Another interesting interview on how the law is enforced indiscriminately in Canada.....
Where's the common sense? : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery
Where's the common sense? : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery
Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
I'M BACK!!!!
The idiot McGuinty Liberals and their scum lawyer lap-dogs in the Crown Prosecutors' office continue their persecution of Ian Thompson for having the unmitigated gall to defend himself......
Ian Thomson was left
Ian Thomson: Proof that the state does not want its citizens defending themselves | Full Comment | National Post
The idiot McGuinty Liberals and their scum lawyer lap-dogs in the Crown Prosecutors' office continue their persecution of Ian Thompson for having the unmitigated gall to defend himself......
Ian Thomson was left
Ian Thomson: Proof that the state does not want its citizens defending themselves | Full Comment | National Post
From the sublime to the ridiculous.......
These prosecutors are idiots. They've had seventeen MONTHS to get up to speed..........
Need more proof?
Check THIS out!!!
Moron. Seventeen months, and he has not caught up on the most basic info necessary to press home one of his lines of attack.
Trial adjourned to clarify law on gun control
The judge MUST be a Liberal appointee, or he'd have already sent these dummies home with their tails between their legs, and dismissed all charges.....as well as issued an apology to Mr. Thompson.
But instead, the persecution continues......and make no mistake about it, this is government suppression of individual rights at its most blatant!
A good read: Lorne Gunther correct as usual......
Ian Thomson gun trial: Why hang the homeowner for the 'crime' of protecting himself? | Full Comment | National Post
These prosecutors are idiots. They've had seventeen MONTHS to get up to speed..........
Need more proof?
Check THIS out!!!
Moron. Seventeen months, and he has not caught up on the most basic info necessary to press home one of his lines of attack.
Trial adjourned to clarify law on gun control
The judge MUST be a Liberal appointee, or he'd have already sent these dummies home with their tails between their legs, and dismissed all charges.....as well as issued an apology to Mr. Thompson.
But instead, the persecution continues......and make no mistake about it, this is government suppression of individual rights at its most blatant!
A good read: Lorne Gunther correct as usual......
Ian Thomson gun trial: Why hang the homeowner for the 'crime' of protecting himself? | Full Comment | National Post
I agree the whole ordeal is a sham but I think it's a bit of a stretch to imply the judge is some sort of McGuingty shill. Seems to me, this is one of the last steps toward his eventual exoneration.
I sure hope so....but I'm laying no bets.
More Lorne Gunther.
Yes, I'm obsessed. So Sue me!
Lorne Gunter: Canada’s laws on the safe storage of firearms need clarifying | Full Comment | National Post
I sure hope so....but I'm laying no bets.
More Lorne Gunther.
Yes, I'm obsessed. So Sue me!
Lorne Gunter: Canada’s laws on the safe storage of firearms need clarifying | Full Comment | National Post
To me safe storage means that my firearms and ammunition are not readily available to a stranger or a child without a key or break and enter tools...when I the license holder am not home
According to that crown attorney I would be breaking the law if one of my guns doesn't have trigger lock when I'm cleaning it or showing it to a friend????
Has that judge no common sense????
My understanding of law is as follows.....
non restricted firearms have to be either in a secure locked container, OR disassembled in a way that makes them impossible to fire, OR trigger locked. They must be stored unloaded, with the ammunition stored in another place.
restricted firearms must be locked, unloaded, in a secure container.
If the container is a safe designed for the containment of firearms, ammunition may be stored in the safe as well.
That's how I understood it, and taught it.
non restricted firearms have to be either in a secure locked container, OR disassembled in a way that makes them impossible to fire, OR trigger locked. They must be stored unloaded, with the ammunition stored in another place.
restricted firearms must be locked, unloaded, in a secure container.
If the container is a safe designed for the containment of firearms, ammunition may be stored in the safe as well.
That's how I understood it, and taught it.
First of all, it's not a good idea to lie to the cops or lawyers.
I think it's pretty obvious that he didn't attempt to call 9/11.
He couldn't get his phone working? If the lines were down, that can be checked. If he couldn't get it working because of his emotional state, it's going to be difficult to make the argument that he wasn't able to operate the phone, but had no trouble locating his guns, loading them, and firing shots.
But, it's sad that he feels compelled to lie about this. He shouldn't have to.
His home was being attacked, and his dogs were at risk. If, as he says, they were only warning shots, I think he acted responsibly.
He took the necessary action to protect his property and dogs, while not putting lives at risk.
If however, he aimed at the attackers, then he has crossed a line. Lobbing these bombs at his house is a serious crime, but it does not warrant a death sentence. No reasonable jury will believe that his life was in danger. No one will believe that police and fire would not respond in enough time to ensure his safety. Furthermore, with his video surveillance equipment, he can easily see when the attackers leave, and exit his home at that time.
