need advice 'fight'

[selfdefense1]

bc. canada
was in an altercation with a restaurtant owner. He came at me after I called him a name, and tried to punch me but I got out of the way and hit him back with one punch. He has some stitches and a broken tooth, not because I really let him have it but mostly because I was wearing a large ring.
Now he's charging me with assult. I have a sept. court date.... I want to know if I can also charge him, as it was self defense. I have never hit anyone and don't have a record.
I have three witnesses but one of them is my friend that was sitting with me, and the other is his wife that just happened to walk in as it happened... The last witness is a girl that was there.
He has one witness that is 16 yrs old and I think he's convinced her to say he didn't even try to hit me, or she might lose her job.... He's been known to cause a lot of problems with people before but I don't know if he has a record.....
Anyway does it go by how many witnesses each of us have.... If he has one that is on his side, and I have three is it likely not to go to trial? What should someone in my position do..
any help would be really appreciated...
What percentage of assult chrgs make it to trial......
thanks everyone.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Oh, geez - - another stupid Canadian!

Don't you idiots know how to read?

Does "b.c. Canada" sound like a frikken "State" to you?

What a dumbass!

IAAL

 

[selfdefense1]

yep Im dumb

I am aware it said state............ lol

I am asking for general advice.... not state by state.... Yes I'm canadian and yes the laws may differ, but I would bet there might be someone on here that might be able to help, other than posting something like you just posted...

Is this not a place to ask for advice?

just for not being a dumb canadian's sake. I'm from washington state. Vancouver the be exact. Does this help you....Now since I am from there instead of canada what would you say?

thanks for any help her people. I appreciate it.

 

[hexeliebe]

Did Vancouver move since I was there in 02? Because, if it didn't then it's still part of canada.

and there's a reason we don't give advice to anyone outside of the 50 states. Because we are not QUALIFIED!!!!

geeez, I need a new drug...FAST!

 

[cbg]

There is a Vancouver, Washington. It's on the Oregon border just north of Portland, on the Columbia River.

From another dumb Canadian.

To the original poster: The fact remains that few, if any, responders on this board are versed in Canadian law. You might try http://www.law-faqs.org or http://www.gahtan.com/cdnlaw.

 

[Son of Slam]

does it go by how many witnesses each of us have.... If he has one that is on his side, and I have three is it likely not to go to trial?

O.J. had over 6 Billion people that did not see him do it and only two that did. It worked for him.

 

[selfdefense1]

other vancouver

yeh, there's two van.'s ........ one in canada, where all of us dumb canadians live, and the other in washington......
Thanks for pointing me somewhere else bro.

Can anyone give me their opinon just for opinions sake as if this was in say washington state?
thanks again
Not asking for any concrete legal stuff, just opinions of the situation.....

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Re: other vancouver

yeh, there's two van.'s ........ one in canada, where all of us dumb canadians live, and the other in washington......
Thanks for pointing me somewhere else bro.

Can anyone give me their opinon just for opinions sake as if this was in say washington state?
thanks again
Not asking for any concrete legal stuff, just opinions of the situation.....

My response:

Why would we waste our time? You couldn't use the information anyway!

Look, you've been "pointed somewhere else." Point what little brain power you have, and go there.

IAAL

 

[calatty]

The success of your self-defense will not hinge on how many witnesses each side has but on the facts and the credibility of the witnesses. Generally, self-defense is appropriate if you reasonably believed that it was necessary to use force to avoid bodily injury or death. If the man was just running after you calling you names, striking him in self-defense would not be reasonable, but if he had you pinned and was about to plunge a knife into your chest, it would be.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

The success of your self-defense will not hinge on how many witnesses each side has but on the facts and the credibility of the witnesses. Generally, self-defense is appropriate if you reasonably believed that it was necessary to use force to avoid bodily injury or death. If the man was just running after you calling you names, striking him in self-defense would not be reasonable, but if he had you pinned and was about to plunge a knife into your chest, it would be.

My response:

CalAtty, how do you know the laws of Canada? Can you please confirm your theory of law by quoting the Canadian "fight or flight" laws?

IAAL

 

[HomeGuru]

Is her user name now Canatty?

 

[calatty]

How? I have a Westlaw subscription. See, for example, Reine v. Gee, 1982 CarswellAlta 556 (Cour Suprême du Canada, 1982), which states self-defense is warranted where a person "raisonnablement appréhendé la mort ou des lésions corporelles graves, ou qu'il a raisonnablement cru qu'il ne pouvait éviter autrement de subir des lésions corporelles. See also Arthur v. Wechlin, 2000 CarswellBC 1377; (British Columbia Supreme Court, 2000): "Did the defendant reasonably believe he was subject to the attack by the plaintiff with her cigarette? If the defendant reasonably believed that, even if the plaintiff had neither the intention nor the power to carry out such an attack, the defense of self-defense may prevail." Good enough, guys?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Wonderful!

Now you've given permission to Canadians to come here, despite the fact that FreeAdvice is for "U.S. LAW ONLY".

So, since you're answering Canadians, we'll refer all of them to you - - even though no one from the United States will be able to use Canadian law; nor will they be able to learn anything from it.

Next, the Africans.

IAAL

 

[calatty]

You ask me to cite Canadian law, and when I comply, you chide me for citing Canadian law. I just can't seem to please you IAAL. I didn't realize students of the law look to Freeadvice for instruction on US law and that I could be depriving them of a valuable pedagogical experience by responding to a question about Canadian law. So for those 1L's studying this post: Canadian law appears to be pretty much identical to American law on the question of self-defense. I will be more careful in the future to observe the absolute ban on questions from foreigners so as not to interfere with our visitors' education.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

You ask me to cite Canadian law, and when I comply, you chide me for citing Canadian law. I just can't seem to please you IAAL.

MY RESPONSE: Sure you can. Do I have to tell you how to do that too?



I will be more careful in the future to observe the absolute ban on questions from foreigners so as not to interfere with our visitors' education.

MY RESPONSE: Good. Remember, when you get the hankering to respond to some goddamned foreigner, just remember: "U.S. LAW ONLY."

It's real simple.

IAAL