A lot of people learn about the legal system from what they see on TV and movies. Since a lot of that content is American, what are some relevant differences that stand out to you?
A lot of people learn about the legal system from what they see on TV and movies. Since a lot of that content is American, what are some relevant differences that stand out to you?
Self defense.
You have a legal obligation to retreat at every opportunity. Self defense is only valid if you’ve exhausted every possible avenue of retreat.
This is to prevent the propagation of violence, and it’s effective, and it’s how self defense laws are in all civilized countries.
Where does the code state that? I’m having trouble finding a legal obligation for retreat.
It’s half and half.
You aren’t obligated to retreat, but every use of force needs to be justifiable at each point. You will be forced to prove you had no other option than force.
And if you look, you’ll find Canada is very picky about that justification.
That’s not wrong, but I feel like people take those kinds of comments to either extreme and tend to skip right over the reasonable middle ground. The thing about force is there’s an expectation that one uses a reasonable level of force to suit the situation, in some cases this can mean use of lethal force, and in other cases this can mean simply removing oneself from the situation. There’s even been weird cases where one party was found to be justified in the use of force, and as the altercation progressed the second party was found to be justified in further use of force against the first party due to the first parties force being excessive for the situation.
The biggest difference between Canada’s self defence regulations and those present in some states is that some states allow certain situations like trespassing or break and enter to be considered enough of a threat to respond with lethal force. Canada’s laws usually require an articulation of an imminent threat.