March 8, 2018 8:35 pm
Updated: March 9, 2018 6:23 am

Self-defence arguments surface at RCMP town halls to address rural property crime

WATCH ABOVE: People who attended the RCMP town hall meeting in Biggar say they are confused with messaging they received.

A A

Rural residents who live in fear because of brazen property crimes in their areas are now having their voices heard. A series of town halls are being held throughout the province by the RCMP including one on Thursday night in Perdue.

Each detachment in Saskatchewan will hold a meeting this year, a total of 87 town halls to educate and communicate with the public.

READ MORE: Property rights questions dominate Saskatchewan RCMP town hall in Biggar

On Monday, the town of Biggar was one of the first places in the province to hold a town hall with approximately 100 people in attendance.

Courtesy: CKOM News


Story continues below

Ed Sittler, a Landis-area farmer since the mid-’50s was there and said property crime continues to be the talk on coffee row.

“My neighbours have all, for the most part, got incidents where stuff was taken illegally,” Sittler said to Global News.

“I’m concerned, you better believe it — we all are.”

Stiller, who is in his mid-70s, said he was pleased with the RCMP presentation.

Mounties urged everyone to avoid confrontation at all costs but conceded that residents were within their rights to risk life and limb to protect their families from harm.

“We know the law but when you see this happening to you, to me,” Sittler said. “Don’t use any more force than is necessary, well, who’s going to be the judge of that?”

When it comes to rationale and calm reflections in the face of an uplifted knife, this can be difficult, said Mark Brayford, a criminal defence lawyer in Saskatoon.

“You must act reasonably and if you act reasonably, you probably will be found to be acting in self-defence or at least they won’t prove otherwise.”

It is not a one-size-fits-all when it comes to self-defence

Brayford laid out an example involving the same dwelling at a different time of day.

“If you’re in the shower in the middle of the afternoon and someone is ringing your doorbell repeatedly, and you come downstairs to a teenager carrying your stereo out, I think most people would say it was unreasonable to open up your gun safe and shoot the kid.”

In this scenario, a person would have an opportunity to see what’s going on and the intruder likely thought no one would be home and therefore, they didn’t have any intention of confronting a homeowner.

Switch this scenario to late at night, your steel door is being bashed in and from every indication, the intruder appears to have a weapon, knows you’re probably at home and doesn’t appear to care.

“At that point, you’re there with your wife and young children, how much risk would a jury expect you to take before you open fire on these intruders before they come into your sleeping area?” said Brayford.

“I don’t think a jury is going to expect you to take very much hesitation.”

Major misconceptions when it comes to self-defence

However, Brayford was quick to point out that one major misconception is that you can automatically shoot an intruder when they enter your home. Using deadly force as a reasonable measure would need to fit the circumstances and threat.

On the other hand, not being able to use a firearm to defend yourself from danger isn’t accurate either.

“Any suggestion that you’re limited in what you can use to defend yourself is just plain wrong,” he said.

READ MORE: Saskatchewan RCMP to hold town halls to discuss rural crime concerns

Here are some of the considerations for a jury or judge to evaluate when a self-defence argument is at play and as listed in the Criminal Code:

  • (a) the nature of the force or threat;

  • (b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

  • (c) the person’s role in the incident;

  • (d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

  • (e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

  • (f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

  • (f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

  • (g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force;

  • (h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

“A jury is going to judge you by, ‘Was your fear justified and reasonable for you in the circumstances,” added Brayford, which is why there is no bold statement on what a person can legally do in all situations.

“Use common sense in the force that you use, and if you behave excessively and knowingly, obviously that’s not permitted.”

© 2018 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Report an error

Comments

Want to discuss? Please read our Commenting Policy first.

Global News