaded .44 magnum in public, but not brass knuckles. They are extremely dangerous because 99% of people grossly underestimate how lethal they are. With a pistol eveyone knows it is lethal and uses it accordingly.

  4. At 3am while facing people seeking to invade and harm or rob a person/s in a house, reasonable = “I fear for my life and I’ll take the necessary steps to win this fight” … the lawyer speaks as though he’s on the payroll of the #Libranos and we’ve seen where a couple of generations of mush mouth politics have taken us. Real rights are not granted to you from gov’t, they’re stolen at every step from multiple gov’t entities.

    The #Librano judges and lawmakers of this tier 2 country who live in gated communities with multiple steps of security, when tasked with defining “reasonable” fail on this definition every time.

    Go with a “jury of your peers”, cite all the rights which have been stolen from citizens by multiple gov’t entities, don’t talk to police. Ever.

    If you are able to store a large grinding device in your basement capable of making mush of femurs, load the parts onto a plastic sheet, cut it all up, and put it chunk by chunk in the house backwater waste exiting your house, including the plastic sheet cut up… and don’t contact police.

  5. In Canada, the cops and courts are actually on the side of the criminal aggressors, and Canadians like it that way, on both the left and the right.

      1. Spoty
        Yeahwell is correct, the bible pounders are as bad or worst than the lefties. Witness Queebek, it was under the strong arm of the RCC until just a few years ago.

        1. Umm, time to update your history lesson. Heard of the ‘Quiet revolution? 1960s. Quebec is the most anti religion constituency in Canada. Your cherry picking of wrong facts show you to be a belligerent ignoramus looking for any opportunity to lash out at Christians.

          1. Farm
            And yer point?
            RCC is the very basis of all modern kristianity, and had spent 1500 years trying to destroy Judaism, so in 1930, kristians hated Jews, and this allowed Nazis to kill at will. Just because there is a social change, it does not necessarily change social dynamics. Queebek is socialist because they were molded that way by the “church”.

            NME666

        2. GYM, you idiot! What does the RCC have to do with how laws are applied in this country? In case you haven’t noticed, over 100 churches have been attacked, and many have been destroyed, and a majority of those are Catholic Churches.

          “Qeebek” as you call it, has shaken off it’s influence by the Catholic Church since the quiet revolution! MORE than “just a few years ago!” I should know. I LIVED THROUGH IT having been raised in Quebec during that time in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s…

          Why you are allowed to spew your ignorance and garbage rhetoric on this site continues to baffle me. You have nothing worthwhile to contribute. Even when you’re agreeable, you still manage to be incredibly offensive, and obtuse, displaying your massive ignorance to everyone here.

          You’re reply to Farmboy only emphasizes what I am saying. I called you out on your ignorance of church history during WWII. Obviously you didn’t bother to read my reply. No doubt you don’t follow up on your rantings after you leave your drive-by’s behind.

          Every time you post, you manage to say something stupid. You’re an embarrassment, and you should be put out of your misery. Yes, that’s harsh language, but I’m pretty much at my limit with your hatred of anything even remotely Catholic. You continue to blame the church with all that is wrong with the world, when you don’t even realize that society decays when you take the fear of God out of it.

          I’ll go to confession this Sunday, but even that is not going to continue calling you out on your bigotry.

          1. Yeah… couldn’t edit my last paragraph… should have read “I’ll go to confession this Sunday, but even that is not going to stop me from continuing to call you out on your bigotry.”

            Let’s see if this comment is allowed…

      2. Sporty, you are a fkn idiot, failing to look at the law, and how it is applied under both Lib and Con gov’t.
        You need a helmet, and a cork on your pointy objects, so you don’t harm yourself, or others.

  6. for 15 years lve attempted to determine in an assault, in canaduh, whatis the victim
    -allowed to do and
    -required to do.
    response: accusations ‘you trying to start an arguement’
    and lip. years of it. lip lip lip lip lip lip lip lip.
    at least a dozen jurisdictions in SW ontariowe. for 15 years.
    they refuse to say, soooooooo thats why l like to tell people right after l got kicked in the leg by a drunk and blamed for it all recorded on video, SEVEN of the mouthy lip lip lip cadre were all dead from karma.
    its why when others always show up in the newspapers l make a point of advising that jurisdiction how delightful that shaudenfreud is boo hoo hoo and ha ha ha

