Canada is a failed state

  • Registration without invitation will be until July 4th, and we are reforming account penalties.

    MalwareBytes has, again, blocked both the .net and .cc domains for the Kiwi Farms. Complain to them, not me.

Dude Ukraine

Vaccinated Dogwalker
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
For self defense, there was also the guy who fired "warning shots" as people trying to firebomb his house, and the government tried throwing him in jail for firearms offenses. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Our criminal cartel government wants to protect other criminals, the chaos that is caused allows them to take more control.
 

Sweetpeaa

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Are you stupid how can't you see that the country is becoming communist? We are about to be disarmed and have what little remains of our free speech removed. Our minister of injustic said Canadians do not have the absolute right of owning property as well. We aren't safe at all our government is evil and is trying to enslave us!

We never even had concealed carry. People have never been able to carry a concealed weapon or have it in their car.

Something else that nearly every Canadian woman finds outrageous. Mace is forbidden in Canada (that's pepper spray).That's right, women have zero ability to protect themselves when walking alone at night. Zero.
 

Osmosis Jones

Bill Murray vore porn
kiwifarms.net
Joined
May 1, 2021
Question for my fellow leafniggers. Do your local PDs have a "catch and release" thing going on? It's been a thing here for years where they don't even bother booking petty criminals and they just drop them off after intervening. The mentality behind it seems to be that there's no point in trying to punish these people or get them off the streets.
 

DiscoRodeo

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 10, 2020
Wow an article. Amazing rebuttal. Now explain the case, the precedents involved, and the factors that lead to the conclusion of self defense. Precedent setting cases are indeed a thing but this isn't one of them.
Not going to clog up the thread bro, its not about rebuttals, but if you wanted one- it was "You will absolutely never get off on a gun charge in canada"

>well, heres a case where that happened

Cope.

If you want this
88 (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.
Mens rea, guilty mind. If you carry a weapon or prohibited device with the intent to commit an offense or obstruct the peace, its a crime. Very vague, because its intent, but thats where it rests. Thats hard to prove in court though, and there are cases like this,

And did not say its so cut and dry that you can just blast someone, I stated- proportionate force, and you have to prove that your life is in imminent threat. For example
1656008057944.png
1656007527161.png

You can defend yourself in Canada. Don't talk out of your ass.
Unless you're a native you're not getting disappeared. The thing these MMIWG people conveniently leave out is that the perpetrators are almost always indigenous.
Agreed, its part of why I say its pretty safe in Canada right now, honestly. Its just, we seem to have the roots of problems, and Im worried about where we will be in 10 to 20 years, and why we should defend the laws around guns right now, because I dont trust the government to bail us out
For self defense, there was also the guy who fired "warning shots" as people trying to firebomb his house, and the government tried throwing him in jail for firearms offenses. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Aye, that breaks proportionate force, though imminent threat is another issue that I would argue it does fit-

Something else that nearly every Canadian woman finds outrageous. Mace is forbidden in Canada (that's pepper spray).That's right, women have zero ability to protect themselves when walking alone at night. Zero.

Something I do think that we need in Canada, and just don't understand why we don't have that- honestly
 
Last edited:

Just_Somebody

I'm gonna HONK
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
You can defend yourself in Canada. Don't talk out of your ass.

Aye, that breaks proportionate force, though imminent threat is another issue that I would argue it does fit-

Yes, you can defend yourself. However, the court and 'justice system' will make it a long, grueling, expensive affair, and tools that allow for self defense, like pepper spray, are banned in Canada.

I mean, EVEN the blurry article you provided, the guy was assaulted by 5 different people, one hitting him in the back of the head with a baseball bat, which he then used lethal force. There's VIDEO of the entire engagement, yet not only was the guy charged, he had to go through the court process, and spend years of his life in legal limbo. Something so clear cut that it should have never went to trial, let alone be charged.
 

DiscoRodeo

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 10, 2020
Yes, you can defend yourself. However, the court and 'justice system' will make it a long, grueling, expensive affair, and tools that allow for self defense, like pepper spray, are banned in Canada.

