Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack


Unforgiven
#301
Quote: Originally Posted by crankyView Post

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.

Who asked you?
 
cranky
#302
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

Who asked you?

I care not if you ask me, haven't you figured that out, yet?
Last edited by cranky; Jun 16th, 2011 at 02:14 PM..
 
Colpy
#303
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.

I said no such thing.

I said one should be able to defend their property.

Life is full of judgement calls, and in a free society, we get to make them.
 
cranky
#304
Colpy, I think he took your statement and a definition of "threat' and created a strawman agruement to attack you with.

Most people do things out of inspiration, or desparation.
 
Unforgiven
#305
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

I said no such thing.

I said one should be able to defend their property.

Life is full of judgement calls, and in a free society, we get to make them.

People should be able to defend their life and those about them, but property? I don't know about that.
Anything beyond get off my lawn has some difficult issues associated with it.

I don't have a problem with someone taking out a video camera and recording what has happened, making a citizen's arrest, or following the person to identify them. But theft and vandalism is best left to the authorities who are authorized and trained to make an investigation and arrest.

Someone bumping into you with their car doesn't give you the right to defend your life just because you consider a fender bender an attempt on your life.
 
Colpy
#306
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

People should be able to defend their life and those about them, but property? I don't know about that.
Anything beyond get off my lawn has some difficult issues associated with it.

I don't have a problem with someone taking out a video camera and recording what has happened, making a citizen's arrest, or following the person to identify them. But theft and vandalism is best left to the authorities who are authorized and trained to make an investigation and arrest.

Someone bumping into you with their car doesn't give you the right to defend your life just because you consider a fender bender an attempt on your life.

I don't know where you get the idea that I said you should be able to shoot someone that ran into your car by accident.

Making a citizen's arrest is what we are talking about.........and that can require force.

As for defense of property, I certainly do believe you have every right to defend your property within reason.....and to me that means no retreat, inserting yourself into the situation to prevent the crime, and using whatever force is necessary to do so, up to and including lethal force, depending entirely on the level of force used against you.

Currently, there is a Use of Force Model in place that the courts consider in cases where there is confrontation, and the major consideration is the amount of force used against you as the deciding factor of the force you can use...........this requires no alteration, it just needs to be applied in situations where people insert themselves into a situation where they are defending property....instead of the current situation, where we are supposed to flee in the face of malicious intent.

As the police do, as armoured car guards do, as private security does, and as your average minimum wage mall cop does every day.

That does NOT mean you get to shoot someone for trespassing on your lawn.........or running away with your lawn ornaments.


Why oh why can I not get images to appear????

Anyway, here is the Use of Force model as taught to the Police, as I taught it to armed security, and as I now teach it to unarmed security......

www.braidwoodinquiry.ca/prese...e_milligan.pdf (external - login to view)
Last edited by Colpy; Jun 16th, 2011 at 04:04 PM..
 
cranky
#307
O
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

People should be able to defend their life and those about them, but property? I don't know about that.
Anything beyond get off my lawn has some difficult issues associated with it.

I don't have a problem with someone taking out a video camera and recording what has happened, making a citizen's arrest, or following the person to identify them. But theft and vandalism is best left to the authorities who are authorized and trained to make an investigation and arrest.

Someone bumping into you with their car doesn't give you the right to defend your life just because you consider a fender bender an attempt on your life.

Defending my body from harm is generally acceptable, even if the guy just wants to give you a black eye.

Yet, if someone tries ti get away with my car, i am just suposed to sit back and let it happen? sorry, i can't and won't accept that. My car gets me to and from my job which puts food on my family's table. It repressents thousands of hours of my life working to earn enough money to pay my creditors and the tax man.

To imply that this is somehow trivial yet a black eye isn't? Well that is just plain assinine.

You say i dont have the right to defend my car?

Well. I say your perspective is grossly distorted. It is not just a worldly possession. It cost me a year of my time to buy it, and it represents a means to get to work and provide for family.
 
CUBert
+1 / -2
#308
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

I said no such thing.

I said one should be able to defend their property.

Life is full of judgement calls, and in a free society, we get to make them.


