31 Replies to “Be Careful Who You Pull A Knife On”

  1. Back when I was in high school, one of bullies picked a fight with a short, innocuous-looking guy at the local MacDonalds. It turned out the innocuous-looking guy had just completed Marine bootcamp. Needless to say…

  2. In Kanadar you would be charged for doing what this guy did (defend your property and stop a fleeing felon with a weapon)….you WILL be charged with criminal assault and weapons charges if you persue a criminal who has robbed you ( yes even at knife point) there have been ample memos to the police function and crown attorney’s office that explicity state the feds want civilian victims charged in these situations where they defend property with force of arms ( a weapon).
    Dunno maybe it has something to do with the socialist contempt for private property and individual security but the justification given is that the injury to a robber ( armed or not)doled out while defending private property does not justify violent intervention by a civilian…particularly if he is fleeing from that crime…guess it matters who’s loot is being stolen because I see lots of private armed guards picking up GST cash from retail and banks.

  3. I was just checking and I noted that on my car the antenna is built into the glass. In fact most of the cars I see lately are this way.
    Should I break the glass if I need to defend myself?
    Is there really a useful weapon inside that glass?
    Jeez, I think it would be a lot better is we were simply allowed to arm ourselves in this time of lawlessness and state impotence.
    I am aware that it is far more terrible if you harm someone in self-defense than if you harm someone in a premeditated fashion. The later action will get you retraining, grants and forgiveness. Self defense will get you a jail cell and major law suite from the so-called victim.
    In Canada bad is good … good is bad.

  5. A car antenna is good. However, if another weapon does not offer itself, a belt can be very effective. (Cowboys obviously have an advantage here.)
    I would double the belt even though it would diminish the distance at which I could keep the attacker. I would use a figure-8 movement with the belt that would allow me, for example, to make a forearm strike at the knife followed immediately by a backhand strike at the eyes. If vision was neutralized, I would probably try to kick his knees out from under him and go after the eyes, throat and groin at the same time, as it is very hard to defend multiple targets ranging over the body simultaneously.
    If the knife man is really relentlessly out to hurt you rather than threaten, you’re going to have to condition yourself to the idea that it will be necessary to fight even though you are cut or stabbed. Under those circumstances I might actually grab the knife blade with one hand, sustaining a wound to my hand and try to drive fingers of my other hand into the attacker’s eyeballs.
    Obviously, it’s a dirty business.

  6. Another possibility when confronted is to immediately ask yourself, what would Pierre Pettigrew do in a case like this?
    1) In French, rapidly explain your passion for multicultural necessity in the Third World as well as the First World.
    2) Explain that you are offended on behalf of your government and personally want him to be completely aware of the fact that you have shared nights of passion with people of his color (noir, blanc, brun ou jaune).
    3) Hold up a bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothchild and explain que c’est un tresor national, and that an attempt to disturb the veracity of the bouquet would be considered an affront to the very vintage itself.
    (For further info, see my post down the page on Driving Miss Pettigrew.)

  7. Greg said: “A car antenna is good. However, if another weapon does not offer itself, a belt can be very effective. (Cowboys obviously have an advantage here.)”
    Better check the new firearms act regulatory schedule first…some types of belts and jewelry have been outlawed as “prohibited weapons” under the authority of arbitry weapons banning in the Libera;’s firearms act.
    Please check with Nanny to see if that belt or jewelry are legal to wear…..you could be looking at a criminal record for picking the wrong belt and buckle or the wrong jewelry and grooming aids.( the aluminum rat tailed comb has been outlawed as a prohibited weapon as well)…check with nanny first! 😉

