Respectfully, I think that's completely false. I don't know how the Army does things but I would expect sailors at OFP to be more than familiar with the principles you outlined in your previous comment.
I purposely wrote ''rule'' singular, as opposed to ''Rules of engagement'', a defined term, to differentiate the two. I know, it may have been too subtle. My bad.
Nonetheless words are not, in fact, meaningless. I think most people with at least a vague interest in military matters would readily understand why I used that term:
Because the laws and regulations concerning self-defence are, in effect, a rule that dictates whether or not you may engage a threat to your life. A civilian would also generally not know of the technical ramifications of ROEs, despite knowing about those as a concept (such as from watching the movie... Rules of Engagement!).
That's cool. But we're specifically talking about self-defence, which is no different for uniformed and non-uniformed Canadians alike, and, as I highlighted above, is not really one of ''the ROEs'', but an underlying principle in service of your right to life.
I like to think that the people on this forum are some of the more thoughtful types amongst their peers.
None perceived, none taken, and none intended.
I did actually note the singular, which is why I used the same.
I'm not trying to cut you down here, and I'm not saying that you personally may not have a better grasp on this than most. Frankly, I think that most people who participate actively on this board are more thoughtful than the average bear. I'm drawing not just on policing experience here, but on my experience as an infantry dismount in Kandahar, and as a section commander in a DOMOPS security context for Op Cadence, the G8/G20, where we had some... questionable training in being prepared to use force in a domestic context. I wish I'd have known then what I know now, because as a section commander I would have been better prepared for eventualities that, fortunately, did not come to pass.
The sort of terminology we use in rules of engagement discussions can be useful for thinking through scenarios,a nd for articulating your actions after the fact if you have to. Self defense in Canada will always be judged by what's in s.34 of the Criminal Code, and the caselaw that's fleshed that out. When I say certain words are 'meaningless', I mean that they have no significance in and of themselves
legally. You aren't concerned with explaining how you 'engaged a threat', but rather why you 'used force', and why the force used was for the purpose of 'defending or protecting themselves or another person', and why 'the act committed was reasonable in the circumstances'. Imminence of the force you're defending against, and proportionality of the force you used are also factors.
Interestingly, on the subject of military training and experience in articulating use of force decisions- just a few weeks ago there was finally a verdict on the retrial of Peter Khill, the former reservist from Hamilton who shot and killed a man who was trying to steal his truck. Khill relied extensively on his military training in his defense. The first trial (acquittal) was overturned on appeal, as the judge was found to have given faulty jury instructions. Specifically, the judge failed to instruct the jury adequately in considering the role Khill himself played in the incident. Khill unsuccessfully appealed this all the way to the Supreme Court. The second trial ended in mistrial. Finally, in a third trial this fall, he was just convicted of manslaughter (acquitted of murder). All said and done, the case is a caution on anyone wanting to rely on articulating their military training in why they used force civilly. In this case Khill exited his residence and basically snuck up to very close range before announcing his presence. I think that screwed him. Very different from, say, a home invasion situation.
Are we talking in a military or civilian scenario?
I have plans and methods in place to defend my house and family. Our batty neighbor next door and the rising crime and violence in our neighborhood has really awakened me to the fact in a situation akin to a home invasion, I'm probably on my own for a bit. And I'd rather go to jail and know my family is safe than be free and know I didn't stand up when needed. As well I would rather have the tools and means and not need them; than wish I had them if I ever do.
You guys are way over tasked. We need more of you so I don't have to take these things as seriously as I have now.
Needless to say there are very big differences in what force can be used legally to defend persons versus defend property. As a general rule of thumb- by all means be prepared to act to defend persons, with force if needed. Give the other guy a way out if you can. If possible, let the other guy know he's in for a fight so he has the chance to disengage and get out. If someone is fleeing, don't use weapons against them. If you have the option of safely withdrawing and don't, you need to be prepared to explain why you didn't. Doesn't mean this can't be explained, but you need to be live to it.
But, all that said, if you're in a situation where you have to act now and violently to defend yourself or those with you against someone trying to hurt you, absolutely you can do that. And shut the fuck up and get a lawyer. Articulating use of force immediately after it happens (e.g., in a statement to police) is not a good idea. Human memory in a critical incident or its immediate wake is a mess. Better a night in jail than committing yourself to a recounting of events that is skewed by the absolute shit situation you're in. Get legal counsel before explaining yourself.