| 73Q Music Videos | Vote On Clips | Submit | Login   |

Help keep poeTV running

And please consider not blocking ads here. They help pay for the server. Pennies at a time. Literally.

Comment count is 17
teenage mutant lisa turtle - 2011-07-01

I thought this would be a ban on fisticuffs

Burnov - 2011-07-01

Like this, only worse in Canada.

I'm not joking either, any form of self defense that doesn't involve "reasonable force", which basically means if you're not Brock Lesnar and cannot subdue somebody by giving them a pat on the back, you're likely going to be charged with something even if you were the one being assaulted.

I understand the idea behind firearms as it basically endangers your neighbors and/or passers by if you're shooting frantically at an assailant.

Collateral damage of innocents isn't a good excuse for self defense.

However when the law says you're not allowed to actively prevent somebody from hurting you unless you're literally physically strong enough to subdue the person by your strength only, there's something seriously wrong with the judicial system.

Chancho - 2011-07-01

Nice job with the misleading title.

Violating town ordinance = Self Defense Illegal?

mon666ster - 2011-07-01

What? In Canada getting attacked doesn't give you a license to murder? Barbarians!

Seriously, do I really have to explain to you the concept of "reasonable force" and why you can't just torture and murder someone who points a gun at you? Seriously?

Burnov - 2011-07-01

Reasonable force in Canada operates under the assumption that no human being is any more or less physically capable than another within the context of a physical confrontation.

I'm not referring to firearms, in this context.

I'm talking about being the intended target of physical assault.

Now, I know I'm speaking to the wrong audience here when I discuss experiences with people who engage in random violent attacks, however they're generally not looking to observe Queensbury rules.

That is to say most times the individual who has chosen to assault somebody will do so with the pre conceived notion that they will have a considerable advantage.

That places an innocent civilian in a terribly unfair bind if they're legally required to place their personal safety at extended risk trying to accommodate a law that will work against you if you attempt to subdue an individual as efficiently as possible.

This could be something as simple as being fortunate enough to knock a physically stronger assailant off balance and striking them in the head to knock them out instead of doing something completely retarded such as try to wrestle with the individual and restrain them.

I'm not joking.

Anaxagoras - 2011-07-01

Why would you be joking? That sounds like a very reasonable set of laws. The fact that you assure us repeatedly that "you're not joking" says something very sad about what you think is reasonable.

Burnov - 2011-07-01


In a situation such as this, you'd be charged without question in Canada if the police ever found out.

The only difference from this situation versus the overwhelming majority of physical assaults is the fact that most people aren't martial arts experts and most would be assailants usually hedge their odds with numbers and or weapons.

Oktay - 2011-07-01

Here are a couple of points:

1: I just copy and paste titles. The title might make you think any kind of self defense is illegal in that town, so maybe it is a little misleading. But:

II: City ordinances are law. Violating the law is illegal, it is the definition of illegal. Shooting back when someone shoots at you is self defense. In that instance, in this particular town, self defense is illegal. What am I missing here?

C: There is nothing wrong with *ANYTHING*.


Spoonybard - 2011-07-02

There's nothing wrong with having to go to court for shooting at someone. The court has the option to dismiss the citation and one hopes that it will in this case.

In Canada, you can defend yourself with force sufficient to cause death or grievous bodily harm if you are facing an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm and you believe on reasonable grounds that you can't defend yourself any other way. The law makes no assumptions about everyone being equally good at wrestling and you are an idiot.

memedumpster - 2011-07-02

In Kentucky you can basically shoot someone if they make you feel bad.

Monkey Napoleon - 2011-07-02

I hope they don't dismiss the citation. Escalating a firefight in a residential neighborhood is wildly reckless and irresponsible. If the facts say that it was indeed like he described (meaning he was in actual danger and not just John McClaining it up), then pay the fine and count your lucky stars nobody was hurt.

oddeye - 2011-07-01

This law is bullshit. Everyone should be allowed to carry and discharge any firearm they want whenever they want to. An armed society is a polite society, just like in the old west when everyone was very polite to each other and used "sir" and "mam" and stuff, not like today.

memedumpster - 2011-07-01

Don't forget howdy. They also said howdy, and "fill your hands you sonofabitch with friendship!"

Robin Kestrel - 2011-07-01

What the hell was the man supposed to use? Harsh language?

Hank Friendly - 2011-07-01

according to this video, the guy shooting back would have displayed no less and no more than equal reciprocity of force. Local laws nonwithstanding, if you think he was in the wrong then you are a darwin award waiting to happen.

Anaxagoras - 2011-07-02

Or we're people who think random gunfire & vigilante justice are more harmful than helpful.


oddeye - 2011-07-02

Nothing could go wrong with any suburban commando firing their oversized penis compensators wildly in a populated area.

Register or login To Post a Comment

Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement