Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack


CDNBear
#31
I'll ad my sig too...

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

He broke no laws.

That is the point. You may use lethal force when you have reason to believe you are in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm. There is a (ridiculous) requirement that you retreat in the face of criminal activity.

This guy was inside his own home when it was firebombed. I assume you understand that having your house set afire while you are in it could cause death or grievous bodily harm.....the only place he could "retreat" to was outside, where the gentlemen that were kindly illuminating his house with bottles of gasoline were situated.

Now, explain to me, oh dropped on his head one, exactly what YOUR reaction would be in this situation.

Admittedly, I would have done things differently.

Never take a handgun when a 12 ga pump action is available.

Shoot centre mass. Never fire "warning" shots. If the situation calls for shooting, you must shoot with the intention of stopping your assailant.

I couldn't agree more.

There's a case pending here in my little town, involving a good friend of the wife's. The daughter of my wife's friend, has an abusive boyfriend, she packs up kid, goes home to mom and dad. Boyfriend places gerry can in garage with lit rag. House is near burned to the ground.

He's charged with 4 counts attempted murder, 4 counts of arson, 4 counts of assault with a weapon, 4 counts uttering...

Ian Thomson, would have been able to skate on a justifiable homicide verdict.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

mental note.... don't kill the neighbours' animals. They don't take kindly to it, even when it's something so threatening and horrific as a chicken.

I can appreciate the mental note Karrie, but if someone is willing to kill you, and burn down your house over it. Putting them down, is an option.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I see. So the police charged him for ****s and giggles....

Actually, maybe not for sh!ts and giggles, but the Police will charge you with what they "believe" to be the appropriate charge, even if the arresting Officer thinks you were righteous. They are their to maintain law and order, not try cases, curb side.
 
taxslave
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

What is the rest of the story moring glory? He had them on video. He didn't need to freeze his nards off and risk injury did he? So who did this nut job piss off in the first to be fire bombed?
That's priceless. If I'm going to shoot a fire out, I'd want something bigger than a pistol.

Water pistol?

As I see it he made three mistakes.
1 registering his firearms. Just lets the criminals (government)know what you got and where.
2 Not killing the bastards and dumping the bodies. Cops would have just chalked it up to gangland turf war. Case closed.
3 Showing the police the video. We all know they don't like anyone doing their job for them. Also we all know that in Canada criminals have more rights than law abiding taxpayers.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

So, maybe an MP should submit a private members bill to give people back their right to defend themselves. Write letters Colpy, I'll add my name to it if you do


Add my signature too.

A guy would have to be stupid, to go outside unarmed and run the risk of getting gasoline thrown at him, and if you are going to use a gun, be prepared to shoot to kill.

When I moved to where I live now, there was a house across the "square" (playground) from me, where people were selling dope...which I didn't know about.
A few weeks after I had settled in, in the middle of the night some teenagers who I found out later had been at that house were throwing rocks at the houses around the square, including mine woke me up.
While I had a gun handy, in case the attack escalated, I wasn't too worried and used a pen launcher, to fire a couple of bear bangers in the middle of the square, just before the police arrived.
Since the "shots" seemed to come from their direction, the cops were searching them and were about to search the storm sewers when one of them who knew me, and my gun collection came to ask me a few questions (off the record) and when I showed him what I had used, he called off the search, and I never heard anymore about it.
But they had enough for a search warrant on that house because the dopers put their house up for sale the next week and were gone
Never had any trouble on this street since then....Wonder why???
 
bobnoorduyn
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayzView Post

Society is getting worse and its just a matter of time before some lunatic here in Canada opens fire on a crowd of people, and innocent lives(like 9 year old girls) will be needlessly lost because their was no responsible, armed citizen there to kill the bad guy.

And when that happens the gun grabbers seize the opportunity to advocate for the disarmament of law abiding citizens. The Chief of Police along with many members of the force were members of the same Masonic lodge as the perpetrator of the Dunblane shooting, and that led to the near total disarmament of the UK. A friend of mine was one of the investigators and so disgusted with the end result he moved here and is now a Canadian citizen. The shooting in Tazmania led to the near disarmament of Australia, and the Montreal shooting has done nearly the same here. Just look what the political pundits are saying about the latest one in Arizona. What needs to happen is for an armed citizen to take charge and end a rampage, but when it does it is nearly always neatly buried somewhere on page 8.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

He fired his weapon. He broke the law. He failed to call the cops and FD until after his stupid stupid illegal mistake. He had video with audio and knew the people.

