correct, and this is the standard you will find in most jurisdictions
no, it is generally not defined this way. It’s usually defined using some type of proportionality language, i.e. the force used in defense needs to be proportional to the threat
you’re quoting a statute that actually only allows that if “The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death, serious bodily injury, or grave sexual abuse“, so again, here is the proportionality requirement, not just if you feel “threatened”, unless by that you mean the threat of the above.
And FWIW, the statute also requires that your belief be objective and reasonable.
You’re correct, “minimum force” was my paraphrase of the rule that defensive force must be proportional to the threat and not excessive. This is much more rigidly interpreted in Canada than in the US where in some states you can literally shoot and kill an intruder and get away with it – or, as in the Zimmerman case, even when it’s not an intruder and just a guy on the street.
I’m influenced here by the norms of a civilized society, such as reflected in the laws of a great many countries that are not the US. Note the first paragraph here – this seems to me to be precisely what Ritchson did not do
Protection needs to be your goal, not revenge. If the danger has already passed and you chase after the person, you’ve crossed the line from self-defense to something else entirely. You should think about keeping yourself safe instead of teaching someone a lesson.
The courts normally look at different things in these cases. As a general rule, they see how serious the threat was and what other options you might have had at the time - each situation is different, and what makes sense changes from one case to another. What is "Reasonable Force" Under Canadian Self-Defense Laws? - Byrna Canada
The danger hadn’t passed. It’s not over until the threat is gone or clearly no longer willing to fight. And you’re still not accepting what happens to a human being’s state of mind when they are attacked.
First, while “state of mind” might be a factor entering into a court’s deliberations in a self-defense claim, it has never been – and should never be – an acceptable justification for excessive force. Second, do you seriously believe that this gorilla was in fear of Taylor? I might be wrong but sure seems pretty clear to me that Ritchson’s “state of mind” was pure vengeful rage.
He was attacked by a stranger in front of his kids. Of course he was afraid! Angry too, I’m sure, but that doesn’t negate fear. The force he used was pretty damn minimal. He could have killed the guy, all he did was make damn sure the threat was over.
OK, I’m done here, you guys carry on if you want. I just think there was a whole lot of immature testosterone-fueled unnecessary violence on the part of both assholes, and a terrible example for the kids.
The motorcycle noise was either legal or it wasn’t. If it was legal, suck it up, move, or take it to the city council. If it wasn’t legal, call the police. Taking the law into your own hands is vigilantism, which rarely leads to positive outcomes. But beating up the vigilante just compounds the problem.
I can’t say for sure, but I’m fairly confident that both men would have been charged just for the street brawling, if nothing else, but probably also assault for both of them.
Many years ago an Australian professional boxer ended up in court for hitting 3 guys, putting 2 in hospital with facial fractures.
He had been having lunch with a friend at a quite ritzy hotel in Sydney. As they were leaving he was delayed by someone and his friend continued on. As he caught up to his friend he saw that he was involved in an argument with 3 other guys. As he approached they began to assault his friend so he intervened and struck each of the assailants. Because he was a professional boxer he was charged.
The judge dismissed the charges on the basis that the boxer had shown admirable restraint in striking each of the assailants only a single time.