Yea I bet you're insane enough to think it's justifiable to kill someone over material objects.
 
cranky
+1
#309
Quote: Originally Posted by CUBertView Post

Yea I bet you're insane enough to think it's justifiable to kill someone over material objects.

if that material object represents a year of hard labour to earn, then I think it is my absolute right to defend my property.

as far as killing in defense, that all depends on the actions of the criminal.

he can turn his back to me and run away empty handed anytime he chooses to. I won't go after him. and I have no desire to see him needlessly dead.

but if he chooses to stay and fight me, then you and I both know that this has now become more than just a petty crook trying to take my property away from me.
 
Colpy
+1
#310
Quote: Originally Posted by CUBertView Post

Yea I bet you're insane enough to think it's justifiable to kill someone over material objects.

Right now, it is not legal to kill someone in defense of property, one is required to retreat.

As I said, I disagree with that ruling, as it leaves the innocent helpless when robbed or burgled. It is a surrender to lawlessness that is expected of the individual, a surrender of the individual's right to property.

That is simply not good for society.

Now, I don't believe one should be allowed to kill trespassers, nor do I believe one should be allowed to use lethal force on someone escaping with property......

I do believe one should be allowed to interfere with robbery and burglary and use whatever force is necessary to defend himself while making a citizen's arrest. As Cranky said, the amount of force used depends solely on the criminal.........up to and including the use of lethal force as defined in the Use of Force model.

There must be consequences for criminal acts, and the responsibility for any escalation of force in a criminal activity lies only with the criminal.

So yes, Ian Thompson, in my view, would have been ethically (if not legally) fully correct to confront the gentlemen fire-bombing his house even if he had an avenue of escape.....and he would have been fully justified to have shot anyone with a molotov cocktail .........as the Crown has acknowledged, having dropped all assault charges.

I suppose you are insane enough to believe the onus was on Thompson to flee in the face of attack, allow his life savings to go up in smoke, allow his animals to be burned alive, and allow those involved in serious criminal attack complete freedom to complete their activities.

That is idiotic.
 
Unforgiven
#311
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.

Of course there is no such thing as road rage. People are prone to being calm and making the right decision under pressure. Having some imagined right to shoot someone and then worry about whether it's justified it ridiculous.
I don't want some shop keeper off his meds for the day to have to legal justification for blowing my head off by simply slipping a candy bar inside my pocket.

When it comes to having to shoot somebody, I want the person doing the shooting trained and seasoned in making those choices. Not some overzealous gun nut given a loophole to shoot people because they happen to be looking at him.

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Right now, it is not legal to kill someone in defense of property, one is required to retreat.

As I said, I disagree with that ruling, as it leaves the innocent helpless when robbed or burgled. It is a surrender to lawlessness that is expected of the individual, a surrender of the individual's right to property.

That is simply not good for society.

Now, I don't believe one should be allowed to kill trespassers, nor do I believe one should be allowed to use lethal force on someone escaping with property......

I do believe one should be allowed to interfere with robbery and burglary and use whatever force is necessary to defend himself while making a citizen's arrest. As Cranky said, the amount of force used depends solely on the criminal.........up to and including the use of lethal force as defined in the Use of Force model.

There must be consequences for criminal acts, and the responsibility for any escalation of force in a criminal activity lies only with the criminal.

So yes, Ian Thompson, in my view, would have been ethically (if not legally) fully correct to confront the gentlemen fire-bombing his house even if he had an avenue of escape.....and he would have been fully justified to have shot anyone with a molotov cocktail .........as the Crown has acknowledged, having dropped all assault charges.

I suppose you are insane enough to believe the onus was on Thompson to flee in the face of attack, allow his life savings to go up in smoke, allow his animals to be burned alive, and allow those involved in serious criminal attack complete freedom to complete their activities.

That is idiotic.

Again you contradict yourself. You don't think someone should be shot escaping yet you would fire a warning shot center mass. Property is only things. Things can be replaced and we have insurance to cover the cost of something happening to property. You should know more than anyone that once you shoot and kill someone, there is no going back. It's permanent and thus restricted to the last course rather than the first choice.
 
Colpy
#312
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

Of course there is no such thing as road rage. People are prone to being calm and making the right decision under pressure. Having some imagined right to shoot someone and then worry about whether it's justified it ridiculous.
I don't want some shop keeper off his meds for the day to have to legal justification for blowing my head off by simply slipping a candy bar inside my pocket.

When it comes to having to shoot somebody, I want the person doing the shooting trained and seasoned in making those choices. Not some overzealous gun nut given a loophole to shoot people because they happen to be looking at him.



