http://www.bojuka.ca/self-defense-canadian-law.shtml
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.
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
(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
(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.]
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
(a) he uses the force
(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
(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
(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.]
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.]
Reference: Departartment of Justice Canada: Criminal Code
Found this which looks like good training re: the woman fearful re: TTC travel by night, women's self-defense
http://info363.typepad.com/blog/
SAFE International covers
1. Awareness and Avoidance:
Awareness and Avoidance strategies which are based on one's daily routines.
We examine what an attacker looks for, what an attacker wants, and doesn't want in confrontation.
One of the biggest topics we examine, is how most people are too polite, even when their intuition is telling them the complete opposite.
We cover the most common distraction techniques an attacker will use to gain an advantage.
2. When avoidance is no longer possible
We then move on to verbal strategies in the event that avoidance is no longer possible.
Rather than just teaching to yell at a potential attacker, we cover a few verbal strategies based on the aggressor and the scenario.
3. Physical Self-Defence
The third step is addressing the physical aspect of self defense. We begin with the advantages of adopting a passive stance rather than an aggressive stance. We only teach gross motor strikes due to the adrenal rush one gets when they are in a highly stressful state such as an attack scenario. We teach a philsophy of "Attack the Attacker" which reverses one from being the Prey, to that of being the Predator.
I think this looks to be arranged in a logical sequence, geared to risk escalation. It looks to me to be the right way to be thinking about things, and preparation for each stage of threat, types of scenarios and attackers.
Otten there's a continuum between "percieved, potential threat" when aware, and time for planning, if prepared by training, go over options of avoidance, maintain awareness and physical prepardness to physically defend oneself.
I think over my travel routes, and I keep aware of when I need to attend more if I'm in a spot that is more isolated.
Understanding and distinguishing types of perpetrators is important as well in preparation. I got caught off guard with first assault at 16, because although lots of things from intuition, I was in denial about it being a sexual predator-- and I was caught off guard. I cognized creepy, and 'watch out' and all sorts of things from my intuition, which I minimized and disregarded, 'not possible'. I blacked out, I can't remember how I was grabbed. It came from denial, hoping it was just a mugging. Second assault I was more prepared to respond, but looking back, and remembering my inutition, I could have run when I came into those moments where no-one else was around (6pm, peopel were on the path, but it was just moments when they weren't and I was islated-- that's what perps look for, opportunity. Have inutition and knowing when to boot up fight/flight is useful and I think training helps.
I don't think my case is that exceptional and I don't know many women who've not had to cope with difficult situations.
You can look at stats and say, well "unlikely" but there are mitgating factors which increase the risks for attack, such as finding oneself temporarily isolated, which can happen along any travel route-- training is being aware of those shifts and who's around and about planning ways if possible to avoid unsafe routes, or to try to avoid travelling alone (which often not that possible, as life goes). Some attacks can be averted by verbal skills (drunks, bars, etc. not that hard to do-- Non-Violent Crisis Prevention is good training, e.g. aware of verbal aggression and it's escalation and how to diffuse, prevent physical altercations-- an dif one is in control of oneself while under the influence).
Guns and home defense, shoudl also be planning ahead of time, a Safety Plan and all family members on the same page, clarity of roles-- who stays with kids, secured room, barricade, phone 911; a code for trouble, so there's less questioning, doubt, denial, but "code red" get the kids and self to safety. Prevention with alarm system, doors, windows; rules about answering the door to strangers, age appropriate instructions.
Type of invasion-- and for B&Es, kid after property for drug money or whatever-- know that it could likely be more than one person there-- containment is important-- don't want to shoot your 16 year old daughter by mistake. Training and safety plan should be clear, not to deviate. If you are focussed with the idea that only one intruder, you can gravely misjudge the situation. Another partner might try to jack you wiht the gun, and the intruders can also be more sophisticated (e.g. if psychopathically motivated type of criminal).
Sexual predators, probably do more of the sneak up. Have a dog is a good alarm system too, and being attentive, they know things, perceive things before we do. Military training wasn't enough to keep Cpl. Cormier safe from Co. Williams. It can also be a shock if the perpetrator is someone you know, can be stunned by that and be at a disadvantage. If alone and isolated, extra percaution is important and don't worry about being polite.
Re: Homeless People
You want to think the homeless people are threats, stats wise, I wouldn't assume that much different than general population. Years ago, and they're probably long-dead now, but there was an enlisted at one of the German bases that let a superior officer be alone with his daughter (child). . . perpetrator. . . you don't let things like that happen in this day and age, regardless of status of a person-- we know better now. You don't get drunk, pass out and let others drunks wander through the house when you've got children to protect. It could be anyone, so 'status' doesn't say it. Behaviours and opportunities say a lot more about risk.
It's not about who, as much as situation. Don't get tricked by who, behaviours, situations of isolation are more important to attend to-- it's about opportunity-- prevent opportunities for abuse.
Streetwise, look out for people who are intoxicated showing, irratic behaviours or violent (verbal precedes physical violence-- Non-Violent Crisis Intervention is a useful skill for that, to de-escalate before it becomes violent); gangs with groupthink going on (whether a gang of jocks or a gang of criminal, drug dealing, etc. who have stupid things going on, gang-rape, swarming and stalking creep sexual predators. Be aware of promixity and don't go starting fights.
A lot of the homeless people have been through more than you can imagine. Stupid kids who go down to hang out when they don't have to are stupid, because it may seem like partying one moment and can become very dangerous and violent. Predators. These people don't have safe places to live, and a lot of stuff happens in that case. Combat, you're going to know someone who didn't make it, or know a story about a horrible demise, or someone who got tortured, raped, went missing, murdered, survived forcible confinement, etc., walked in and found the suicide, or found someone just after the assault and hear the horror witnessed the trauma, wounds, scars; acts committed in front of their eyes and couldn't stop it. . . a combo of those things, or had gone through some of that directly. . . exploitive predators (whether gangs, pimps, and the other predators who prey on homeless people). It's a hell-hole, masked by what others see as addiction, panhandling. Abuses by authorities, as children, sold by their parents, brought up in unsafe homes-- it's absolutely ugly. I won't go into details, too disturbing. I did 10 years as a street outreach worker (with partner, trained-- never needed a gun or weapon, though many were around [partially aware of thatat times] but not drawn, never had problems with approach-- training was good). But I stayed for way too long than what was healthy.
But picking on them for kicks-- that makes you a predator, one of many they've seen and it contributes to violence. More can be done re: housing and treatment (and for crack/meth-- I'm not opposed to forced treatment-- choice jail or rehab, because some of them are killing themselves out there and need help and support to get out of it).
They don't have private health insurance either so no Homewood, no Bellwood for them (thoguh some with a very high amont of traumatic exposures which can creep back up them when trying to get clean, beyond survival mode). Some don't have healthy intact families for support-- they were sick and dangerous to begin with. . . (some do and they're stupid, but if they can get away and off the street before more damage happens, they can recover better, with supports).
Majority are not violent. There's a few "hero-bums" that never get reported to the media. One I know stopped a rape against a female youth (story by him and I also heard it from the victim). Another one, saved my brother from a wicked beating, using a smart verbal intervention that was calm and resonable. (Brother spotted from the street, a POS beating on his woman on the balacony of this bar-- he ran up to stop it, angry. Bouncer started beating on him-- 'the street bum' stopped it).
So, there are honourable and dishonourable in surprising places, along all walks of life, regardless of 'status'.
