Your life is not worth...

[Puddlejumper40]

...why do you keep pushing the agenda of store owners telling employee's the should do this? - it's the exact opposite, and employee's are in trouble if they do confront someone...

No agenda. My statement was in reference to the Quebec owner that is why I said "you should be able to defend YOUR business". I didn't say the employees should have the right to defend the owners business. Sorry for the confusion.

[Puddlejumper40]

In any situation, your force has to be proportionate to the imminent threat or force used against you or another person. Meaning, if someone with a knife is trying to stab you and you are unable to disengage, your level of force should be proportionate. If you take the knife from him, then that particular threat changes. It's not complicated, and people absolutely have to be responsible for their reaction.

That's where I find the United States law on defending ones property to be better then ours. If some crackhead breaks into my house to rob me and is carrying a weapon, I should have the right to shoot first and ask questions later.... I don't want to find out what his intent is!

I agree your force needs to be proportionate. That's why if I was attacked and the person had a knife, it's a slippery slope for me to pull out my pocket knife and defend myself. If I stab him before he gets a chance to stab me, I could very well be in deep sh*t! Especially if there are no witnesses around!

[nikonfan]

I agree with you 100%. Boggles the mind to me that in situation where you are being robbed, punched, stabbed or hurt in anyway you first have to think in the back of your mind ok, how can I defend myself in this situation without me going to jail. I would be hard pressed as a prosecutor to put a citizen in jail for defending himself against some puke and using too much force to protect yourself but I guess that is what we have become in Canada.

[Bsuds]

Maybe it's more to stop the business/home owner from shooting when the perp is still 100 yards away.

[Swoop]

...why do you keep pushing the agenda of store owners telling employee's the should do this? - it's the exact opposite, and employee's are in trouble if they do confront someone...

No agenda. My statement was in reference to the Quebec owner that is why I said "you should be able to defend YOUR business". I didn't say the employees should have the right to defend the owners business. Sorry for the confusion.

...the comment was directed at GordonH...

[GordonH]

You have to feel sorry for the mom and pop shops that lose a ton of product to shoplifting and the odd robbery. Is it a good idea to protect your property and risk harm to yourself? No probably not but 100% understandable when you are barely scraping by and some low life steals right out of your pocket and there is no restitution even if they are caught.

I feel sorry for any of them losing product to theft. You should be able to defend your business if you so choose. If someone was caught stealing and being held down by people waiting for the police to show up, I would not feel sorry for the theif if their hand "accidentally" was stomped on and broken..... Sh*t happens in a scuffle.... Best hope no video cameras are around though...

If the owner of the business want go after or defend his or her stuff, so be it.

Just don't be asking his or her minimum wage employee's to do the same thing.

...why do you keep pushing the agenda of store owners telling employee's the should do this? - it's the exact opposite, and employee's are in trouble if they do confront someone...

Re-read what is hi-lighted in red.

[Swoop]

*removed*

[GordonH]

^^^ My first part time job away from farming was working in gas bar (many years ago), unwritten thing back then was gas & dashes. Some owner/employers would actual charge the attendant for it, well at least those who were unaware it was against employment standards.

New employee's even today need to read over what employers can & can't do about deduction from the paycheque, along with the other things within Employment Standards.

Anytime someone attempts a robbery, just give them what they want (in doing so try to be as observant as possible) & don't try to stop them.
As so as they are gone call the police, then recall what you can, meaning what I wrote in brackets. Of course if Employers actual cared about their employee's they would install good quality camera's (not just use it to do surveillance on their employee's).

[Swoop]

^^^ My first part time job away from farming was working in gas bar (many years ago), unwritten thing back then was gas & dashes. Some owner/employers would actual charge the attendant for it, well at least those who were unaware it was against employment standards.

New employee's even today need to read over what employers can & can't do about deduction from the paycheque, along with the other things within Employment Standards.

Anytime someone attempts a robbery, just give them what they want (in doing so try to be as observant as possible) & don't try to stop them.
As so as they are gone call the police, then recall what you can, meaning what I wrote in brackets. Of course if Employers actual cared about their employee's they would install good quality camera's (not just use it to do surveillance on their employee's).