      1. gimme yer email and l will send you links to the stories.
        or google any of the following
        atkins windsor police shot
        vu pham goderich opp
        laurie hawkins woodstock opp
        dave lucio picton street london
        etc check the dates all within a 3 1/2 time period, or equal to 30 times the ‘average typical’ rate in an area of 1,000,000 pop.

        one of the single most astounding sequence of events lve ever seen personally and in all my history and politics observations and reading.
        migawd. the utter worst insult of my life followed by them making godam sure l know l am not permitted to defend myself.
        7 + 3 family members plus 3 members of the police bd their careers in a wood chipper.
        all for a teeny bit of standup comedy improv and desperation to blame someone to justify their jobs.
        and none of this would be here now if they simply acknowledged their unacceptable words and apologize. but that would breach cop rule 2: nevah ‘pologize.
        it has to be karma.
        oddly cops refuse to laugh now despite the invitation in order to repeat the experiement.

      2. Piss on him and say it’s raining:
        Sporty’s response: “At least its a warm rain.”

        Serve him sh*t and say its ice cream:
        Sporty’s response: “Yum! Please, sir, may I have some more?”

      4. well sporty, just out of curiosity, if the anecdote is accurate, that would be rather offensive response to something that occurs countless times, in a time when self defense seems to be a tightrope walk.
        most if given the option, would be inclined to fly the coup clear out, bugger off, vamvoose, exit stage left etc.
        my experience, an exact quote from a detective no less
        “if you leave it doesnt look good”.
        oh really? leaving the scene to deescalate, preserve ones well being and ‘sort out the details later from a safe distance’, to that snarky asswipe makes one SUSPECT???

        here’s suggestion spurty, call them up. get them to SPELL IT OUT wtf does the victim do? leave and get accused of trying to get away or stay, the fight resumes and you get hurt or inadverently hurt the thug badly and promptly get charegd.
        which is it spurt, stay or leave?

  7. That tub-of-lard’s argument should have been shut down at it’s onset. He made a specific point to state that the “defense” of home, property of person must be “reasonable” and reflect the threat. In other words, you must protect the offender in order to defend yourself. THIS IS WRONG!!!!

    The offender made a conscious decision to initiate the violation. There are repercussions for that. Additionally, the audience member is absolutely wrong about knife attacks. On average, they are seldom fatal and easily overcome by closing the distance and removing movement of the knife hand. If you are alone, and not particularly strong…sure run. But, if in a group (like the stabbings in Germany most recently)…it is, absolutely unconscionable to me that the offender wasn’t put on his ass and turned into a puddle in short order before he could kill three and injure many others.

    1. Sorry, “ easily overcome”???? It would appear you’ve never done any knife training (aggressive and defensive) or you would know that is not true. I have 30 years martial arts and street fighting training and teaching experience, and knife fights are extremely dangerous AND YOU WILL GET CUT.

      Especially if the perpetrator has any experience at all. Watch a couple of Doug Marcatta (sp?) videos, including his “closing 21’ rule” and you will get a true understanding.

      1. Agreed. Black belt in Karate and green in judo; lots of experience in real life. Knives or other edged weapons are devilish hard to defend against.

  8. Excellent depiction of why our world is over. Bad opinions aside, why are we even listening to idiots with hair dye and tattoos, I mean really, you couldn’t wear a long-sleeve shirt for a broadcast? Damn all these idiots to hell.

  9. Chances are that the defense lawyer would sing an entirely different tune if you retained him to defend you because you took a golf club to 4 teenagers who broke into your home.

    1. Tells you a little about my mindset. Picking up a golf club seems minimal to me. Too much discretion IOW.

  10. I don’t care. If some bastard breaks into my home with evil intent. I run them through. It’s a natural reaction. As for the law, the law is an ass.

      1. Used to shoot with some cops. Was advised ‘two to center mass and a warning shot in the ceiling’
        Nowadays you would be violating their human right to burgle if you didn’t open the door for them.

  11. Canadians are in desperate need of a blanket 2nd amendment, just like the US. If for nothing else than to protect ourselves as a population from a rogue Government.
    I have spend several years in Texas and the State has the lowest home invasion rate in the US, precisely because they know, or at least are under the assumption that everyone is able to defend themselves and the law is on the side of the person defending themselves or their property. With the proper safety training and education, there is no reason that anyone who wants a firearm for any reason should not be offered the opportunity.

  12. Pay attention to the wise words of a “Peer Support Specialist” (whatever that is) who read somewhere that you are more likely to get into trouble if you are carrying a weapon of some sort. Yes, of course, read that somewhere indeed.