Again you contradict yourself. You don't think someone should be shot escaping yet you would fire a warning shot center mass. Property is only things. Things can be replaced and we have insurance to cover the cost of something happening to property. You should know more than anyone that once you shoot and kill someone, there is no going back. It's permanent and thus restricted to the last course rather than the first choice.

STOP putting words in my mouth. I never said you had a right to shoot anyone........I said you have a right to defend yourself...........

And learn to read. A store owner would have no right to shoot you for shoplifting, he would (and does) have a right to arrest you if he sees you shop lifting. At that point, the level of violence is completely up to the person being arrested. Only reasonable force can (or should) be used......as indicated in the Use of Force model......

There are reasons one never fires warning shots........listed a couple of times earlier in the thread.

Obviously, the Crown does not believe they can get a conviction on Thompson, so they dropped all the charges. They are simply persecuting him by prosecution on safe storage charges, as a weapon in use in defense of oneself is NOT in storage. Ludicrous,. but the police in brain-dead Liberal Ontario are under instruction to push firearms charges as hard as possible.

Try collecting insurance after your house is fire-bombed.

Good luck.

And a house is more than a "thing" It is the culmination and the investment of a lifetime's work.......and "Your home is your castle" is more than a saying, it is a basic principle of English common law.

And his dogs burned alive.

And I have an ethical problem with retreat in the face of criminal attack. In a sane society, it simply is not done, if there is any choice.........much less mandated by the government.
 
Unforgiven
#313
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

STOP putting words in my mouth. I never said you had a right to shoot anyone........I said you have a right to defend yourself...........

And learn to read. A store owner would have no right to shoot you for shoplifting, he would (and does) have a right to arrest you if he sees you shop lifting. At that point, the level of violence is completely up to the person being arrested. Only reasonable force can (or should) be used......as indicated in the Use of Force model......

There are reasons one never fires warning shots........listed a couple of times earlier in the thread.

Obviously, the Crown does not believe they can get a conviction on Thompson, so they dropped all the charges. They are simply persecuting him by prosecution on safe storage charges, as a weapon in use in defense of oneself is NOT in storage. Ludicrous,. but the police in brain-dead Liberal Ontario are under instruction to push firearms charges as hard as possible.

Try collecting insurance after your house is fire-bombed.

Good luck.

And a house is more than a "thing" It is the culmination and the investment of a lifetime's work.......and "Your home is your castle" is more than a saying, it is a basic principle of English common law.

And his dogs burned alive.

And I have an ethical problem with retreat in the face of criminal attack. In a sane society, it simply is not done, if there is any choice.........much less mandated by the government.

Everyone is reasonable. Not so much in my experience. Sentimental value and 5 bucks will get you a cup of coffee.
A house is a thing as opposed to a person. Understand? If your house burns down, you can get a new house. If a person is shot and killed, there is no way to replace that person.

People sometimes act unreasonable. There in lays the problem with self defense. You say one thing and then have to preface it with all sorts as I point it out here. There are plenty of things you can legally do to bring a criminal, especially a petty thief to justice. Shooting them for shoplifting isn't reasonable. It's only a candy bar.
 
Colpy
#314
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

Everyone is reasonable. Not so much in my experience. Sentimental value and 5 bucks will get you a cup of coffee.
A house is a thing as opposed to a person. Understand? If your house burns down, you can get a new house. If a person is shot and killed, there is no way to replace that person.

People sometimes act unreasonable. There in lays the problem with self defense. You say one thing and then have to preface it with all sorts as I point it out here. There are plenty of things you can legally do to bring a criminal, especially a petty thief to justice. Shooting them for shoplifting isn't reasonable. It's only a candy bar.

You obviously haven't spent the last 25 years paying a mortgage.

The choice of whether to get hurt or not lies with the criminal, do you understand?

And you had best give up the dope, I've told you over and over and over and over we are NOT talking about shooting shoplifters over a candy bar.

Do you get it now? Or should I repeat myself again.

And if you did move to arrest a shoplifter, and he tried to seriously harm you with a weapon, you have the RIGHT to defend yourself.

Do YOU understand????

Geezus Man, if you want to debate, snuff out the joint....it ain't helping.
 
Unforgiven
#315
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

You obviously haven't spent the last 25 years paying a mortgage.

The choice of whether to get hurt or not lies with the criminal, do you understand?

And you had best give up the dope, I've told you over and over and over and over we are NOT talking about shooting shoplifters over a candy bar.

Do you get it now? Or should I repeat myself again.

And if you did move to arrest a shoplifter, and he tried to seriously harm you with a weapon, you have the RIGHT to defend yourself.

Do YOU understand????

Geezus Man, if you want to debate, snuff out the joint....it ain't helping.

If anyone should smoke some Cannabis it's you. I swear the stick up your butt has a steel rod up it's butt. Maybe put down the cheap beer wouldn't hurt you either. You have a distinct inability to see the difference between people and property.

While you are positive that you just have to say "I am arresting you" and whom ever it is you are addressing will put their own handcuffs on and lay down to receive the knee is a fantasy. One that comes from thinking a security guard is sort of like a cop. Fact is you lay your hands on someone, you're asking for it. You don't have the right to force someone to the ground because you think they have broken some law, and you don't have the right to use a weapon on them when they bash your head in after you grab them.

Like Ian Thompson, thinking you know the law, doesn't mean you know the law.

Using reasonable force to repel an attack is one thing, using it on someone because you think they are a criminal without benefit of a trial nor authority is abusive and itself criminal.

Now I don't expect you can understand that, but you should take it under advisement that your brand of six gun justice isn't going to wash here, there or anywhere.
 
cranky
#316
I just wanted to mention that the insurance angle is a weak one.

My neighbors fence fell on my car, he wanted me to use my insurance so he could pay the deductable rather than the full cost. However, he didn't want to pay additional payments to compensate me for the increase in premiums that I would receive.

He tried to feed me a line about that he was somehow less responsible for the damages if I didn't have insurance or would not use my insurance to assist him in compensating me. like wtf,eh?

A trip to small claim court straightened him out, he agreed to pay for full damages at the manditory mediation session, which in the end was cheaper than the insurance route.

Anyway, my point is simple: the insurance on my house or car doesn't somehow make the crime less than it is, nor does it decrease my rights to defend my property.

Saying that firebombing an insured house is somehow less of a crime than firebombing an uninsured house, is much like saying that raping a woman that is not a virgin is somehow less of a crime than raping a woman that is a virgin.

the crime doesn't change
 
ironsides
#317
Everybody who owns or wants to own a weapon should be trained in its use. With that said, If you shoot someone while they are committing a crime endangering yourself or others, that is all the justification you need. Most civilians with a interest in firearms train more than most police in their use.
 
cranky
#318
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Everybody who owns or wants to own a weapon should be trained in its use. With that said, If you shoot someone while they are committing a crime endangering yourself or others, that is all the justification you need. Most civilians with a interest in firearms train more than most police in their use.

sort of a side note that I learned as an active member of my rod and gun club....

  • the code for 'self defense' is mostly additional language that disqualifies you from being able to claim self defense.
  • whereas, the code for citizens arrest is simple, ie it states that everyone has the right to conduct a citizens arrest.....it doesn't talk about self defense, but referrs to the existing code that details the rights of a police officer
Although, it is good to caution a citizen to be careful while conducting a citizen's arrest, the code is fairly simply when the criminal is conducting a felony, and before/during the effort to arrest him, he acts in a way to threaten you. The use of proportional force is allowed.

As far as, lethal self defense, it is much easier to qualify by claiming the right to self defense because you have reached that point in the code without having to jump through the above mentioned language that is designed to disqualify.

my advice, if you are ever faced with a situation this extreme, if the criminal has you scared, shoot him.....if he only has you mad, don't shoot him.....and, absolutely no talking to the police until you talk to a lawyer..give your lawyer his best chance at defending you. He knows about strategies like 'citizens arrest' and if you went ahead and blabbed your mouth off, then i may ruin your chances of benefiting from that defence.
 
Colpy
#319
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

If anyone should smoke some Cannabis it's you. I swear the stick up your butt has a steel rod up it's butt. Maybe put down the cheap beer wouldn't hurt you either. You have a distinct inability to see the difference between people and property.

While you are positive that you just have to say "I am arresting you" and whom ever it is you are addressing will put their own handcuffs on and lay down to receive the knee is a fantasy. One that comes from thinking a security guard is sort of like a cop. Fact is you lay your hands on someone, you're asking for it. You don't have the right to force someone to the ground because you think they have broken some law, and you don't have the right to use a weapon on them when they bash your head in after you grab them.

Like Ian Thompson, thinking you know the law, doesn't mean you know the law.

Using reasonable force to repel an attack is one thing, using it on someone because you think they are a criminal without benefit of a trial nor authority is abusive and itself criminal.

Now I don't expect you can understand that, but you should take it under advisement that your brand of six gun justice isn't going to wash here, there or anywhere.

Thanks for proving my point.

First of all, try and focus........ we were talking about two things: the way the law is now, and the law as I hope it is after the Conservatives re-introduce and pass Bill C-60.

Secondly, you forget I teach this stuff: I do have some idea what I'm talking about. I already referenced the Use of Force model taught to all Canadian police and armed security, and all private security in BC, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and soon expanding to all provinces. If you don't understand it, I'll be happy to answer questions.

Third: If you directly observe a crime...oh Hell, here is the Canadian Criminal Code: Argue with THAT.

Section 494. (Criminal Code)
(1) ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT BY ANY PERSON
Anyone may arrest without warrant(s)
(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or
(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes
  • (i) has committed a criminal offence, and
  • (ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person
(2) ARREST BY OWNER, ETC., OF PROPERTY
Anyone who is
(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or
(b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property
may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.
(3) DELIVERY TO PEACE OFFICER
Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.


(Too big for quotation)

Yes Virginia, you have the power to arrest, under certain conditions.......and to use FORCE, as shown in section 25.......
Quote:

25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
(a) as a private person,(b) as a peace officer or public officer,(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or(d) by virtue of his office,is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.



My emphasis.........

No, you don't "have the right to force someone to the ground because you think they have broken some law, and you don't have the right to use a weapon on them when they bash your head in after you grab them." I never said you did.

Unless in doing so you are merely responding to the resistance THEY OFFER. Which is what you can't seem to get through your addled brain....the use of force is led by the person being apprehended, and the arresting person has every right to respond in kind, up to and including the use of lethal force.


Fourth, Thompson is not a lawyer.........but he obviously understood the law better than the idiots that tried to prosecute him, as all assault charges have been dropped because "there was no reasonable chance of conviction". All that remains are unsafe storage charges because he had loaded guns when the police arrived. Those WILL be thrown out, this is simply an attack by the unprincipled nanny-state drooling morons you so obviously voted for.

Once again, the Criminal Code of Canada....

DEFENCE OF HOUSE OR REAL PROPERTY


41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

42. (1) Every one is justified in peaceably entering a dwelling-house or real property by day to take possession of it if he, or a person under whose authority he acts, is lawfully entitled to possession of it.ASSERTION OF RIGHT TO HOUSE OR REAL PROPERTY

(2) Where a person
(a) not having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or(b) not acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,assaults a person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be without justification or provocation.(3) Where a person
(a) having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or(b) acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,assaults any person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shalled be deemed to be provoked by the person who is entering.

So...ARGUE WITH THE CRIMINAL CODE..
Last edited by Colpy; Jun 17th, 2011 at 10:38 AM..
 
cranky
#320
It will be hard to charge him unsafe storage of the firearms, if Thomspon is able to show that they are not in storage.
 
Colpy
#321
Quote: Originally Posted by crankyView Post

It will be hard to charge him unsafe storage of the firearms, if Thomspon is able to show that they are not in storage.

Exactly.....there has already been unsafe storage prosecutions where the judge threw out the charge on the grounds that the man was at home, therefore the guns, being out, were not stored.

The fly in the ointment is the fact the guns were loaded..........of course the defense will be they were in use....for defense.

Seems obvious to me.

If Ian Thompson was guilty of "unsafe storage", then so are the officers that charged him. I assume they were carrying loaded handguns.

But some judges are completely brain-dead. Liberal appointees, you know.
 
cranky
#322
if it is deemed acceptable that he should have an armed firearm for the purposes of citizens arrest, then wouldn't that sort of establish him as acting officer until the authorities arrive? You simply don't put cuffs on someone, then run around unloading firearms. that just doesn't seem reasonable, and I suspect that a lawyer will have no problems with his defense.
 
ironsides
#323
You don't try and arrest someone without having a loaded firearm in your possession. What if the criminal was armed with a loaded gun and there you are acting like Barney Fife trying to load your weapon in a panic situation. Better to get the drop on them and explain it to the law later if need be. Better yet re-write your laws related to self defense.
 
Colpy
#324
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

You don't try and arrest someone without having a loaded firearm in your possession. What if the criminal was armed with a loaded gun and there you are acting like Barney Fife trying to load your weapon in a panic situation. Better to get the drop on them and explain it to the law later if need be. Better yet re-write your laws related to self defense.

Actually, in Canada, my guess would be that the vast majority of arrests are done by private (unarmed) security.

When I was in Toronto doing a security course, one of the other students worked at the Ontario Liquor commission.....he did between 3 and 5 arrests a day.........the instructor, a 25 year police veteran and head instructor at the TO and the OPP police colleges, said he never heard of an officer that averaged more than 3 arrests in a week.........

Now think of all the mall cops, the in-store security, the industrial security.....etc etc etc....
 
CUBert
+1 / -2
#325
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post


I suppose you are insane enough to believe the onus was on Thompson to flee in the face of attack, allow his life savings to go up in smoke, allow his animals to be burned alive, and allow those involved in serious criminal attack complete freedom to complete their activities.

That is idiotic.


I said material objects. His dogs, house, life savings, these aren't material objects. He should be allowed to protect those things, I agree.
But if you're an insane idiot about to shoot someone because they're going to rob your 52" LCD T.V you're a crackhead and should also be put in jail with the burglar.
 
cranky
#326
H
Quote: Originally Posted by CUBertView Post

I said material objects. His dogs, house, life savings, these aren't material objects. He should be allowed to protect those things, I agree.
But if you're an insane idiot about to shoot someone because they're going to rob your 52" LCD T.V you're a crackhead and should also be put in jail with the burglar.

Why not? TVs are not freakin POPCORN. I am not giving anyone permission to scoop up as much as they can fit in ther hands.

If he rapes me, i am violated for 15 minutes. If he takes my 52in tv, he rapes me for the next 6 months.

I should have the right to shoot any bastard that takes something as significant that it takes months to bounce back.
 
CUBert
+1 / -2
#327
Hmm, let me reason with a guy who thinks it's ok to kill someone over a television... That won't be a complete waste of time...
 
cranky
#328
Its not the tv that he is stealing, for all worldly items break down and get replaced. He is stealing months of my earning potential while i struggle rreplace the worldly item.

Besides, you are not describing it acurately. It goes like this:

"i have a gun, you are free to leave empty handed"

If he chooses to stay, he isnt just a good ol boy that wants to watch the hockey game, he means business. So what do i do? Do i hand a loaded weapoon to him and say "here, hold this so i can peacefully detain you" no. Do i had him the loaded weapon???? Absolutely not! At this point, it has gone too far, either he behaves carefully or i shoot to kill. There are no other rational alternatives.
 
CUBert
-2
#329
Explain how your television is earning potential ..
Your television is nothing but a luxury item, it's not a necessity, it doesn't keep you breathing/living.
Just because you thought such a meaningless item was worth saving up months for doesn't now mean it's worth killing over.
Perhaps if I were in such a situation and had a gun I'd probably point it at him and tell him to **** off, to try and scare him away. However I'd never pull the trigger unless he tried to come at me. If he's on drugs or something and doesn't listen and proceeds to take the television I'd calmly call the police and let them do their job.
 
Colpy
#330
Quote: Originally Posted by CUBertView Post

Explain how your television is earning potential ..
Your television is nothing but a luxury item, it's not a necessity, it doesn't keep you breathing/living.
Just because you thought such a meaningless item was worth saving up months for doesn't now mean it's worth killing over.
Perhaps if I were in such a situation and had a gun I'd probably point it at him and tell him to **** off, to try and scare him away. However I'd never pull the trigger unless he tried to come at me. If he's on drugs or something and doesn't listen and proceeds to take the television I'd calmly call the police and let them do their job.

Ahhhh.....I agree with CuBert.

Having said that.....

You'll find me in the basement, hanged.

I would never fire at a fleeing thief that was getting away something inconsequential.............even if I could do so with complete impunity. (not likely in this country)

I would insert myself between him and escape and do all I could to prevent it, and if attacked, defend myself..........but that is many degrees different than shooting someone fleeing with material goods.
 
no new posts