  8. When your life or someone else’s life is threatened, folks, forget about the state. They’re not doing their job of protecting you by keeping the murderous scumbags in prison or in a six foot hole in the ground.
    I wouldn’t worry about the legal consequences of doing to my attacker whatever is necessary to protect myself or another. If the “liberal” justice system then goes after me for whatever I do to the worthless turd in the act of defence, then they’ll be making a political martyr out of me. Why, if it’s okay for a woman to cut off her hubby’s willy and then claim abuse and get off scott-free, why the hell then can’t we legally defend our or others’ lives with brutal violence?
    Because “liberals”, including those who currently hold power in Canada, are immensely stupid, illogical and myopic. No wonder they don’t want to offend the terrorists by going directly to war against them anywhere (except Afghanistan, but the Liberals must’ve found polling data indicating they’d better get involved THERE, if not in Iraq or even in the Homeland itself).
    Another critical reason to boot each and every Librano mobster out of his/her seat in the House this coming election. No more soup for them!
    Unite and defeat the phony “liberals”. Focus on the goal at hand all together now.
    And heaven forbid anyone should attempt to swipe my Kodak…
    http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com

  9. A car antenna – that’s quick thinking … good to know … though I gotta admit I’d be pissed if it were my car he ripped the antenna off – but I have one of those cars that has the antenna built into the glass so no worries, assuming I’m not at my car when the attacker strikes.

  10. My jeep has an ouside cowl mounted antenna. Anyone near my jeep who is about to suffer attack is welcome to the antenna. It can be replaced.
    Every SDA reader is a little better off knowing the advantage provided by an auto antenna. Excellent, useful post. ‘3s TG

  11. Potential Political Martyr:
    You have the right of self defense. You also have the right to defend your property if you use only enough force to do the job. Anyone laying hands on your stuff can be charged with assault.
    Whatever makes sense to you to defend and pay for, this could get expensive if you beat the fuck out of the guy. I’ve worked in criminal and youth justice for years and this whole defense of property section has been confusing and inconsistent forever. One part says you can use as much force as is necessary and another no more force than is necessary.
    Maybe the confused law will be cleaned up, but I don’t see any government of lawyers conservative or liberal allowing force authority to be widely interpreted.

  12. Knife? Scimitar n : a curved oriental saber; the edge is on the convex side of the blade>>>
    Would Islamic murderers find a scimitar for this traitor’s neck? On his knees? “But, I am your friend/ally. My name is Geo….>>>”.
    British MP Galloway: Canada complicit in Iraq war
    Posted by Clive
    On 09/17/2005 2:41:54 PM PDT � 13 replies � 162+ views
    Canadian Press via Sun Media ^ | 2005-09-17
    MISSISSAUGA, Ont. (CP) – Despite its refusal to fight in Iraq, Canada is complicit in the United States’ war against terrorism and should withdraw from Afghanistan, an outspoken left-wing British MP said Saturday. George Galloway was given a standing ovation before and after he spoke at the 6th annual conference of the Islamic Circle of North America and the Muslim Association of Canada. Galloway is known for his vocal criticism of the war in Iraq and of leaders George W. Bush and Tony Blair. He says Canada may not be fighting in Iraq, but it is doing the dirty work..more>>>
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1486526/posts

  13. Steve, you’re right. Use of force as necessary is allowed under the law, or is it? Notwithstanding, the “progressive” “liberal” “justice” system won’t necessarily care a whit about what the law says. They seem too often to favor the criminal rather than the victim. The criminal, btw, is the one who started the whole incident, not the one who puts a stop to it, but liberals don’t get that, unfortunately. Time to put in real judges who’ll simply do their job and nothing else! No social activism! Leave that to Svend “Diamonds” Robinson and the Raging Fool Grannies.
    We can’t trust a system that lets the Al Qaeda Khadrs walk freely among us, protected by an imaginary force field of incredibly misguided “progressive” “liberal” “multicultural” political correctness. The system is broken and must be overhauled. Can’t drive well when half the cylinders have gone dead, right?
    I wish the state had the sense to make bad people feel bad about doing bad things, but the state has been demonstrated as having done bad things, therefore it’s no huge surprise they feel some kind of brotherhood with baddies of all kinds. After all, how’d THEY like to be made to feel bad for doing bad?
    Professional courtesy, perhaps?