I think it's pretty obvious that he didn't attempt to call 9/11.
He couldn't get his phone working? If the lines were down, that can be checked. If he couldn't get it working because of his emotional state, it's going to be difficult to make the argument that he wasn't able to operate the phone, but had no trouble locating his guns, loading them, and firing shots.
But, it's sad that he feels compelled to lie about this. He shouldn't have to.
His home was being attacked, and his dogs were at risk. If, as he says, they were only warning shots, I think he acted responsibly.
He took the necessary action to protect his property and dogs, while not putting lives at risk.
If however, he aimed at the attackers, then he has crossed a line. Lobbing these bombs at his house is a serious crime, but it does not warrant a death sentence. No reasonable jury will believe that his life was in danger. No one will believe that police and fire would not respond in enough time to ensure his safety. Furthermore, with his video surveillance equipment, he can easily see when the attackers leave, and exit his home at that time.
Absolutely, they have to be stored that way...... but my point is that you have to take it out of the box to use it or clean it ect....or protect yourself with it like the gentleman did.
Pretty hard to replace the bolt in a bolt action after cleaning it with a triger lock in place.
I've alway stored my ammunition and reloading powder and primers in a locked mini fridge (with the compressor and freon removed:smile
with a 25 watt light buld on all the time to throw just enough heat to keep everything nice and dry in the basement...also have a 25 watt bulb in the gun locker.
Where and when did he lie???
Ahhhh.....when someone is launching molotov cocktails through your living room window, you don't call 9-11, you defend yourself.......or the fire dep't arrives to haul your ashes....literally.
Are you out of your freaking mind? I'm sorry, but when three men set your house on fire with you in it, that is attempted murder, and yes.....your life is in danger. So....you want to hang out in a burning house whilre three attackers continue to throw gasoline on the fire. That would earn you a Darwin Award.
BTW, warning shots should NEVER be fired..........if you have sufficient legal reason to use deadly force (ie you are in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm) then your fire should all be directed with the goal of stopping your attacker, in other words shoot him, centre mass. Keep shooting him until he ceases to be a threat. DO NOT fire warning shots.
If you do not have reason to use lethal force....DON'T SHOOT!
It took police and fire dep't ten minutes plus to get there. A lifetime.
Absolutely, they have to be stored that way...... but my point is that you have to take it out of the box to use it or clean it ect....or protect yourself with it like the gentleman did.
Pretty hard to replace the bolt in a bolt action after cleaning it with a triger lock in place.
I've alway stored my ammunition and reloading powder and primers in a locked mini fridge (with the compressor and freon removed:smile
Absolutely.
I casually have weapons out of the gun locker often.........without trigger locks. (gasp!)
When I am cleaning them, fondling them, admiring them, dry firing them, modifying them....they are IN USE, and are NOT stored.
Doesn't dry firing a firearm damage the firing pin? I never did it when I owned firearms.
Also do you have loaded firearms laying around your house? I stored my firearms unloaded and the safety on, with my ammo in a locked tool box. If I owned firearms today, I'd probably keep them in a locked room. My main fear isn't someone trying to kill me and having a firearm ready for self defense, but a child playing with a loaded firearm and shooting themselves or someone else by accident.
This week, a toddler fatally shot himself after finding a gun in his parent's car. According to Jackson, Miss., authorities, the 3-year-old was sitting in the car at a gas station when he found the gun in the front seat and shot himself in the face. Police questioned the boy's parents, but no charges have been filed. But these aren't freak accidents. More than 500 children die annually from accidental gunshots. Some shoot themselves, while others kill friends or siblings after discovering a gun. Here are more scary stats: Americans own 200 million firearms, and 35 percent of homes contain at least one gun. Last year, a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found more than 1.7 million children live in homes with loaded and unlocked guns.
Gun Accidents Kill 500 Kids a Year | momlogic.com
Also do you have loaded firearms laying around your house? I stored my firearms unloaded and the safety on, with my ammo in a locked tool box. If I owned firearms today, I'd probably keep them in a locked room. My main fear isn't someone trying to kill me and having a firearm ready for self defense, but a child playing with a loaded firearm and shooting themselves or someone else by accident.
This week, a toddler fatally shot himself after finding a gun in his parent's car. According to Jackson, Miss., authorities, the 3-year-old was sitting in the car at a gas station when he found the gun in the front seat and shot himself in the face. Police questioned the boy's parents, but no charges have been filed. But these aren't freak accidents. More than 500 children die annually from accidental gunshots. Some shoot themselves, while others kill friends or siblings after discovering a gun. Here are more scary stats: Americans own 200 million firearms, and 35 percent of homes contain at least one gun. Last year, a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found more than 1.7 million children live in homes with loaded and unlocked guns.