...so now we're saying the same thing?...no wonder I'm confused...I've even confused oneh2obabe... :)

[GordonH]

^^^ What are you actual confused about. Please explain

[Swoop]

^^^ What are you actual confused about. Please explain

...I think I'm done discussing this with you Gordo - I've repeated myself enough times...

[GordonH]

...you know, I understand stores having the policies they do for this - however, at the same time, what a sad commentary on society that an employee that thwarts a low-life scumbag thief from ripping off the store/company, gets vilified for standing up against crime...I recall a few years ago a local Canadian Tire employee that did the same, and lost their job because it was store policy not to intervene...thieves know, and rely on this - which is why it's so rampant...sad...

Okay you say you understand stores have policies. When a employee is hired they are informed of all store & or employers policies, they are also told what will happen if they break one (or more) of those policies.

End of story, don't agree with 1 or more of that stores & or employers policies. Then don't take the job and move on

[Swoop]

...my post was simply an observation and comment on what we as a society deem right and wrong - thief gets to walk away, or the employee intervenes and is fired...anyways, I'm done - let it go Gordo - I have...

[FreeRights]

That's where I find the United States law on defending ones property to be better then ours. If some crackhead breaks into my house to rob me and is carrying a weapon, I should have the right to shoot first and ask questions later.... I don't want to find out what his intent is!

I agree your force needs to be proportionate. That's why if I was attacked and the person had a knife, it's a slippery slope for me to pull out my pocket knife and defend myself. If I stab him before he gets a chance to stab me, I could very well be in deep sh*t! Especially if there are no witnesses around!

If it was as easy as just shooting an intruder, I could see a lot of people agreeing with you.

To play devil's advocate though, what if the intruder was actually unarmed? Should whether or not he is armed even matter?

What if the intruder was unarmed and was merely trying to steal your TV. You shoot him, you miss (the likelihood of you missing is extremely high) and the bullet passes through the walls and strikes some unrelated person outside or in another room?

There's a lot of what-if questions that can be considered. The whole "stand your ground" law in the US can, in theory, sound like a good idea but the whole Trayvon Martin fiasco occurred, which was exactly what the stand your ground law was created to avoid, and showed how essentially irrelevant that particular law would be in court.

Another issue is force training of regular civilians in Canada. If someone is kicking in your door, you'll experience fear and tunnel vision which makes it extremely difficult to properly judge a situation and respond to it. Writing in a criteria of whether or not the intruder is armed would be impossible for most people to be able to assess in a high-stress situation like that. Also during these high stress situations, most people don't conduct any stressed firearms training and would have a very difficult time hitting the target, thus putting everyone else in the general vicinity at risk.

I spent a lot of time in the military and conducted many years of weapons training, and even I have concerns about whether or not I would hit the target in a situation like that.

All of these issues would exist if we allowed people to defend their property using lethal force. In theory it works, but essentially puts many people at risk and will tie up the justice system (ie. Trayvon Martin).

Even as it stands now, you can legitimately use a firearm or other lethal force method to protect your or someone else's person from implied or actual force. It really isn't complicated the way it's judged now - use as little force as is necessary, and stop then escape as soon as there is no longer a threat, and be proportionate about it. It really is that simple.

I agree with you 100%. Boggles the mind to me that in situation where you are being robbed, punched, stabbed or hurt in anyway you first have to think in the back of your mind ok, how can I defend myself in this situation without me going to jail. I would be hard pressed as a prosecutor to put a citizen in jail for defending himself against some puke and using too much force to protect yourself but I guess that is what we have become in Canada.

That's far too overly dramatic. It's not a "what Canada has become" situation at all. These laws don't symbolize "oh, how far we've fallen." Even the military have use of force rules and laws that are strictly abided by, and they're actually trained to do it, unlike the vast majority of Canadians.

You have to understand why there are limits to the force that you can use in which situations - a person pushes you and you pull out a gun and shoot him in the head. Is that legitimate force? Would a prosecutor be "hard pressed" to put you in jail for defending yourself? Would you be supportive of a self defense law that would eliminate all limits and make something like that justified? I'm going to assume that the obvious answer is no, so my follow up question would be, where then do we draw the line?

[Swoop]

...safe to say I think the majority of people would draw the line when someone enters your residence uninvited with the intent to steal and/or do harm to you and/or your family...the Trayvon Martin "fiasco" was a fiasco because of race - not because of stand your ground, bolstered by the fact he was found innocent...