Mike
Site Co-Founder
National Post - High court rules Candians may "stand and fight" in their home
The Candian "stand and fight" doctrine aligns Candian law with English common law and the law of almost every US state - in the home, there is no duty to retreat.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...ong-endorsement-of-the-right-to-self-defence/
SNIP
A jury convicted Forde of manslaughter.
Forde appealed on a variety of grounds, and a trio of Ontario judges concluded that one of them was indeed a serious legal error. During his trial, the Crown had argued that given their agreed-upon physical locations during their fight, it was possible for Forde to turn and flee his apartment without having to pass McNabb. Because Forde was capable of retreating, the Crown argued that the use of deadly force was not an absolute last resort. The use of force against McNabb therefore did not meet the “reasonable” requirement necessary to claim self-defence.
The Ontario Court of Appeals rejected this offering by the Crown, and further stated that the trial judge erred in not instructing both the Crown and the jury that that was not a legitimate legal argument under Canadian law. Citing numerous precedents across Canada and the United States, the three judges ruled that there is **never a requirement for any individual to flee their home** when under attack. The decision to **stand and fight** in one’s own dwelling is entirely permitted under Canadian law and tradition, and the possibility of retreat may not be deemed relevant by a jury when determining whether the force used was reasonable or justified.
In reaching this conclusion, the judges cited (among many others) a prior case in British Columbia in which the judge had declared that, when under attack in your own home, you may stand your ground and fight because “one’s home is already one’s last line of defence against an assailant.”
. . .
The Candian "stand and fight" doctrine aligns Candian law with English common law and the law of almost every US state - in the home, there is no duty to retreat.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...ong-endorsement-of-the-right-to-self-defence/
SNIP
A jury convicted Forde of manslaughter.
Forde appealed on a variety of grounds, and a trio of Ontario judges concluded that one of them was indeed a serious legal error. During his trial, the Crown had argued that given their agreed-upon physical locations during their fight, it was possible for Forde to turn and flee his apartment without having to pass McNabb. Because Forde was capable of retreating, the Crown argued that the use of deadly force was not an absolute last resort. The use of force against McNabb therefore did not meet the “reasonable” requirement necessary to claim self-defence.
The Ontario Court of Appeals rejected this offering by the Crown, and further stated that the trial judge erred in not instructing both the Crown and the jury that that was not a legitimate legal argument under Canadian law. Citing numerous precedents across Canada and the United States, the three judges ruled that there is **never a requirement for any individual to flee their home** when under attack. The decision to **stand and fight** in one’s own dwelling is entirely permitted under Canadian law and tradition, and the possibility of retreat may not be deemed relevant by a jury when determining whether the force used was reasonable or justified.
In reaching this conclusion, the judges cited (among many others) a prior case in British Columbia in which the judge had declared that, when under attack in your own home, you may stand your ground and fight because “one’s home is already one’s last line of defence against an assailant.”
. . .