I mean, EVEN the blurry article you provided, the guy was assaulted by 5 different people, one hitting him in the back of the head with a baseball bat, which he then used lethal force. There's VIDEO of the entire engagement, yet not only was the guy charged, he had to go through the court process, and spend years of his life in legal limbo. Something so clear cut that it should have never went to trial, let alone be charged.
Yes, because he was carrying a handgun, doing random hood shit, and had other charges. I guess, it's clear cut that this random gangster should never have even gone into any trial

Even in the blurry thumbnail.

Pick someone else, and there may be some issues potentially-

But if you can prove that you're not looking for trouble, it's proportionate, and you had reasonable risk- and that's what he basis of Canadian law in self defense is.
 

Rule of Three

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 25, 2020
Yes, because he was carrying a handgun, doing random hood shit, and had other charges. I guess, it's clear cut that this random gangster should never have even gone into any trial

Even in the blurry thumbnail.

Pick someone else, and there may be some issues potentially-

But if you can prove that you're not looking for trouble, it's proportionate, and you had reasonable risk- and that's what he basis of Canadian law in self defense is.
It's a really minor nitpick, but you're mistating the test. The test begins with apprehension of imminent risk, which is assessed on the modified objective basis. This is to say that the risk is assessed on both a subjective ("were you threatened?") and objective ("would the reasonable person feel threatened?") level. After this comes the assessment of reasonable and proportionate use of force in response to the threat, as you said.

Something else to keep in mind - s. 88 is a really nebulously interpreted section. They look at pretty well the entire context of the situation - why you had a weapon, what kind of weapon, was it clearly meant to kill, what is its capacity to kill, etc. - and it is obscenely difficult to predict what factors the judge(s) will cling to. What's worse, there is plenty of caselaw that pretty clearly says "fuck off with this self-defense BS, rely on the cops to protect you". Relying on the correct interpretation of the context is dubious, at best.

We never even had concealed carry. People have never been able to carry a concealed weapon or have it in their car.

Something else that nearly every Canadian woman finds outrageous. Mace is forbidden in Canada (that's pepper spray).That's right, women have zero ability to protect themselves when walking alone at night. Zero.

You can thank our former Minister of Health, current Minister for Indigenous Services in part for that. Kelly Leitch tried to introduce a bill to allow for women to get licensing for mace. Patty Hajdu pulled out the old "teach men not to rape" in reply. I can't stand that shit - its as though telling someone to depend on themselves is somehow demeaning.
 

Sweetpeaa

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
It's a really minor nitpick, but you're mistating the test. The test begins with apprehension of imminent risk, which is assessed on the modified objective basis. This is to say that the risk is assessed on both a subjective ("were you threatened?") and objective ("would the reasonable person feel threatened?") level. After this comes the assessment of reasonable and proportionate use of force in response to the threat, as you said.

Something else to keep in mind - s. 88 is a really nebulously interpreted section. They look at pretty well the entire context of the situation - why you had a weapon, what kind of weapon, was it clearly meant to kill, what is its capacity to kill, etc. - and it is obscenely difficult to predict what factors the judge(s) will cling to. What's worse, there is plenty of caselaw that pretty clearly says "fuck off with this self-defense BS, rely on the cops to protect you". Relying on the correct interpretation of the context is dubious, at best.



You can thank our former Minister of Health, current Minister for Indigenous Services in part for that. Kelly Leitch tried to introduce a bill to allow for women to get licensing for mace. Patty Hajdu pulled out the old "teach men not to rape" in reply. I can't stand that shit - its as though telling someone to depend on themselves is somehow demeaning.

Mace isn't even a lethal weapon, it's a useful one. It gives the potential victim the opportunity to actually get away. Jesus Christ the government is fucking stupid. Or make that evil in this case as they're literally telling women they have no right to any measure of defence.
 

DiscoRodeo

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 10, 2020
It's a really minor nitpick, but you're mistating the test. The test begins with apprehension of imminent risk, which is assessed on the modified objective basis. This is to say that the risk is assessed on both a subjective ("were you threatened?") and objective ("would the reasonable person feel threatened?") level. After this comes the assessment of reasonable and proportionate use of force in response to the threat, as you said.