  14. Is there a trick to quickly breaking off an antenna?
    If I thought I was strong enough to quickly break one off I’d probably also figure that it was surplus to my requirements.
    It’s supposed to be overcast and dark tonight. Maybe I should practice the quick antennae removal on my neighbours car down the street. The one that walks his dog down to my place to crap on the lawn ( the dog not him).
    Kidding, just kidding 😉

  15. Steve,
    “You have the right of self defense. You also have the right to defend your property if you use only enough force to do the job. Anyone laying hands on your stuff can be charged with assault.”
    Maybe they can be charged with theft or attempted theft but certainly not assault unless you are physically assaulted. But you are right about defending yourself or your property as long as you only use as much force as is reasonably necessary. It is up to a court to decide that. I think that there is still some common sense used in our judicial system in this regard.
    By the way, way off topic, but speaking of common sense has anyone heard that our federal ethics commissioner apparently gave an interview to some news agency this week in which he stated the Adscam was “an exceptional example of entrepeneurship or an exceptional example of theft”. My head just about exploded when I heard this on “Money talks” with Micheal Campell this morning. An exceptional example of entrepeneurship!! This is our federal ethics commissioner stating that millions upon millions of dollars of tax payers money was stolen and handed under tables in paper bags and eventually made its way back the corrupt Liberal party and this could “An exceptional example of entrepeneurship”. HE IS OUR ETHICS COMMISSIONER FOR CHRIST’S SAKE!! It’s beyond my ability to express my feelings about that statement. This country is way worse off than I believed if in fact he made that statement.
    Has anyone else heard anything about this? Our MSM, who should be all over this like ugly on an ape are, of course, mum that I can find.

  16. Enter the blognet, Cowboy 55. I have a feeling someone of us will look into this thing wrt the Ethics Commissioner and perhaps find something damning. I don’t see much diff between, what’s his name, Shapiro, and Howie Wilson, the guy who gets red-faced when asked a serious q. re. ethical behavior of Libranos. I’ve seen virtually no reason to believe this latest EC will be of any use to us. What’s he done, anyway? Why, with those Ottawa bums ruling so illegitimately, he should be working as hard as some are in the blognet (for no money, btw) and producing results as often. But nooooo.
    If the EC can dismiss government abuse of the people’s money and trust, as we’ve seen earlier this year, as “entrepreneurship”, then, whoa, by the laws of common sense, he should step down. Hmm. The Mafia also believes that some of its businesses are “legitimate”, regardless of what the law says. They’re “legitimate businessmen”, suuuuure. And the Libranos are just trying to “save the country”, suuuuuure. From whom, Jacques Parizeau and Michaelle Jean? I’m sooo shaking at the thought of them, right. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda terrorists are allowed to walk openly among us, casually ignoring media cameras, and there’s so precious little outrage…
    I keep an eye on the government’s, the media’s and the left’s slip-ups and cover-ups whenever I can and talk about this kind of stuff on my site:
    http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com

  17. saturday, september 17, 2005
    Breaking: Possible SAM Attack Against US Plane
    I�ve just received a credible tip from an LGF reader that an America West flight out of New York was fired upon by a surface to air missile yesterday, and that the pilot and passengers witnessed it and are now being questioned by the FAA and FBI.
    That�s the extent of the information I currently have, and please note: right now this is completely unverified.>>>>>>> LGF

  18. Comparing the difference in responses from the Brits, (go and visit the kid in jail and apologize for beating him), and the American responses, (way to go)- consider this: You might not be the first person the perp has pulled a weapon on, and nor is the beating laid on him going to prevent him from doing it again, (most of these vermin are repeat offenders).

  19. Huh. This sounds like even more fun than the time when a drunk native tried to mug me for my digital camera back in Edmonton. He got to find out just how heavy and sturdy the Slik 322 AF tripod is. It made a satisfying sound as it bounced off his skull.

  20. Great story!
    Reminds me of when I was a young kid (around 12 or so). A friend of mine and I were outside a restaurant that joined onto a credit union with a little covered hallway. A much older teenager walked passed us and my friend made a rather stupid comment – “come here and I’ll slit your gills.” To this day, I don’t know why he said this, but the older teen decided to take him up on his offer and spent considerable time slapping both us around. At one point he had me pinned up against the wall as a credit union customer came past us to his car. He saw what was going on and came back and asked what was going on.
    This broke the teen’s focus on me and as he turned toward this adult, I wound up and punched him square in the face with as much force as I could muster. It was enough to stagger him, and he kind of lost interest in us and left. The adult checked to see if we were OK and then we all left the area.
    In Kanada, this guys actions would be legal. What he was doing was NOT self defence, it was a citizens arrest, and he is allowed to use as much force as needed to prevent the perp from escaping. He had witnessed a crime and gave pursuit. He caught him, and we can assume that the perp was handed over to the police at the first opportunity.

