Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack


Colpy
+1
#391
Quote: Originally Posted by jariaxView Post

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.


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.

Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

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.


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.
 
earth_as_one
#392
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 (external - login to view)
 
Colpy
#393
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

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

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
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......

Quote:

In 2000, 174 children (0-1 in the United States died from unintentional firearm-related injuries. Unintentional injuries are usually caused when children play with guns or are hunting.

Causes of Death > Accidental Firearm (external - login to view) (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 (external - login to view)
 
DurkaDurka
#394
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

Will he even have any money left by the time the exoneration occurs?

Not a clue, he could always try suing the crown for malicious prosecution.
 
Colpy
+1
#395
The BEST comment EVER!!!

Quote:

..........the law is in the hands of citizens in free societies. Citizens delegate the powers of law enforcement to the police, not the other way around. Whatever a cop could legitimately do to prevent Mr. Thomson’s farm house from being firebombed, Mr. Thomson can do himself. And if he does, the state must pin a medal on Mr. Thomson instead of mobilizing gowned minions and martinets to obfuscate him into oblivion.

George Jonas: The state’s protection racket | Full Comment | National Post
 
DaSleeper
+2
#396
I liked this part of the article too....
Quote:

There’s a Kafkesque provision in the Criminal Code that makes it unlawful for gun owners to store their ammunition in the same hemisphere as their weapons — certainly not close enough for a gun to be of any but decorative use. The mere fact Mr. Thomson had time to fire indicated to the prosecutor he must have broken the law. Anyone who obeys, couldn’t have. Gotcha!

After counsels’ submissions, the judge adjourned till the summer. Evidently, he needed a few months to figure out just how much of an *** the law really is — a luxury not available to Mr. Thomson, who would have had to decide the same thing in seconds while being firebombed.

 
BruSan
#397
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.
 
shadowshiv
#398
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

Not a clue, he could always try suing the crown for malicious prosecution.

It'll be interesting to see if that happens.
 
Colpy
#399
Quote: Originally Posted by BruSanView Post

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!

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
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???/
 
bobnoorduyn
#400
Quote: Originally Posted by jariaxView Post

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.

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, , 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.
 
damngrumpy
#401
While I believe you have a right to defend yourself, that is in a personal physical attack.
You have the right to defend property inside your home but only with reasonable force.
We are not Americans, our laws prevent one from firing guns in neighbourhoods and
that is the law.
I do believe you should be able to use a firearm inside the home to protect family and
that is allowed providing the intruder has a weapon, or there are more than one attacker.
I don't think we should be firing guns in the street especially when he had the buggers on
video.
I also don't believe in punitive gun control but this fellow appears to me to be someone
who should not possess a weapon. I do believe there has to be some restrictions but the
heavy handed gun control that was brought in years ago did not protect anyone, or keep
the population safe. I do believe, criminals, those charged with offences, those convicted
of domestic violence and mental unstable people should not be allowed to have weapons.
On the other hand we have laws and the ones we have usually do the job. If he fired the
gun in an urban setting he could have injured someone not involved.
 
bobnoorduyn
#402
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

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.

The Crown is arguing over one of the same things that has gotten many hunters and home owners into a world of hurt; i.e. What constitutes In use, Stored, In Transit. Another argument would be; how can the police carry or keep loaded firearms at the ready themselves? They are bound by the same laws as we are. It may be time we enlighten the lawmakers that the police serve at the pleasure of the people, and should remind them of Sir Robert Peel's 9 princilples of consentual policing, one of which is, "the police are paid to do only that which is incumbent upon the citizens". Ian Thompson's first mistake was that he didn't do what the police would do, shoot the buggars.

Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

While I believe you have a right to defend yourself, that is in a personal physical attack.
You have the right to defend property inside your home but only with reasonable force.
We are not Americans, our laws prevent one from firing guns in neighbourhoods and
that is the law.

What defines "reasonable force"? You don't know what is reasonable until one of you is either dead or seriously injured, attacks happen really fast, I mean in milliseconds. Laws don't prevent folks from firing guns in neighbourhoods, holy f#cksh!t, take a trip to North Preston, they're shooting each other weekly, the law doesn't stop them. Oh wait, sorry, come to Halifax and enjoy the weather.


Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

I do believe you should be able to use a firearm inside the home to protect family and
that is allowed providing the intruder has a weapon, or there are more than one attacker.
I don't think we should be firing guns in the street especially when he had the buggers on
video.

How would you know if an intruder has a weapon? I would rather find it after I shot him than after he shot me. But does he need a weapon? I consider myself rather spry, but I don't delude myself, I would be no match for an aggressive 20 year old, or two, or three. An intruder is not dropping by for a cup of tea, I would rather be judged by 12 than be carried by six. Videos are as good as cockpit voice and flight data recorders, they speak for those who no longer can.

Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

I also don't believe in punitive gun control but this fellow appears to me to be someone
who should not possess a weapon. I do believe there has to be some restrictions but the
heavy handed gun control that was brought in years ago did not protect anyone, or keep
the population safe. I do believe, criminals, those charged with offences, those convicted
of domestic violence and mental unstable people should not be allowed to have weapons.
On the other hand we have laws and the ones we have usually do the job. If he fired the
gun in an urban setting he could have injured someone not involved.

I don't know how you can say Ian Thompson should not possess weapons, really. We cannot stop those who really shouldn't, even the criminals. Gun control only controls law abiding citizens, and really, that is only who the politicians want to control.
 
Nuggler
#403
COLPY: "
'When I am cleaning them, fondling them,"

lol. good one...................definitely in use.
 
Colpy
#404
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

While I believe you have a right to defend yourself, that is in a personal physical attack.
You have the right to defend property inside your home but only with reasonable force.
We are not Americans, our laws prevent one from firing guns in neighbourhoods and
that is the law.
I do believe you should be able to use a firearm inside the home to protect family and
that is allowed providing the intruder has a weapon, or there are more than one attacker.
I don't think we should be firing guns in the street especially when he had the buggers on
video.
I also don't believe in punitive gun control but this fellow appears to me to be someone
who should not possess a weapon. I do believe there has to be some restrictions but the
heavy handed gun control that was brought in years ago did not protect anyone, or keep
the population safe. I do believe, criminals, those charged with offences, those convicted
of domestic violence and mental unstable people should not be allowed to have weapons.
On the other hand we have laws and the ones we have usually do the job. If he fired the
gun in an urban setting he could have injured someone not involved.

I really don't get it.

These guys were throwing molotov cocktails INTO Thompson's house, and had successfully set it on fire, forcing Thompson to go outside and confront them.

Was he supposed to stay inside and burn?

Was he supposed to go out unarmed, to be set on fire with a gasoline bomb??

Your last line is correct, he should not have fired in the air. You are responsible for every shot fired, and where it goes, and you must exercise control and caution. He should have fired into the centre of his assailant's chest. That is the correct response.
 
Colpy
+1
#405
Quote:

Just heard from Ian Thomson’s lawyer, Ed Burlew, that Ian got his guns back today. This means that there is no appeal from the crown.
For those unfamiliar with the story you can read more here (external - login to view). Ian still has legal bills and if you can help, there are details here. (external - login to view)
Below is my interview with Ian from last month.

Ian Thomson got his guns back « Lilley (external - login to view)

So, as I have said from the first, completely malicious prosecution.
 
#juan
#406
And a third....
 
no new posts