Question

The defence of the person in Canada is limited to specific...

The defence of the person in Canada is limited to specific situations. Canada should adopt a similar law as the 'Stand Your Ground Law' in the state of Florida to better protect Canadians.

 

How would the R v. Khill would fit this law and would protect the person standing their ground, or similarly protecting their personal property. Could you please explain with further details Below is the reference:

 

https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19020/index.do

Answer & Explanation
Verified Solved by verified expert

A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) provides that people may use deadly force when they reasonably believe it to be necessary to defend against deadly force, great bodily harm, kidnapping, rape, or (in some jurisdictions) robbery or some other serious crimes (right of self-defense) (right of self-defense). Under such a legislation, people have no responsibility to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, so long as they are in a place where they are lawfully present. Stand-your-ground laws cannot be claimed by someone who is the initial aggressor or otherwise doing something wrong.

In Canada, there is no responsibility to retreat under the law. Canada's rules surrounding self-defence are similar in nature to those of England, since they centre around the acts undertaken, and whether or not such acts are judged justifiable in the circumstances. Generally where retreat is accessible given the circumstances, the decision to stand your ground is more likely to be inappropriate. The portions of the Canadian criminal code that deal with self-defence or defence of property are sections 34 and 35,respectively. These parts were amended in 2012 to clarify the code, and to enable legal practitioners interpret the law in conformity with the principles Canadians hold to be acceptable.


In the early morning of February 4, 2016, K was awoken by his spouse, who alerted him to the sound of a loud knocking outside their home. K went to the bedroom window and noted that the dashboard lights of his pickup truck were on. He took his shotgun from the bedroom closet and loaded two shells. Dressed only in panties and a T‑shirt, K left his house through the rear door on his bare feet and discreetly approached the truck. As he neared the rear of the truck, K observed someone bent over into the open passenger‑side door. He shouted to the guy, who would subsequently be identified as S, "Hey, hands up!" As S turned towards the sound of K's voice, K fired, racked the action and shot a second time, striking S twice in the chest and shoulder. After S collapsed to the ground, K searched him for weapons. There was no gun, simply a folding knife in S's jeans pocket. K informed the 911 dispatcher and police that he had shot S in self‑defence, as he felt S had a pistol and was going to shoot him.


If we can use "stand your ground" rule in this case, then we might probable conclude that K was protecting their properties. Whether a jurisdiction follows stand-your-ground or duty-to-retreat is merely one facet of its self-defense legislation. Various jurisdictions authorise deadly force against different offenses. All American states authorize it against fatal force, grave physical injury, and likely kidnapping or rape; some additionally allow it against threat of robbery and burglary.


Even duty-to-retreat states generally follow the "castle doctrine", under which citizens have no obligation to retreat when they are assaulted in their homes, or (in some states) in their automobiles or workplaces. The castle theory and "stand-your-ground" legislation provide legal defenses to those who have been charged with different use of force offenses against persons, such as murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, and illegal discharge or brandishing of firearms, as well as attempts to commit such crimes. If we can use apply this law on the Canadian law, then K would not face any charges for his acts.

Step-by-step explanation

MWeisbord, N. (2020). Licence to Khill: What Appellate Decisions Reveal about Canada's New Self-Defense Law. Queen's LJ, 46, 97https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19020/index.do.cClellan, C., & Tekin, E. (2017). Stand your ground laws, homicides, and injuries. Journal of human resources, 52(3), 621-653.