  22. Cowboy55, That was priceless!
    These things that Libscammers say like;
    *an exceptional example of entrpeneurship or an exceptional example of theft*,
    just slips by the Majority of Canadians , … eh?
    I just had to copy, past and print that out.
    Martin promised to install Audit and control for each seperate ministry and department of government, during his televised *please trust me* speech.
    Everybody seems to have glazed over by the time he said that. No one I talk to remembers it. The promised step would greatly tighten up cost control. Martin should know. That’s how they got away with so much for so long.
    Ethics commissioner Shapiro does a lot of
    tough talk like slamming PMO chief Murphy due to Grewal Tapped evidence, proven to be true by an expert.
    National Post Fri. June 03,05 page A6.
    Tough empty talk is all it is. All the ranting he does in the Post is long forgotten. Big picture of him there and he looks as though he just awoke from an office siesta.
    I couldn’t do Shapiro’s job. Sit around waiting to do the odd interview. Express a little indigantion during an interview and then back into idle until the next media meet. It’s called running interferance for * The boys *.
    Truth is stranger than fiction eh? Who would guess that an ethics commissioner would ever say those words to describe Adscam?
    Kick me; This can’t be real. 73s TG

  23. It’s real. Get used to it, people, and remember it in the voting booth in 2006.
    Say no to organized crime and terrorists’ friends ruling over us all. Say no to “Liberal” values. Be part of the slowly-building tsunami coming to wash away the garbage so long allowed to pile up and stink to high heaven…

  24. Plagarism

    Like the title says. It is a good Sunday morning read. Desert Cat offers this Monkey Business Let me get this straight, I am suppossed to mortgage my house to send my kids HERE? SDA offers Whip it! Whip Him…

  25. Canadian sentinal said: ” I wouldn’t worry about the legal consequences of doing to my attacker whatever is necessary to protect myself or another. If the “liberal” justice system then goes after me for whatever I do to the worthless turd in the act of defence, then they’ll be making a political martyr out of me. ”
    The old saw about “better to be judged by 12 than carried by six” does not hold true in Cabada any longer. Aside from the fact many justice ministers have been passing regulation and planned legislation to slowly disempower juries, there is a movement afoot in the Justice department that wants to do away with peer judgement all together.
    Then there is the “judas swithch” in the firearms act which states that any firearms charge can be proceded with by either tribunal or summary. Both processes remove the jury from a weapons trial.

  26. Plagarism

    Like the title says. It is a good Sunday morning read. Desert Cat offers this Monkey Business Let me get this straight, I am suppossed to mortgage my house to send my kids HERE? SDA offers Whip it! Whip Him…

  27. WLM Redux, thanx for your input. As always, it helps us non-lawyers a lot.
    For the record, I was naturally speaking hypothetically. Truth be told, I completely abhor violence, but if someone hijacks the plane I’m on or the car I’m driving or tries to mug or otherwise harm or kill me or another innocent, then to hell with the justice system- I will defend me and mine with necessary force given the circumstances.
    If the “Liberal” justice “system”, as it stands today, fails to see the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, then it’s due for a complete replacement to bring it back in line with the BNA Act and the original intent of the Charter, however imperfect and contradictory it may be. It’s still ours, and does have many very desirable elements.
    First, we must get rid of the Libmob and place our trust in the Conservatives and Stephen Harper, quite possibly the best hope for the future of Canada. If we fail, well, at least I will know I did my part and tried…
    What about you, my fellow Canadians? Are you doing your duty for your country and your people, or do you simply slavishly syncophate for the money and peer approval to which you’re addicted, notwithstanding the reality that no amount of money, however useful it certainly is, will ever by itself guarantee a good life or happiness?
    BTW, “Willie”, my friend, please feel welcome at my site anytime. 😉
    http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com

