curious
2007-01-12 13:45:46 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
as long as its in self defence, you can defend yourself with maximum force
2007-01-12 13:50:12 · answer #1 · answered by warr31 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
NO
but don't start making any plans now.
The "reasonable force" and "proportionate threat" answers above are right.
In similar but not the same instances, less extreme though, if a burglar broke in some property and there was a trap or vicious dog that attacked, the property owner could be sued for not posting a warning of the danger such as "Beware of Dog" sign for example. There was a story of some farm owner who got fed up with snowmobilers riding through his farmland property, so he strung some piano wire between trees, and there was severe injury when the next skidoo came zooming through. He had severe penalty in the court for doing that and not putting up a no trespassing sign with a warning of that danger.
2007-01-13 12:55:45 · answer #2 · answered by million$gon 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the robber in your house is unarmed, then it's not OK to shoot him. The law requires you to use 'reasonable force', and using a gun against an unarmed person is not considered reasonable. If the robber, however, is brandishing a weapon and you shoot him, then it is considered self-defense. If the robber has a knife, and you have a gun, and the robber is on the other side of the room, then you would be wise to shoot him in the legs, not the head/chest. Shooting to kill might not be considered reasonable in that instance.
2007-01-12 22:24:31 · answer #3 · answered by Webber 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not exactly sure of position in Canada, but as it is also a Commonwealth country as Australia and follows Common Law, I will say that generally you shouldn't kill anybody no matter what they are doing. In Australian case law People have been convicted of manslaughter for killing a person who was robbing their home. In essence, if you do shoot and kill somebody in self defence, you must prove that your act of killing them was reasonably proportionate to the threat. In most instances around the world including USA and England killing somebody is never proportionate to a particular threat. An American e.g. is where a taxi driver was held at gunpoint and the taxi driver grabbed his shotgun and shot them at point blank, the taxi driver claimed self defence but the court convicted the taxi driver of murder because his act was not reasonably proportionate to the threat.
2007-01-12 22:06:44 · answer #4 · answered by Ali G 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well im not sure about Canada, but here in American you can shoot anyone that does not belong in your home. In the state of Florida you can shoot anyone anywhere in the state that is posing a serious threat to your life.
2007-01-12 21:49:45 · answer #5 · answered by Sean B 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the situation. You are allowed to use exactly enough force to remove him from your house and no more. If you are in a life-threatening situation then you are allowed to use deadly force but its not OK to shoot someone simply because they are in your house trying to steal stuff. Besides the vast majority of us Canadians don't have guns anyway.
2007-01-12 22:00:40 · answer #6 · answered by megalomaniac 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. If he's hungry or thirsty you have to make him something,while he rape's you wife and daughter. God bless America where you can still protect your family and home.
2007-01-15 04:24:23 · answer #7 · answered by Mike M 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