Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack


Retired_Can_Soldier
#271
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

They were charged for arson were they not?

Attempted murder seems more fitting.
 
lone wolf
#272
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

And a one way ticket to the hoosegow for exceeding the bounds of "reasonable force".

Killing animals, ongoing problems, firebombs, shooting warning shots.....would you want that in your community?

How? In the twenty or so minutes it would take for a fire truck to get out here, there would be plenty of evidence crumbling about to support a statement corroborated by gasoline residues on the recently departed's person.

It wouldn't be in my little community any more....
 
DaSleeper
#273
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

How? In the twenty or so minutes it would take for a fire truck to get out here, there would be plenty of evidence crumbling about to support a statement corroborated by gasoline residues on the recently departed's person.

It wouldn't be in my little community any more....

This is useless to try to use common sense on that one..

Reminds me of teaching and dill pickles......
 
petros
#274
So? Who has the kahoogies to place a wager that Mr Thompson loses or doesn't lose his priveleges? He managed to previously walk away from two indicatables offences in the past six years of the building conflict.
 
Colpy
#275
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

So? Who has the kahoogies to place a wager that Mr Thompson loses or doesn't lose his priveleges? He managed to previously walk away from two indicatables offences in the past six years of the building conflict.

Links?
 
petros
#276
Try the one you posted in the very first post. Then look up the two criminal code sections I posted a a few posts back.
 
Colpy
#277
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Read ALL of the articles about the ongoing war between the neighbours that has had the police out there many many times.

Can you do that?

Six years of of ongoing incidents.


Try reading sect 428 & 446 of the Criminal Code.

Mr Thompson is no ****ig angel.

OH! I should have known....

You have nothing new, just more BS you pulled out of your ****.........

How old are you?

You have this incessant need for attention that usually manifests itself in those less than 10 years of age.

Quit wasting our time. You LOST the argument..........Thompson was never convicted of any act previously...........he was correct in using weapons to defend himself, as the Crown verified when they dropped all the charges related to that.

You HAVE heard of innocent until proven guilty, have you not? They could not prove him guilty, as they admit, so he is innocent.

The unsafe storage charges will be thrown out of court. A weapon that is in use can not be stored. And the Crown has already conceded the weapons were being legitimately used........

Are you so ****ing brain dead you can't understand that?

All the rest of your crap is simply irrelevant.
 
DaSleeper
#278
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

OH! I should have known....


Are you so ****ing brain dead you can't understand that?

All the rest of your crap is simply irrelevant.

That avatar of his seems to portray an accident at birth.
 
petros
#279
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

OH! I should have known....

You have nothing new, just more BS you pulled out of your ****.........

How old are you?

You have this incessant need for attention that usually manifests itself in those less than 10 years of age.

Quit wasting our time. You LOST the argument..........Thompson was never convicted of any act previously...........he was correct in using weapons to defend himself, as the Crown verified when they dropped all the charges related to that.

You HAVE heard of innocent until proven guilty, have you not? They could not prove him guilty, as they admit, so he is innocent.

The unsafe storage charges will be thrown out of court. A weapon that is in use can not be stored. And the Crown has already conceded the weapons were being legitimately used........


All the rest of your crap is simply irrelevant.

If you don't think the entire history of this SIX YEAR PROBLEM for the community means nothing then you have absolutely no idea how the Crown works or why the see him as the loser he is.

Do you want to make a wager he loses his privileges for a at least 5 years? Yes or no?
 
Colpy
#280
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

If you don't think the entire history of this SIX YEAR PROBLEM for the community means nothing then you have absolutely no idea how the Crown works or why the see him as the loser he is.

Do you want to make a wager he loses his privileges for a at least 5 years? Yes or no?

Here is a bulletin for you....the community is irrelevant in a debate over individual rights.

That is the difference between your socialist dogma and the political philosophies of freedom.

There is no such thing as a collective right.....the concept of collective rights only serves to destroy individual rights, and provides no liberty whatsoever.

If you disagree with that, you belong back in the old Soviet Union.

Now, as for bets on losing his rights? I'm sorry, the state can not grant or deny rights.......he can not lose his right, the only options for the State are to violate his rights, or to release him and return his weapons.........and the entire Firearms Act is a violation of our rights....so.....

What exactly do you wish to wager on?

What is the wager?
 
petros
#281
What rights? He has a privilige and he will lose his privilige.

Call me what ever you want but when you are a pain in the *** to the cops and the Crown they don't give a flying **** about rights and they could give even less a flying **** about priviliges.

Watch and learn and what your Conservative government will do to this guy. If they will pass fly by night laws to lock down Toronto and arrest people walking dogs what the **** makes you think this dip**** is going to get off and not be made an example of?
 
Colpy
+1
#282
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

What rights? He has a privilige and he will lose his privilige.

Call me what ever you want but when you are a pain in the *** to the cops and the Crown they don't give a flying **** about rights and they could give even less a flying **** about priviliges.

