Navigation
Calendar
|
May '19 | |||||
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
Quicksearch
Flickr Photostream
Support Us
What I'm Reading
Error on line 135 of /home/chanprod/public_html/chanproductions.ca/personal/bundled-libs/Onyx/RSS.php: The specified file could not be opened. (#)
Archives
Categories
Syndicate This Blog
Thursday, May 17. 2007
Ask A Security Expert: Self-Defence At Virginia Tech
Shortly after the Virginia Tech school shootings, I was pondering what actions/scenarios could have prevented such a horrible tragedy. One scenario that I wondered was, what would happen if a student had a gun, and shot dead the insane gunman? What would the legal ramifications be? In my mind, it would be an act of self-defence, and morally right to stop a gunman who's brutally killing others.
So, I posed this question to my friend Jordan Mann who is a security expert, and holds a degree in criminology. I forget if criminology is the study of crime, or if it's studying how to commit crime
. Anyway, he is the guest blogger for today since I'm away.
What would happen if another student shot dead the Virginia Tech gunman?
In terms of the Virginia Tech shootings there are differences between Canada and the United States. I can really only speak for Canada and even then I am not 100% sure the answers, If someone without a gun in either country had taken him out after seeing him shoot someone they would be justified in killing him under the law because in Canada you are allowed to defend yourself with as much force as is necessary. The following is an excerpt from the Criminal Code of Canada found here.
So, I posed this question to my friend Jordan Mann who is a security expert, and holds a degree in criminology. I forget if criminology is the study of crime, or if it's studying how to commit crime
. Anyway, he is the guest blogger for today since I'm away.What would happen if another student shot dead the Virginia Tech gunman?
In terms of the Virginia Tech shootings there are differences between Canada and the United States. I can really only speak for Canada and even then I am not 100% sure the answers, If someone without a gun in either country had taken him out after seeing him shoot someone they would be justified in killing him under the law because in Canada you are allowed to defend yourself with as much force as is necessary. The following is an excerpt from the Criminal Code of Canada found here.
Protection of Persons Administering and Enforcing the Law Protection of persons acting under authority
25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
(a) as a private person,
(b) as a peace officer or public officer,
(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or
(d) by virtue of his office,
is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.
Idem
(2) Where a person is required or authorized by law to execute a process or to carry out a sentence, that person or any person who assists him is, if that person acts in good faith, justified in executing the process or in carrying out the sentence notwithstanding that the process or sentence is defective or that it was issued or imposed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.
When not protected
(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection (1) in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservation of any one under that person’s protection from death or grievous bodily harm.
When protected
(4) A peace officer, and every person lawfully assisting the peace officer, is justified in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to a person to be arrested, if
(a) the peace officer is proceeding lawfully to arrest, with or without warrant, the person to be arrested;
(b) the offence for which the person is to be arrested is one for which that person may be arrested without warrant;
(c) the person to be arrested takes flight to avoid arrest;
(d) the peace officer or other person using the force believes on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary for the purpose of protecting the peace officer, the person lawfully assisting the peace officer or any other person from imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm; and
(e) the flight cannot be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner.
25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
(a) as a private person,
(b) as a peace officer or public officer,
(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or
(d) by virtue of his office,
is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.
Idem
(2) Where a person is required or authorized by law to execute a process or to carry out a sentence, that person or any person who assists him is, if that person acts in good faith, justified in executing the process or in carrying out the sentence notwithstanding that the process or sentence is defective or that it was issued or imposed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.
When not protected
(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection (1) in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservation of any one under that person’s protection from death or grievous bodily harm.
When protected
(4) A peace officer, and every person lawfully assisting the peace officer, is justified in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to a person to be arrested, if
(a) the peace officer is proceeding lawfully to arrest, with or without warrant, the person to be arrested;
(b) the offence for which the person is to be arrested is one for which that person may be arrested without warrant;
(c) the person to be arrested takes flight to avoid arrest;
(d) the peace officer or other person using the force believes on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary for the purpose of protecting the peace officer, the person lawfully assisting the peace officer or any other person from imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm; and
(e) the flight cannot be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner.
In summary because the shooter was committing murder (an indictable offence), a citizen would have authority to protect his life from imminent danger, and in this case, use as much force as is necessary would mean that you could kill him.
The only catch would be if someone could shoot him before he shot anyone else. That is tricky because he has not yet killed anybody. It would ultimately be up to the courts to decide whether the person who shot the shooter had reasonable grounds to believe that he was about to commit grievous bodily harm. Without the shooter having shot anybody he would have to be waiving a gun around and saying that he intended to kill people or the person that takes the shooter out may have had previous knowledge that this person wanted to kill people or something like that, but yah it would be up to the courts to decide.
The only other issue would be that in Canada unless you are authorized by law, citizens are not allowed to carry guns around town, so the person taking out the shooter would have to be carrying an illegal firearm which is a criminal code offence. Ultimitly it would be the courts that decide. The U.S. is different, where in some states you are allowed to have a concealed weapon.
Interesting insight. Thanks a lot Jordan for taking the time in writing this.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this does not constitute legal advice.
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Add Comment
--George Herbert (1593-1633), English Poet, Orator, Priest