Gun Accidents Kill 500 Kids a Year | momlogic.com
I was talking about handguns, and all modern centre-fire handguns I know have rebounding firing pins, and it is perfectly acceptable to dry fire them. It even says so in the owner's manual for my new S&W 686.
Good Lord No! I do not, nor have I ever kept loaded guns laying around the house. They are all locked up, in the manner I indicated below, unless I am using them.
There are only two places for a loaded handgun: in your hand, or in the holster on your hip. Full stop.
500 is a VERY high number......
Causes of Death > Accidental Firearm (that's 0 - 18 years)
You should pick sources without an agenda....
Firearms accidents are sixth on the list of causes in children deaths....in gun soaked USA.
Kids are nine times more apt to die of suffocation, usually by ingesting a small object.
National Child Mortality Data
Laws are patterned to prevent irresponsible behaviour from doing harm to innocents OR they should be!
This man fulfilled his obligations to the extent he satisfied all legal requirements for ownership of the various guns in his possession so could we not assume he hadn't been on the police radar as it applied to his firearms prior to this event?
Multiple miscreants who have the time to light off a FEW firebombs of the molotov cocktail variety have displayed their intent on doing harm. Had the home owner merely stayed within his dwelling; it would be small comfort to him that they be charged with actual murder after the fact.
Second guessing all of this is a luxury he didn't have at the time and it would be the rare individual indeed who, owning firearms and having access to them while faced with this set of circumstances would simply rely on a 911 call.
I daresay anyone indulging in the legal ownership of firearms, faced with similar circumstances would have reached for the biggest baddest weapon in his arsenal and perhaps even fired from cover within the house. I'd be arguing the merits of his behaviour on running outside to confront with weapon in hand and STILL having to fire off a shot or two to get their attention focused on their eminent demise if they continued throwing firebombs. These guys were determined A-holes!
Seems to me much has been made of the laws and not enough about the circumstances leading up to this confrontation. These guys were targeting him and with police mere minutes away he had only seconds to confront guys who came with structured firebombs intent on burning his house with him in it.
Hope the judge rules he broke the law and fines him an amount to make an example of him (hundred bucks oughta do it) with a suggestion that he sue his protagonists for compensation in the amount of his legal fees and hardship endured when they are found guilty of attempted murder.
This man fulfilled his obligations to the extent he satisfied all legal requirements for ownership of the various guns in his possession so could we not assume he hadn't been on the police radar as it applied to his firearms prior to this event?
Multiple miscreants who have the time to light off a FEW firebombs of the molotov cocktail variety have displayed their intent on doing harm. Had the home owner merely stayed within his dwelling; it would be small comfort to him that they be charged with actual murder after the fact.
Second guessing all of this is a luxury he didn't have at the time and it would be the rare individual indeed who, owning firearms and having access to them while faced with this set of circumstances would simply rely on a 911 call.
I daresay anyone indulging in the legal ownership of firearms, faced with similar circumstances would have reached for the biggest baddest weapon in his arsenal and perhaps even fired from cover within the house. I'd be arguing the merits of his behaviour on running outside to confront with weapon in hand and STILL having to fire off a shot or two to get their attention focused on their eminent demise if they continued throwing firebombs. These guys were determined A-holes!
Seems to me much has been made of the laws and not enough about the circumstances leading up to this confrontation. These guys were targeting him and with police mere minutes away he had only seconds to confront guys who came with structured firebombs intent on burning his house with him in it.
Hope the judge rules he broke the law and fines him an amount to make an example of him (hundred bucks oughta do it) with a suggestion that he sue his protagonists for compensation in the amount of his legal fees and hardship endured when they are found guilty of attempted murder.
Why would you "Hope the judge rules he broke the law and fines him an amount to make an example of him ", when Mr. Thompson obviously broke NO law, and is obviously being persecuted for having the gall to defend himself???/
NO, it's not a good idea, but anything you say really can't be used against you in a court of law unless you are a suspect, and been told as much and have been advised of your rights, a good barrister should get anything you said tossed, (read the Charter) but don't count on it. That said, it is best not to say anything, I mean anything, without a competent solicitor present.
I don't know what significance 09 November has to do with the case, :roll:, sorry I'm Canadian and still follow the British way of filling ship's log entries, (Day/Month/year). I know you meant to phone "911", (I'm just tired of the 9/11 thing), where cops don't take action, they take pictures.