Reply #51: now, I find myself wondering

[iverglas]

how much of an intellectual you actually are.

This is entertaining:

http://www.freewebs.com/libertypages/More%20cherrished%20rights.html

You quote the section of the Criminal Code you then discuss. I'm going to reproduce it, and it probably won't be necessary for many readers, but you seem to need a bit of emphasis to direct your attention, so I'll add it:

Disarming a peace officer

270.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, without the consent of a peace officer, takes or attempts to take a weapon that is in the possession of the peace officer when the peace officer is engaged in the execution of his or her duty.

Now here's your scenario -- kind of a law school exam question, eh?

Now imagine if you enter a shop only to find an "Officer of the Peace" robbing the shop with his sidearm. Lets say that you manage to disarm him and place him under citizens arrest. When Police arrive they arrest their fellow officer, charge him with armed robbery.

Alrighty. So far so good. Then you seem to lose your focus:

Then charge you with section 270(1) of The Criminal Code. The constable will likely get one year while you will get five years should you plead not guilty. This is an example how poorly worded law can damage your rights and in fact how poorly worded laws do pass. If the phrase 'Without lawful excuse" were included then your actions are justified.

Actually ... if the words "when the peace officer is engaged in the execution of his or her duty" weren't there, you might have yourself a hobbyhorse. Sadly, this one done gone lame.

Yeesh. Is robbing a shop (I think you meant a shop owner, or employee, or some such) something a peace officer does in the execution of his or her duty?? You say you live in Canada? I've managed to miss that all these years. I often see peace officers in the local 7-11, but I've just never seen them holding up the clerks at gunpoint ...