  28. Dreamin� Steve sez: “:Potential Political Martyr:
    You have the right of self defense. You also have the right to defend your property if you use only enough force to do the job. Anyone laying hands on your stuff can be charged with assault”
    Hmmmm got any basis in case precedent for that broad and anti-pragmatic dictum on functional Canadian jurisprudence? Nawww didn�t think so. Normally I see only the very na�ve utopians with the arrogance of the ignorant to contend he knows what a Judge and prosecutor think or will do on any case. Certainly no criminal lawyer, or anyone involve in an armed self defense case who has been ground through the system, would attempt to tell us with this degree of certainty what the bench will do on any given day. Indicates to me someone who has never been near the Canadian justice system or the criminal code or had to defend themselves against first a criminal then the state. Perhaps you confuse reruns of CBC�s �Wojeck� ( the great defender of Trudeaupia�s just society) with the output of the criminal law courts ;-).
    Never have you seen me say there was NO right to self defense. We have it amply documented in the Canadian Criminal Code as per sections (25-31 and 34-42) and confirmed ( vaguely) in Charter section 7. so �it is written that we have self defense rights�but they are extremely limited by judicial interpretation ( as expressed in charter section 1) Now� if you had not hidden your eyes behind utopian pink shades, you would have seen that I had alluded to the fact, in case law which shows, that for all practical purposes the �interpretive� power left to the crown and bench to determine what is �reasonable� or �necessary� civilian defensive force, and what constitutes criminal �provocation�, has rendered the armed self defense rights so highly restricted by judicial reinterpretatons (based in policy) that it no longer exists in any practical, meaningful way.
    Understand also as you read through the criminal code restrictions on the defense of property and person that the crown has a problem with the exercise of right of self defense when it happens anywhere outside the prescribed locale of one�s own domicile�..in other words criminal code self defense rights are tailored to be exercised in one�s home defending oneself and one�s property against unprovoked potentially fatal criminal trespass of the home�this goes back to the old English legal axiom that a civilians home is his castle. Exercising Canada�s flimsy CCC self defense rights off your own premises, particularly with a weapon of any sort, is deemed to show a mindset of pre disposition to violence� bringing into question if you provoked the incident with the presence of a weapon�.I have seen the crown say this of those who defended themselves with tasers, mace or a pocket or belt knife that they carry in public for their own defense. I have seen many cases where customs/police officers stop a car find a lawful, legally owned knife and when they ask what the purpose is for the knife, if you reply �self defense� they will confiscate it on the spot as this is not a legally justified reason for the possession of a knife or a firearm in Canadian statute law.
    Please read the criminal code’s section 38(1) which forbids the use of force in protecting property from property trespass.
    Property defense in right of claim has a little rider on your right to the use of force in property defense� as do all the self defense sections of the CCC…the matter of reasonable and necessary force are introduced (which is undefined in the code)….this is judged on a case to case basis and the official memo to law enforcement is to charge ALL defenders and let the court determine if it was justified…so no matter what the circumstance, if you defend yourself or property with force and particularly a weapon you WILL be charged. (a weapon is legally defined anything from a rock to a rat tailed comb to a car antenna that can be used to inflict injury).
    Add to this the fact that the bench has a displayed politically correct policy agenda (they call it judicial precedent or the doctrine of judicial convention) which has low tolerance for armed self defense by a civilian. I have enough of these self-defense cases on file to state that in the case of this fellow using an antenna to subdue a fleeing armed thief, in Canada he would be branded a “vigilante” by the crown and bench alike and see conviction on assault and weapons charges. The though of actually dealing violence out to a petty thief ( in defiance of the state�s accepted claim on a monopoly of defensive force� and by a common vulgar plebeian to boot) is as bad as assaulting to a law abiding citizen in this elitist judicial mindset.
    The common trend in Canadian law enforcement where armed (and anything that can be used as a weapon from a rock to a knitting needle is legally defined as a weapon making you “armed” if you use it in defense) civilian defense is concerned is to charge anyone engaged in armed defense with a minimum of armed assault or weapons charges…just to get the case to trial. But the real reason is to discourage civilian self defense�.as Senator Sharon Carstairs stated : it�s all part of the re engineering of Canadian society into acceptable passivity�.
    In Alberta the one case that displays the government’s misdirected vigilantism crusade, is a 6 year old case where a 78 year old crippled veteran confronted 2 armed punks who were robbing his trailer….he subdued them both with his walking cane well enough that they were incapacitated long enough for him to get their ID from their wallets and phone 911…… when the Lethbridge k division Mounties got there the punks were weeping and licking their wounds. The veteran/victim was charged with weapons offenses and assault. He was convicted and given a conditional suspended sentence….the robber punks appeared as witnesses for the crown. The condition of suspension was that the old vet surrenders all his firearms to police for destruction even though he had the opportunity to use them for defense both chose to tackle the defense physically and with his cane. During the proceedings the crown attorney referred to the victim/vet as a “vigilante” several time and in sentencing the bench cautioned civilians about succumbing to the impulses of “vigilante justice”. In my mind this said it all…it’s a statement of how the law system views civilians defending themselves and it’s irrational fears of the armed civilian. When a judiciary equate armed intervention by a civilian in the absence of police as “vigilantism” we have a fundamental break down in the function of the law and the justice system…what this vet got ( and thousands of Canadians like him) was not “justice” but the enforcement of unwritten politically motivated policy. Law without justice is tyranny….for the state to claim a monopoly on the use of defensive force then deny it, in any real practical sense, to civilians is injustice.
    Sorry for the long post Kate but it really pisses me off when no-minds think the charter or criminal code work as advertised�that is self abusive idealism.

