Self-Defence Win: B.C. Prosecutors Say Man Shooting Aggressor Was ‘Reasonable’
TheGunBlog.ca — The British Columbia Prosecution Service (BCPS) dropped charges against a man who shot an aggressor, Canada’s newest legal decision supporting the use of guns and ammo for self-defence.
Shooting Was ‘Reasonable in the Circumstances’
- Even though the accused had his rifle and ammunition illegally, the prosecutors concluded that the armed counter-attack near a homeless camp in Nanaimo in March “was reasonable in the circumstances,” they said yesterday in a statement.
- The accused and another man at the camp “were legally entitled to defend themselves from the continuing attack,” BCPS said.
- “The BCPS is not able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused committed any offence in relation to the incident and the charge has been stayed,” the prosecutors said.
Why It Matters
- It’s a new win for gun rights in Canada, as the latest victory for gun owners under Criminal Code Section 34 on “the use or threat of force” for defence.
- It’s the newest legal decision recognizing the use of force for self-defence in general.
- It’s the newest legal decision recognizing the use of guns and ammo for personal protection in a complex case where the defender possessed his gear unlawfully.
- The BCPS statement is written in plain English and shows how prosecutors analyze such cases.
- Note: TheGunBlog.ca is looking at the BCPS decision only for its significance to gun rights.
- We’re ignoring the major issues of social decay (poverty, homelessness, lawlessness, …), institutional decay (broken police and legal systems, rising vigilante justice), and vigilante tactics. (Top 2 Rules for Vigilantes: 1: Don’t get shot. 2: Don’t get caught.).
More Details and Context
From the BCPS statement:
- A business owner and several of his associates armed themselves with sticks and metal batons to retrieve stolen items near the homeless camp.
- They got into a fight with several campers.
- The businessman was shot in the stomach with what is believed to be a .22-calibre bullet.
- Video shows the accused pointing a .22-calibre rifle at the business owner as the businessman beats a camper in the head with a collapsible baton.
- The accused was charged under Criminal Code Section 87(1), “Pointing a firearm.”
- Police recommended charging him with several other firearm-related offences, which the BCPS rejected without a complete investigation.
BCPS Statement Excerpts
Source: British Columbia Prosecution Service, Statement (PDF), 19 July 2023
The accused does not have to prove he was acting in self-defence. The legal onus rests on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that self-defence does not apply.
If available, self-defence is a complete defence to the current charge of pointing a firearm and any other possible charges arising in the circumstances. If it were determined that the accused’s purpose in pointing, possessing, or shooting the firearm was to protect himself or others, he would be entitled to avail himself of the self-defence provisions of the Criminal Code.
—Source: British Columbia Prosecution Service, Statement, 19 July 2023
Analysis
As previously noted, the accused does not have to prove he was acting in self-defence. The onus is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the legal elements of self-defence do not apply.
The evidence establishes that several men, some armed with weapons, descended upon the tent encampment to forcibly remove property. As such, the accused, who was a camper at that location, had reasonable grounds to believe that force was being used or threatened against him and others.
The accused armed himself with a rifle after the confrontation had turned violent. His purpose was to defend himself and others from the threat posed by the complainant and his associates.
The accused’s resort to force was reasonable in the circumstances, considering the factors set out in s. 34(2):
——Source: British Columbia Prosecution Service, Statement, 19 July 2023
B.C. Prosecution Service Statement PDF
Source: British Columbia Prosecution Service, Statement (PDF), 19 July 2023
The case is known as R. v. Truckle.
CHECK News and Global News reported the BCPS decision yesterday.