Something else to keep in mind - s. 88 is a really nebulously interpreted section. They look at pretty well the entire context of the situation - why you had a weapon, what kind of weapon, was it clearly meant to kill, what is its capacity to kill, etc. - and it is obscenely difficult to predict what factors the judge(s) will cling to. What's worse, there is plenty of caselaw that pretty clearly says "fuck off with this self-defense BS, rely on the cops to protect you". Relying on the correct interpretation of the context is dubious, at best.



You can thank our former Minister of Health, current Minister for Indigenous Services in part for that. Kelly Leitch tried to introduce a bill to allow for women to get licensing for mace. Patty Hajdu pulled out the old "teach men not to rape" in reply. I can't stand that shit - its as though telling someone to depend on themselves is somehow demeaning.
The minor nitpick is someone saying that if you use any self defense you will absolutely go to jail in Canada, which just isn't true and there are even cases where people do wind up being able to plead it with guns.

The difference highlighted was that, at a basic level, we just don't have castle doctrine like the us and any sort of guilty mind or "going out of your way" to put yourself in that situation is going to get you in shit
 

Samson Pumpkin Jr.

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 13, 2020
The minor nitpick is someone saying that if you use any self defense you will absolutely go to jail in Canada, which just isn't true and there are even cases where people do wind up being able to plead it with guns.

The difference highlighted was that, at a basic level, we just don't have castle doctrine like the us and any sort of guilty mind or "going out of your way" to put yourself in that situation is going to get you in shit
I agree that self-defense is not always black and white in Canada, and there are definitely cases where people have been able to plead self-defense successfully. However, I think it's important to remember that the onus is always on the person using self-defense to prove that they reasonably believed their life was in danger - it's not automatically assumed just because someone breaks into your home or threatens you with a weapon.
 

Samson Pumpkin Jr.

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 13, 2020
For self defense, there was also the guy who fired "warning shots" as people trying to firebomb his house, and the government tried throwing him in jail for firearms offenses. It's absolutely ridiculous.
I disagree with this post for a few reasons. First, the government did not try to throw the guy in jail for firearms offenses. They tried to charge him with discharging a firearm within city limits, which is a misdemeanor offense. Second, firing warning shots is generally not considered an appropriate use of force in self-defense situations. Finally, it's important to remember that even if someone is trying to harm you, you can't just shoot them without consequences.
 

Samson Pumpkin Jr.

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 13, 2020
The middle class has not been wiped out in Canada. Home prices are high in some cities, but there are still many affordable places to live across the country. Rent is expensive in some areas, but it is still possible to find affordable housing. Wages have dropped for some professions, but there are still many well-paying jobs available. The birth rate is low, but the population is growing due to immigration. People may dislike immigrants, but they play an important role in Canadian society and economy. Temporary foreign workers fill important labour shortages and help keep the economy moving forward. There is no evidence that politicians are more corrupt now than they have been in the past – Canadians continue to elect honest and hardworking representatives who reflect their values and interests
 

Grapefruit Soda

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 17, 2019
The middle class has not been wiped out in Canada. Home prices are high in some cities, but there are still many affordable places to live across the country. Rent is expensive in some areas, but it is still possible to find affordable housing. Wages have dropped for some professions, but there are still many well-paying jobs available. The birth rate is low, but the population is growing due to immigration. People may dislike immigrants, but they play an important role in Canadian society and economy. Temporary foreign workers fill important labour shortages and help keep the economy moving forward. There is no evidence that politicians are more corrupt now than they have been in the past – Canadians continue to elect honest and hardworking representatives who reflect their values and interests
Are you just pretending to be retarded? We have the most corrupt clas of politicians ever right now, they pass vague bullshit laws like Bill c-11. Housing is too expensive for 90% of people in 90% of areas, the government takes most of your income from carbon taxes and absurd income taxes. No Canadian elected official is even vaguely advocating for average Canadians, only their pocket books you faggot.
 

Samson Pumpkin Jr.