Watch and learn and what your Conservative government will do to this guy. If they will pass fly by night laws to lock down Toronto and arrest people walking dogs what the **** makes you think this dip**** is going to get off and not be made an example of?

It is, was, and will remain his right!

I actually agree with you about the situation in Toronto over the G20........if you'd read my posts on that thread, you'd know that.

This has nothing to do with the Conservative gov't.....the law was passed by scumball Federal Liberals, and is being enforced by scumball provincial Liberals.....in fact the Conservatives have introduced a bill clarifying citizen's rights of arrest and self-defense.

Now, about that wager......how about a STFU bet? Like he who loses does not post on any subject for a month.............the exact bet to be agreed to publically, on the forum.
 
DaSleeper
#283
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

It is, was, and will remain his right!


Now, about that wager......how about a STFU bet? Like he who loses does not post on any subject for a month.............the exact bet to be agreed to publically, on the forum.

Think we can all take a whole month without Petros???

HMmm........On second thought....make it two months
 
Colpy
#284
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Think we can all take a whole month without Petros???

HMmm........On second thought....make it two months

Oddly enough our friend seems to disappear every time I want to talk wager specifics.......

Perhaps he is smarter than one would think from his posts........
 
Colpy
#285
Quote:

Canadians clearly still have a long way to go to restore their ancient right to self-defence (even armed self-defence), when their lives and property are threatened. Before Parliament was dissolved for the May 2 election, the Tories were shepherding through legislation known as C-60, the Citizenís Arrest and Self-Defence Act (external - login to view). It would have helped clarify just what a citizenís rights are when confronted by a violent attacker or other criminal in his or her home or place of business.
The federal government needs to reintroduce Bill C-60, soon. Then it needs to begin the slow process of reacquainting Crown prosecutors with the real world and with their obligation to protect the innocent and punish the criminals, rather than the other way around.

Lorne Gunter: Finally, a small victory for self-defence | Full Comment | National Post

Yep. A essential part of the attempt to return this country to a state of sanity will be the re-introduction of this bill.....

And the dismissal of all charges against Ian Thompson.....the guy that inspired this entire thread. (see the first post)
 
taxslave
#286
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Lorne Gunter: Finally, a small victory for self-defence | Full Comment | National Post

Yep. A essential part of the attempt to return this country to a state of sanity will be the re-introduction of this bill.....

And the dismissal of all charges against Ian Thompson.....the guy that inspired this entire thread. (see the first post)

You mean defending your property isn't denying a felon his charter rights? Wait until the Canadian Human Rights thought police get ahold of this one. LOL
 
DaSleeper
#287
Quote:

Post #1372652 - Re: Now I'm Pissed! Self-defense....HA! Bad CUBert

 
Unforgiven
#288
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Lorne Gunter: Finally, a small victory for self-defence | Full Comment | National Post

Yep. A essential part of the attempt to return this country to a state of sanity will be the re-introduction of this bill.....

And the dismissal of all charges against Ian Thompson.....the guy that inspired this entire thread. (see the first post)

Define what a threat to property is.
 
cranky
#289
hurt, damage, or steal
 
Unforgiven
#290
Quote: Originally Posted by crankyView Post

hurt, damage, or steal

When you can make a whole sentence, let me know.
 
Colpy
+1
#291
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

Define what a threat to property is.

Stolen or destroyed is a threat.

Stealing your merchandise in a store.

Firebombing your home.

Ramming your car.

they all qualify.

Back when this nation was sane, the law was you could use whatever level of force was necessary to prevent a crime being committed, without any requirement to retreat or surrender. Personally, I think it best we return to that standard, although I do not have high hopes......

Thompson is the most distressing case, as his entire home, his animals, and his life were at risk. I'd have fired a warning shot too, right through the centre of the chest of the first man I saw with a molotov cocktail..........

Oddly, I believe that if Thompson had done that, he would NOT have been charged.......except perhaps on the safe storage (the only charges still standing), which is, of course, ludicrous. If a weapon is being used, it is not stored.........simple, isn't it?
 
cranky
#292
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

When you can make a whole sentence, let me know.

ok np
 
mentalfloss
+1
#293
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Oh ****, the smilies are back..

 
Unforgiven
-1
#294
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Stolen or destroyed is a threat.

Stealing your merchandise in a store.

Firebombing your home.

Ramming your car.

they all qualify.

Back when this nation was sane, the law was you could use whatever level of force was necessary to prevent a crime being committed, without any requirement to retreat or surrender. Personally, I think it best we return to that standard, although I do not have high hopes......

Thompson is the most distressing case, as his entire home, his animals, and his life were at risk. I'd have fired a warning shot too, right through the centre of the chest of the first man I saw with a molotov cocktail..........

Oddly, I believe that if Thompson had done that, he would NOT have been charged.......except perhaps on the safe storage (the only charges still standing), which is, of course, ludicrous. If a weapon is being used, it is not stored.........simple, isn't it?