    1. I seem to recall reading somewhere that “Peer Support Specialist” actually meant “suffers from incurable mental illness, and should be isolated from polite society.”

  15. I agree with Warren, the law is an ass. If 4 teens break into my house, and I arm myself with a golf club, the judge won’t see that as reasonable? Neither will I, but in a different way. I’m 77 and arthritic. A golf club isn’t nearly enough to defend myself against 4 teenage intruders.

    I’m not a fighter, never have been even when I was young. My philosophe is, I will do everything I can to avoid an altercation, but if I can’t, then my assumption is, the attacker(s) is trying to kill me, and I will do my best to kill him first. That is entirely reasonable.

    1. The “grab a golf club” defense is just a misdirection from his real message. What the guy is saying is “don’t fight back”. The only reply to that is to ignore him.

      Think about it. Four teenagers break into your house and they are beating the crap out of you before you even think where your wife stashed your golf clubs. Render the teenagers inoperable but have a story to tell police. “They said they were going to rape my black daughter” is always a good start.

  16. Well I don’t need no stinking weapon, I have a holy terror of a dog, all 9 pounds would attempt to kill the intruder.

    1. And if the intruder hurt your poor little defenceless dog, they’d get a longer sentence than the one for breaking into your house.

  17. The smarmy lawyer is right, a Judge will see almost anything you do or any weapon you possess as illegal.
    I appreciated the comments of Michael in the audience, self defence courses are there for the instructor to make a living, not to save your ass in a pinch.

    As Mike Tyson once said, ” the plan only works until you get punched in the face”.

    We need “castle” laws in Canada, but we will never get them. The coalition for gun control has done an excellent job demonizing guns in this country.

  18. In Canada, ANY object you decide to carry for the proposes of self-defense becomes a dangerous weapon, and you will be convicted of a crime for it if you admit that it’s for defense, or if, in the judge’s opinion, it can serve no other purpose.
    There can be no doubt whatsoever that our gov’t would prefer to se us mugged, raped or killed than to see the criminal aggressor harmed in any way.

    1. The idea being, if you’re going to drive around with a baseball bat for your defence, always ensure your baseball glove and maybe a ball for good measure, is beside you as well.

      And don’t talk to the police, don’t acknowledge their presence aside from “do what you’re told” and don’t offer resistance.

    2. That’s because the average person will vote left wing approximately 40% of the time, whereas a felon is 100% a lefty.

    3. “In Canada, ANY object you decide to carry for the proposes of self-defense becomes a dangerous weapon, and you will be convicted of a crime for it if you admit that it’s for defense, or if, in the judge’s opinion, it can serve no other purpose.”

      That’s exactly the case. Anything that you *admit* carrying for the purpose of self defense is automatically deemed a “weapon dangerous to the public peace”. Carry a baseball bat in your car? You’d better have a glove or ball with it. Hell, we aren’t even allowed to wear bulletproof vests!

      There is NO right to self defense in Canada. None. They love to tell you that there is…but they lie.

      1. One point that the liberals (Trudeau) made is entirely bull. You do have the right to self defense with a firearm in Canada, they just get stupid if you use it against a human attacker. A 12 gauge against a bear is totally legal.

        Furthermore use of a firearm is legal against a human also, it just needs to be identified as ‘Self Defence’. The problem is that unlike the rest of Canadian law, the crown is not responsible for determining your claim of self defense, it up to you to prove it. It is backwards to every other item in the criminal justice system, which the crown loves. They also have an interesting scheme where, before you enter the trial for charges in a self defense situation, tbe trial judge will determine, (not you) if you can claim self degence. Remarkably they seldom allow you to claim it during the trial.

  19. a guy I knew a long time ago said that a 29″ katana is “really” hard to survive without a gawn
    wouldn’t want to break into his home

  20. “Well, officer, the youths who broke into my home requested my services in providing MAID, so I complied.

  23. In Canada.. It depends on who you are.. If you get attacked and defend yourself against some “first class” citizens you will end up in jail.. No doubt.. Just as a 7th class citizen will get shot down by the police without them blinking a eye..

    The liberal caste system.. Call it what it is..

  24. The police (government) are under no obligation to protect any one individual. So, the government can’t/won’t protect you.

    There is no legal pathway to restore your life if you are murdered. So, the courts cannot apply a remedy if you are murdered.

    In other words, you have only yourself to rely upon, at the instant it is required, to save your own life. But the government thinks it has the authority to impose limits on how you can do it so as not to cause unreasonable harm to the person attacking you.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation