How can someone in Canada defend themselves against an attacker?
You’ll find a discussion of what is and is not acceptable in self defence in this article: Self-defence: What's acceptable under Canadian law?The following is an excerpt from the article:CBC News: You hear a noise and go downstairs in the middle of the night and find a burglar, and you can't tell if he's armed. Legally, what are your options?"Your dwelling house seems to be the property you're allowed to protect the most," Nichols says.Under Section 40 of the Criminal Code, which deals with the defence of dwellings, Nichols says, "everyone who is in possession of a dwelling house is justified in using as much force as necessary, to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or entering the dwelling house without lawful authority."Cohen echoes Nichols' sentiments, adding that when it comes to defending themselves, Canadians have the most rights inside their own homes."This area is less grey than others. The rule of reasonable force still applies, but most judges will give you the benefit of the doubt," Cohen says. "… You can use any force you deem necessary to remove the burglar from the house and eliminate the threat to yourself.""You could use a significant amount of force. If you knocked them out and rendered them unconscious, you will probably not be charged with assault," Cohen adds. "But if he was retreating and you hit him in the head with a bat and he was [critically injured], you might have a problem."Nichols says the words "as much force as is necessary" are one of the things taken into account by judges."It might depend on where the person was, and what they were doing. A judge would look at what degree of force was used and where you struck the person," Cohen says."There's a ton of case law out there where people have been charged in these types of situations," Nichols adds, referring to situations where an intruder has entered and a dwelling occupant has used lethal force."Generally they're treated very, very leniently, or the charges are dropped altogether," she says.Cohen says the judge's decision revolves around the specifics of the individual situation.
Getting somebody to defend themself?
he is afraid, not of going to the next level, because as a victim of school yard bullying I wanted to waste them, but he is so far down in the spiral of self doubt. he has low self efficacy in his ability to hurt them. his negative thoughts rule his life. only he can over come them. he will be a punch bag forever, or decide to take a stand. only he can do it. edit: Spidertiger... do you truly have 14 yrs experience. well I want to know in what? bible reading? your attitude is negative to his making a stand. you said: "What if he "defends" himself and they come back with a knife or gun the next day. Then what???" well this is the worst attitude to have. it is defeatist to live in this world with an attitude of "you may as well accept it". you suck. it is easy to quote from history, but harder to talk about the present. I could quote Bruce Lee and support my case. nothing is gained from cut n paste. the guy wants advice, not metaphors. I know from experience that if you DONT stand up for yourself, you will get victimised continuously. only when you take a stand can you change your fate from certain failure to potential success. nothing is guaranteed in change. but the risk of change is better than the certainty of defeat. you may have experience, but it is not in the world outside the dojo. the victim never chooses to fight, the decision is decided for him the moment the bully targets him/her. Shaman: very sound advice. as I started training I was being beaten almost daily, by the 6 months mark people were leaving me alone. not because I told anyone (that would be suicide) but because I was no longer showed the sight and scent of fear. attitude IS everything, and even when I wasnt that confident, I looked like I was. awesome response Shaman.
How does a person defend themselves against a narcissist in court when the dispute is based on the narcissists lies?
This is a great question. If you're going to court and lies are the evidence in a case against you, you're golden Ponyboy.In the United States, unless there is a legal reason why not, the sworn testimony of anybody under oath is considered a fact.So if I say you did something and you say you didn't, that's it. I lose. Because the presumption of law being innocent until proven guilty.So if lies are all somebody has, that means all evidence only can come out of their mouth. You disagreeing with them in a court of law is enough. However evidence outside of your head and word to what is true is at your disposal.I wouldn't worry about it if they're lying. If this happens to be a person you predetermined as a narcissist and asking this question under the pretense Assumption of narcissists are liars then that's something different that you're going to experience when you go to court.Your opponent would have to manufacture evidence to support their claim to make it look like it's true. The only way they don't have to do that is if they happen to be a person who lies all the time but just not in this instance.
When a person kills someone and then kills themselves is that justice?
We might call it poetic justice, but no, it simply compounds the injustice. In real justice, the legitimate government, acting for the people who empower it, brings the case to fair trial. When the facts show that the perpetrator committed murder "with malice aforethought," justice requires capital punishment. There are several problems with self-execution. First, a suicide might be deranged, killing himself for a crime he did not actually commit (perhaps someone told him he did it). This would allow the real killer to escape justice. Again, suicide does not allow a full airing of the facts of the case, which the family of the victim needs for coming to grips with the murder. Such an airing might show that the killer acted in self-defense, or was mentally incompetent, or acted under extenuating circumstances, or killed accidentally. Finally, suicide is a new crime, a self-murder. A self-murderer estranges himself from God for all eternity because he no longer lives to ask forgiveness. This consequence is infinitely worse than execution. Cheers, Bruce
How did Switzerland defend themself from the invades without any real army?
Every Swiss man is in the Army as a reservist. They take their rifles home with them. The Army makes sure that a safe or rather secure closet is available to lock the rifle up.The terrain doesn’t lead to the use of armor either. Switzerland is very mountainous and has lots of bridges and tunnels. Each bridge and tunnel has engineers assigned to blow them up if invaded. The charges are kept under lock and key near enough that they can be destroyed quickly.Kaiser Wilhelm was in Switzerland and reviewed the tiny standing army of Switzerland and joked about marching his million man army into Switzerland. The Swiss dignitary reminded the Káiser that Switzerland had a half million man ready reserve force. The Swiss dignitary told the Kaiser that each soldier would shoot his rifle twice then go home for tea.
Is there a scientific term when someone can't defend themselves but they are a healthy person?
This question could use some qualification. The simple answer would be “untrained”. Many healthy people who have never training in fighting can be strong, have excellent cardio health and be limber. But they do not have the hand/eye/foot/knee/elbow coordination to block and strike someone. Nor do they understand the concepts of distance, angles, slipping and vulnerable points (except the groin :-) .Beyond that, there is the simple example of shock. A psychological escape to minimize mental trauma, shock overrides a person’s ability to respond normally to a stimulus. Seeing someone punched and that person dropping to the ground unconscious could cause another person to freeze from fear or sensory overload.One of the most important part of self-defense training is to expose yourself to negative situations (embarrassment, pain, confusion) in order to help you learn to accept this feelings without being overwhelmed. You are desensitizing yourself to a powerful emotional impact so that you can respond in a manner which benefits you in the long run.
Would the average person be able to defend themselves in this situation? Why?
I have no idea how the average person thinks because by no definition do I fit the definition, but I doubt it. I haven’t seen many people anywhere in my life really consider dogs to be much other than fluffy or have irrational fears of them. Those that do have fears of dogs, rational other otherwise, How many would take any kind of study into K9 self defense seriously?I have learned a fair bit about dogs because I have been attacked by my parents alsation when I was younger, luckily I was not seriously harmed but later experiences with the same dog left me wanting to be a little more prepared. The same bitch I witnessed in my early teens literally tear one of the other two alsations apart. After this they were all put down as seen as a risk.I don’t know much about the breed you speak off specifically as I haven’t heard of them attacking people very often. But all dogs have the capacity to become extremely aggressive and violent if treated poorly or fall victom to certain diseases or situations.The genetic history of all dogs can be traced back eventually a pack hunting mentality, so seven of any dog in a primal state of violence are going to be very successful against a single unarmed human of any age.A typical strategy familiar to nearly all dogs is to first unbalance the predator and then when they are down on the ground attack limbs as a distraction whilst one or more of the alphas will attack the throat. Other dogs tend to rely on blood loss through utter visceration of one limb in particular. Once they bite, they simply do not let go and will use their entire body to tear and rip the flesh apart. There is a pressure point inside the mouth that will force the dog to let go, and there are other grabbing methods you can use as a bystander but having the tools to do this if you are being attacked is not likely for the average person. And fingers are not strong enough to do it alone.Without some level of training. surviving 7 dogs attacking in unison will be difficult if not impossible. Even with some level of training, and adequate tactical advantage or weapon you won’t likely walk away unharmed.
Do students have the right to physically defend themselves against bullies at school?
I believe that what your son did is right. If someone physically hurts him, he should defend himself. It seems there is a lot of inattention on the teachers and administration's part in schools today. Even if he told the teacher or principal what happend, nothing would have happend. Your son should not have to tolerate being physically harmed at school and in a class no less. I would definitely voice my concerns about this to the principal. If you still don't feel like you are being heard, take your complaint to the school board. Keep records of the dates and times you spoke with certain individuals. If the situation gets really bad, I would send certified letters to the school. If anything happens, you will have proof that you said something. If I were you, I would let my child know that what he did was not wrong. He did not become physical till he was attacked. I wish your son well and hope you can come to a resolution with the school on this one.
How can a person defend someone who is guilty of murder?
How? It's simple. A defence lawyers job is to ensure his client gets a fair trial and that proper procedures and laws are followed. Remember, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. An accused does not need to prove his/her innocence. Did OJ kill his wife and her boyfriend? Most likely he did. Did the prosecution prove it to the standard required by the Court? Obviously not or he would have been convicted. OJs lawyers did not need to prove he didn't do it. I remember a case I had to follow for one of my university classes. It was a large fraud in which employees were accused of using a corporate credit card to make fraudulent purchases on behalf of the company from businesses they themselves owned and then not delivering the products. Essentially they diverted over $2 million dollars to their own pockets over the years. The prosecution went on for weeks laying out their case and all looked grim for the accused when the prosecution rested. The defence lawyer for the accused then made a motion to the judge to have the charges dismissed because the prosecutor didn't prove his case. When the Judge asked the defence lawyer for clarification he correctly pointed out that in spite of all the prosecution contended, at no time did they ever show or prove that the company actually paid their credit card bills. Without closing the loop on that part of the money trail they never showed, in court, that the company ever lost any money, only that the credit card lost money but since the credit card company was not complaining...... Anyway, the case was tossed and the accused got off the charges. Were they responsible? Sure but they certainly were not proven guilty in court because the prosecutor screwed up and the defence lawyer did his job.
Are there situations where a person who provokes a confrontation has a right to defend themselves?
See Cliff Gilley's answer to George Zimmerman Trial (June & July 2013): Why is the question 'was George Zimmerman following Trayvon Martin?' relevant to Zimmerman's claim of self- defense?Self-defense is not available to one who seeks out or initiates a confrontation; if Zimmerman in fact followed Martin and initiated the altercation through his actions, it is possible for the jury to find that he "initiated" the situation unnecessarily, even if Martin in fact began the actual fight that ended with the gunshots.For more elaboration, see Cliff's comment on that answer as well:Under most self-defense laws, if you initiate the interaction in a manner that is likely to result in a violent confrontation, the law doesn't allow you to "provoke" a response from another person and claim that you acted in self-defense. In your example, the person you were harassing, assuming he reasonably feared of great harm or death, would have himself been acting in self defense, and you would have been the wrongdoer.