So in the event of someone colliding with the rear end of your car, you feel you can shoot them? I don't think that is at all reasonable. Shoplifting too is punishable by a bullet center mass? I don't think you really have a grasp of the situation at all Colpy. I am pretty sure that should you shoot someone for either offence, then you're one going to jail over it. That is how it should be. Self defense must always be reasonable.
 
cranky
#295
"Give me your wallet, or else I will forceably take it from you"

"No"

criminal attempts to forceably take wallet

"stop, you are under arrest". criminal ignores the warning and now looks very violent, so violent that any rational person should fear for their life.

KABLAM!!!! ( criminal dies)

Officer: "What happened? Did you use a firearm in selfdefense?"

"I want a lawyer, I am not saying a word to you"

Lawyer " My client isn't claiming self defense. He is claiming the right to perform a citizen's arrest, and as such, once the criminal started to perfom a felony in a way to cause my client to become fearful of his life, my client receives the same rights and priviledges extended to officers of the law"

District Attorney " Good move. The self defense regulations are meant to discriminate, whereas the citizen's arrest are meant to qualify. We won't contest this in court, because it will be a waste of time"
Last edited by cranky; Jun 16th, 2011 at 12:53 PM..
 
Colpy
+1
#296
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

So in the event of someone colliding with the rear end of your car, you feel you can shoot them? I don't think that is at all reasonable. Shoplifting too is punishable by a bullet center mass? I don't think you really have a grasp of the situation at all Colpy. I am pretty sure that should you shoot someone for either offence, then you're one going to jail over it. That is how it should be. Self defense must always be reasonable.

I have every grasp of the situation.....ramming the back of your car is an ACCIDENT, not a criminal act............and the old law I would like to return to says whatever level of force is necessary, and I doubt shooting someone is necessary to prevent a shoplifting.

I'm afraid it is you that lacks a grasp of the situation.......I really don't remember people getting shot down in the street for shoplifting back in the 60s and 70s........

Of course self-defense should be necessary.....but it should also be acceptable for a person to insert himself between a thief or assailant and his property............and to defend himself in that position.
 
cranky
#297
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

So in the event of someone colliding with the rear end of your car, you feel you can shoot them? I don't think that is at all reasonable. Shoplifting too is punishable by a bullet center mass? I don't think you really have a grasp of the situation at all Colpy. I am pretty sure that should you shoot someone for either offence, then you're one going to jail over it. That is how it should be. Self defense must always be reasonable.

colliding with the rear of a car is not a crime. I don't think that it is at all reasonable to strawman this debate with actions that are not crimes.

Shop lifting is not a violent felony. I don't think it is at all reasonable to strawman this debate with actions of petty shoplifting. What will be your next arguement, jay walking?

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

I have every grasp of the situation.....ramming the back of your car is an ACCIDENT, not a criminal act............and the old law I would like to return to says whatever level of force is necessary, and I doubt shooting someone is necessary to prevent a shoplifting.

I'm afraid it is you that lacks a grasp of the situation.......I really don't remember people getting shot down in the street for shoplifting back in the 60s and 70s........

Of course self-defense should be necessary.....but it should also be acceptable for a person to insert himself between a thief or assailant and his property............and to defend himself in that position.

True. If a shop lifter gets shot, it wont be from the act of shoplifting, it will be from his violent assault when you stop them at the door. Anyone that brings a violent assault to the scene of a crime is stacking their crimes, the shop lifter is no longer just a shop lifter.
Last edited by cranky; Jun 16th, 2011 at 12:51 PM..
 
Unforgiven
#298
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

I have every grasp of the situation.....ramming the back of your car is an ACCIDENT, not a criminal act............and the old law I would like to return to says whatever level of force is necessary, and I doubt shooting someone is necessary to prevent a shoplifting.

I'm afraid it is you that lacks a grasp of the situation.......I really don't remember people getting shot down in the street for shoplifting back in the 60s and 70s........

Of course self-defense should be necessary.....but it should also be acceptable for a person to insert himself between a thief or assailant and his property............and to defend himself in that position.

But you contradict yourself. Do I make the judgement call on what is and isn't an accident? You just said if someone rams my car I can shoot them. In posting the scenario I did, shows that there are times when it is an accident. You're advocating for taking the law into your own hands. Someone walking away with your tin of beans isn't a threat to you. Certainly not one that you should be shooting people over. Same with a car accident.

That's the problem I've seen in many security guards. They get to thinking they are police and carry the same authority.
 
petros
#299
The Feds are looking to change the citizen arrest laws in alleged benefit of the citizen.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
 
cranky
#300
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

But you contradict yourself. Do I make the judgement call on what is and isn't an accident? You just said if someone rams my car I can shoot them. In posting the scenario I did, shows that there are times when it is an accident. You're advocating for taking the law into your own hands. Someone walking away with your tin of beans isn't a threat to you. Certainly not one that you should be shooting people over. Same with a car accident.

That's the problem I've seen in many security guards. They get to thinking they are police and carry the same authority.

There is a big difference between protecting yourself and your property, and roaming the neighborhood looking to shoot shoplifters and reckless drivers. I don't think your comparisons are at all reasonable.
 
no new posts