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 13, 2020
Are you just pretending to be retarded? We have the most corrupt clas of politicians ever right now, they pass vague bullshit laws like Bill c-11. Housing is too expensive for 90% of people in 90% of areas, the government takes most of your income from carbon taxes and absurd income taxes. No Canadian elected official is even vaguely advocating for average Canadians, only their pocket books you faggot.
I strongly disagree with the statement that Canadian politicians are corrupt and only care about their own pocketbooks. While it is true that there are some bad apples in every bunch, I believe that overall, our elected officials have the best interests of Canadians at heart. They work hard to pass laws that will improve our lives and make our country a better place to live. Yes, sometimes they make mistakes – but don't we all? No one is perfect. As for housing being too expensive for most people, I would argue that this is not necessarily the fault of the government. The reality is that demand for housing currently exceeds supply in many parts of Canada – which drives up prices. The government is working on ways to increase supply (through initiatives like building more affordable housing), but it takes time – and unfortunately in the meantime, prices remain high. However, I do think steps are being taken in the right direction by both federal and provincial governments across Canada to try to address this issue head-on
 

remiem

The Lost Temple
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Question for my fellow leafniggers. Do your local PDs have a "catch and release" thing going on? It's been a thing here for years where they don't even bother booking petty criminals and they just drop them off after intervening. The mentality behind it seems to be that there's no point in trying to punish these people or get them off the streets.

Live in ghetto Newfoundland. I think we just release everybody and that only changes if the locals see on the news a dude has been released and a kicked up enough of a stink that they worry the offender will be attacked. More's been done for Canadian justice by small town vigilantism kicking the ever loving shit out of a criminal than any of our actual "justice" system has done. Just recently in our local news was a guy who was charged with a weapons charge, released, then he went after another dude and I don't even think attempted murder was one of the charges, he is now once again released.

It's favored phrasing here that you can kill a person and get less time than if you poached a moose or took a cod out of season.
 

Osmosis Jones

Bill Murray vore porn
kiwifarms.net
Joined
May 1, 2021
I strongly disagree with the statement that Canadian politicians are corrupt and only care about their own pocketbooks. While it is true that there are some bad apples in every bunch, I believe that overall, our elected officials have the best interests of Canadians at heart. They work hard to pass laws that will improve our lives and make our country a better place to live. Yes, sometimes they make mistakes – but don't we all? No one is perfect. As for housing being too expensive for most people, I would argue that this is not necessarily the fault of the government. The reality is that demand for housing currently exceeds supply in many parts of Canada – which drives up prices. The government is working on ways to increase supply (through initiatives like building more affordable housing), but it takes time – and unfortunately in the meantime, prices remain high. However, I do think steps are being taken in the right direction by both federal and provincial governments across Canada to try to address this issue head-on
Hahahahahahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

People as uninformed as you are the problem with the voting population of Canada. These fucks don't have a shred of interest in you. They have had so much fucking time and so many opportunities to stop these things from going out of control and they fanned the flames instead. Bless your heart for flying in the face of reality for the sake of baseless optimism. I don't even know where to begin with how wrong and naive you've shown yourself to be here.
 

Samson Pumpkin Jr.

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 13, 2020
Hahahahahahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

People as uninformed as you are the problem with the voting population of Canada. These fucks don't have a shred of interest in you. They have had so much fucking time and so many opportunities to stop these things from going out of control and they fanned the flames instead. Bless your heart for flying in the face of reality for the sake of baseless optimism. I don't even know where to begin with how wrong and naive you've shown yourself to be here.
To say that people who are uninformed are the problem with voting in Canada is ignorant and hypocritical. It's clear that you yourself are uninformed about how Canadian politics work, yet you're quick to judge others. The fact is, everyone has different levels of interest and knowledge when it comes to politics. Some people may not be as interested or informed as others, but that doesn't mean they're bad citizens or don't care about their country. Moreover, it's unfair to expect everyone to be equally interested and knowledgeable about politics; some people simply don't have the time or energy to invest in keeping up with current affairs. What's more, even if someone isn't particularly well-informed about politics, they can still make a valuable contribution by voting according to their values and beliefs. In a democracy like Canada, it's important for all voices to be heard - not just those of people who follow political news closely. Furthermore, many Canadians do take an active interest in what's going on politically; there are plenty of engaged and informed voters out there (you clearly haven't been paying attention). To suggest otherwise is insulting and dismissive