  29. Redux, You sure dig up the examples, don’t you? I knew the law was sticky on self-defense and excessive force, but this is way bayond what the intent of law was meant to be by those who drafted it.
    Too many disgraces going on in Canada these days to even begin to count. ‘3s TG

  30. Thanx again, WLMR. This I find immensely helpful and enlightening as to the political-judicial connection of which I have spoken before, albeit perhaps not as the “Sentinel”.
    I’m actually shocked that we’ve no right to protection of property via force. Reminds me of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s experiences when he first arrived in the US. He was doing bricklaying contracting work for a client and decided to secure the client’s premises by placing broken glass upon the top of the brick wall surrounding the property. Later, an intruder was injured by the glass and legal difficulties ensued. Boy, was Arnie ever surprised. Sooo different than in Austria, where, apparently, people have more rights to security of person and property. This infuriates me as I personally have been a victim of property crimes (at least two broken windows and a stolen car cover) as have many of my neighbors with multiple break-ins and thefts. Not to mention an attempted break-in at my place of employ.
    It’s indeed infuriating to hear the state claim that it and only it is permitted to protect persons and their property when municipalities, provinces and the feds refuse to provide adequate protection for citizens via police forces, claiming lack of funding (sure, and they use OUR money instead for guaranteeing doomed loans for silly parades etc.).
    When the state fails in its duty, yet forbids citizens’ self-sufficiency and self-defence, then the snowball begins rolling downhill towards some kind of rebellion, be it at the polling booth or wherever. Stealing our money, running up continuously ballooning surpluses, wasting and giving away to friends the whole lot, claiming poverty of the treasury and all the while imposing their phony “values” upon us, creating a nation of somewhat comfortable slaves, the state is oh, so ever asking for, at the very least, the extinction of the current ruling party, the Liberal Party of Canada, whose time is very near. Nothing lasts forever.
    Scary stuff, indeed. But that’s the Liberal Party of Canada. Never forget what you’ve learned from the testimony of the Gomery Inquiry into gov’t corruption and criminality. Wake up, Canada, and smell the coffee!
    http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com

  31. In some of the instances cited above, the Gov and the criminals essentially tag-teamed against any honest citizen who exhibited the temerity to commit the heinous crime of defense of self and property. Is there any further proof needed of the boundless evil of this regime? The government has assumed a de facto “co-predator” status with the criminal element that also preys on honest people. I hope they get the “eternal reward” they all so richly deserve in the afterlife.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation