Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack


Colpy
+1
#361
Quote: Originally Posted by crankyView Post

Imo, seld defense is a natural right. ANY regulations regarding self defense should be viewed with the greatest degree of contempt because it is all designed to protect the offender at the risk of the defender.

Yeah....I posted that for your benefit especially, Cranky..........to show exactly how desperate our situation has become.

I remember about thirty five years ago a guy in Bridgewater, NS used a .357 Magnum revolver to shoot to death an unarmed 16 year old in his kitchen....the kid broke into his house in the middle of the night.

No charges were laid. The English common law standard was no retreat in your home, and in the night one was fully justified to kill intruders.

This was, without any doubt, a tragedy.........God knows I can't imagine why he fired at the kid.......but it was NOT a miscarriage of justice.

Actions have consequences. B&E on an occupied house in the dark of night could (past tense) get you killed.

IMHO, that is the way it should be.
 
cranky
+1
#362
I agree that the death of a 16 year old is unfortunate, but stupid is stupid. That 16 year old could have died by any number of stupid choices that night.

The fact is I can never be sure of the mindset of someone that breaks into my house. Unlike getting into a fight on hockey skates or in a bar, i have absolutely no assurances that an intruder in my home is going to stop beating on me if he ever gets the upper hand.

Imo, to mere presence of an intruder makes it reasonable to fear for my life, i cant see how anyone not there, judge, da, police officer, or anyone else has the right to question my mindset.
 
ironsides
#363
The only mistake I could see what the homeowner confronted three trespassers with a unloaded shotgun, theoretically putting his whole family at risk if they were armed. Canada has to change their laws and adapt a "castle doctrine".
 
Colpy
+1
#364
An interesting interview........the persecution by prosecution of Ian Thomas continues.......the prosecution, having dropped all charges except the "unsafe storage", now are refusing to disclose to the defense lawyer their basis for those charges.

That would, of course, be because the charges are baseless, and they know it.

Completely outrageous.

Why is this a crime? : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery (external - login to view)
 
petros
+1
#365
Why is this a crime? : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery (external - login to view)

Why? They want to make an example out of him.

Why do we bother with a Criminal Code?

86. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons.

86. (2) Every person commits an offence who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act respecting the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sales of firearms and restricted weapons.

(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment
(i) in the case of a first offence, for a term not exceeding two years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Legally the Crown can send him up river for a deuce less a day.
 
Colpy
#366
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Why is this a crime? : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery (external - login to view)

Why? They want to make an example out of him.

Why do we bother with a Criminal Code?

86. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons.

86. (2) Every person commits an offence who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act respecting the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sales of firearms and restricted weapons.

(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment
(i) in the case of a first offence, for a term not exceeding two years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Legally the Crown can send him up river for a deuce less a day.

You can read can't you???

Here, let me help:
without lawful excuse,

self-defense is "lawful excuse", as they themselves have acknowledged by dropping all assault and dangerous use of a firearm charges.

They are upset at this guy for exercising his ancient and perfectly legal right to self-defense. Therefore they must punish him by prosecuting him, even although they don't have a leg to stand on.

Their refusal to complete the legal requirement of disclosure to the defense simply is the icing on the cake. This will not last ten seconds in front of any competent judge.

You really should stay away from things you don't understand. Self-defense law in Canada seems to be one of them.
 
petros
#367
He doesn't have lawful excuse.
 
Colpy
+1
#368
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

He doesn't have lawful excuse.


Why did they drop assault charges then? And why did they drop the dangerous use of a weapon charges?

Let me quote... "There was no reasonable expectation of conviction".....in other words, he was not guilty, justified in doing what he confessed to doing.......which was self-defense.

I don't know where you came from originally, but you need to read up on your English Common Law.

William Blackstone would be a good place to start.......

www.ordainandestablish.com/20...efense-or.html (external - login to view)

Quote:

Self-defence, therefore, as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society. In the English law particularly it is held an excuse for breaches of the peace, nay even for homicide itself:

 
petros
#369
What does the Criminal Code say about storage?

A deuce less first offence? Yes or no?
 
DaSleeper
#370
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

What does the Criminal Code say about storage?

A deuce less first offence? Yes or no?

Good lord man....use your head.....the Crown attorney is obviously giving the guy a hard time and wasting tax dollars stretching it ....because he knows he can't win in court...
Your interpretation of the law would mean that when I go target shooting and leave my handgun on the shooting bench while I walk the 20 yards to go and change the target...and all the shooters who do it at the same time would be liable for prosecution...get real....
 
petros
#371
I was only in the beerstore for a minute....
 
DaSleeper
#372
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I was only in the beerstore for a minute....

Yup... I can see you trolling in several threads at the same time
 
petros
+1
#373
Yup "trolling" reality. Give it a shot sometime instead of lurking and only posting BS. A lurker is a troll of renown.
 
DaSleeper
#374
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Yup "trolling" reality. Give it a shot sometime instead of lurking and only posting BS. A lurker is a troll of renown.

And of course you're just "Typealotofnonsense"...
And you have a fan...another stalker I suppose
 
petros
#375
Where are your contributions? Where do I find threads started by you or do you just lurk like a pro troll?
 
Colpy
#376
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

What does the Criminal Code say about storage?

A deuce less first offence? Yes or no?

irrelevant.

A firearm can not be in use and in storage at the same time.
 
petros
#377
The Criminal Code is irrelevant?
 
Colpy
#378
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

The Criminal Code is irrelevant?

No, the sentence for safe storage are irrelevant in this case.

AND the Criminal Code is irrelevant when it denies people constitutional rights.

I strongly suspect you come from a culture of Roman Law, where the state is supreme.....under English Common Law, the individual is supreme....

You should learn the difference, and knock off the silly posts that do not deal with the subject at hand.
 
petros
#379
Now we're Romans? Holy **** man. It's 2011 and we don't live in the Roman Empire or the English one. We have Canadian Criminal Code and it's says a deuce less.
 
Colpy
+1
#380
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Now we're Romans? Holy **** man. It's 2011 and we don't live in the Roman Empire or the English one. We have Canadian Criminal Code and it's says a deuce less.

You really do troll, don't you?

If you don't know what the Napoleonic Code (or Roman Law) is, look it up.

We are NOT dealing with storage issues here, that is the point. They have to convict him before sentencing, in our system. And they can't. And they know it. But they proceed simply to make him defend himself in court, costing him mucho grande dinero. And that is outrageous.

Yes, we are still the English Empire, as far as our law is concerned.........

This conversation is over, you stopped talking sense awhile ago......no sense talking to trolls.
 
DaSleeper
#381
Another interesting interview on how the law is enforced indiscriminately in Canada.....

Where's the common sense? : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery (external - login to view)
 
Colpy
+3
#382
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
 
Colpy
+2
#383
From the sublime to the ridiculous.......

Quote:

Canada's laws on the storage and handling of guns and ammunition are so complicated that a veteran judge needed to adjourn court to allow two experienced lawyers more time for legal arguments and a search of case law to help parse and dissect them.

These prosecutors are idiots. They've had seventeen MONTHS to get up to speed..........

Need more proof?

Check THIS out!!!

Quote:

Mr. Mahler said Mr. Thomson was "less than forthcoming" and "secretive" when police arrived. He suggested Mr. Thomson even picked up the spent shell casings from his porch and hid them in his bedside table.
Seeming confused, Mr. Thomson said he didn't understand.
"Didn't they fall to the ground?" Mr. Mahler asked, apparently thinking shell casings from a .38-calibre revolver were ejected from the gun with each shot.
"No," said Mr. Thomson as the crowd of gun advocates watching from the public gallery chuckled and guffawed at Mr. Mahler's mistake.
Spent shells from a .38 remain in the gun's cylinder until it is opened and they are removed. Mr. Thomson took the casings out at the same time he opened the gun to reload it, which was at the bedside table, where the casings were when police arrived, he said.

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
 
DurkaDurka
#384
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

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.

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.
 
Colpy
+1
#385
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView 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
 
DaSleeper
#386
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView 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????
 
Colpy
#387
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.
 
shadowshiv
#388
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView 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.

Will he even have any money left by the time the exoneration occurs?
 
jariax
#389
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.
 
DaSleeper
#390
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

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.

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) 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.
 
no new posts