Police fire their weapons, does that mean they break the law? They have to abide by the same laws as us you know. The people were masked, how can you be sure he knew them, they could have been hired goons for all you know.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I would have gotten the same result running after them with the phone and still would have been eating my own food, read my own books and slept in my own bed that night and still have my weapons and pride.

Let's see, one guy chasing two or three masked assailants intent on harm, and you only armed with a phone yet. You kid yourself. You wouldn't end up sleeping, that is if you didn't wake up dead.
 
Machjo
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

YouTube - Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack (external - login to view)

[/FONT][/COLOR]


This....is lunacy.

Thank you, all you damned morons, the gun controllers, the bloody Liberal idiots, the anti-self defense crowd.

This is what you've brought us to..

You have made it increasingly difficult for a man to defend himself, you have literally left us defenseless in the face of the wolves....it is just so stunningly outrageous.....

I'd have blown these boys right out of their ****ing socks with a couple of loads of buckshot, and considered it righteous.....I mean if having molotov cocktails thrown at your house while you are in it is not putting you in danger of "death or grievous bodily harm", what the hell is?

I guess the unfortunate Mr. Thompson was supposed to stay inside and bake............you know, and avoid screaming too loudly.......we wouldn't want him to upset his visiting neighbours..........

I just hope he gets a rural jury........

This could give me a heart attack.

This country has gone to the dogs.

Literally.

I saw nothing morally wrong on the property owners' part in the video. As for the law, I don't know. But as far as I'm concerned, one should have the right to defend himself with lethal force, whether via use of a weapon or his hands, against attempted arson. And I don't generally consider myself a Conservative. Though granted I don't consider myself a Liberal either.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

What is the rest of the story moring glory? He had them on video. He didn't need to freeze his nards off and risk injury did he? So who did this nut job piss off in the first to be fire bombed?

What he did to provoke his attackers to do this is irrelevant. Could they not have filed a complaint with the authorities against him? Morally, arson is a capital offense in my book, regardless of whether lives are lost.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

The the law is the same. Even tighter when it comes to community safety.


They seized his license and waepons because he was being a danger to the public. He knew the laws he broke them he paid the consequences.

Ok, now I can agree that we must all obey the law whether we agree with it or not. That said, I also agree that we ought to obay stupid laws only until they're changed. And we ought to strive to change them ASAP.

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

He broke no laws.

That is the point. You may use lethal force when you have reason to believe you are in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm. There is a (ridiculous) requirement that you retreat in the face of criminal activity.

This guy was inside his own home when it was firebombed. I assume you understand that having your house set afire while you are in it could cause death or grievous bodily harm.....the only place he could "retreat" to was outside, where the gentlemen that were kindly illuminating his house with bottles of gasoline were situated.

Now, explain to me, oh dropped on his head one, exactly what YOUR reaction would be in this situation.

Admittedly, I would have done things differently.

Never take a handgun when a 12 ga pump action is available.

Shoot centre mass. Never fire "warning" shots. If the situation calls for shooting, you must shoot with the intention of stopping your assailant.

I won't judge whether or not he broke any law based on one video, but from that limited evidence, his actions seemed reasonable enough to me at least at first glance.

On the one hand, I do agree that he did the right thing to restrain himself. On ther other, I'd also say that had he shot at one of them while he was about to throw a Molotov coctail, he would have been morally totally justified in doing so to protect himself, his property, his animals, and his neighbours from spreading fire, though even then I'd probably still aim for the hand or throwing arm, the goal beying to protect my property, not kill him. That said, if he were moving quickly with that coctail in hand, and having already proven his willingness to actually throw it, and I wasn't confident about my aim, then maybe in his body mass to ensure the bullet doesn't hit others behind him.

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Personally, I would like to see the law return to the way it was before, in which you could use any level of force necessary to prevent the commission of a crime. Seems much more sensible.

I would place some restrictions on that: he should be allowed to use lethal force in defense of self, others and significant property (like a house for example), but not for any crime. What about shoplifting a candybar? But I do agree with you overall, just not quite to the extreme you propose.
 
bobnoorduyn
+1
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I see. So the police charged him for ****s and giggles....gotcha. Must be some more of those ******* cops JLM keeps whining about.

They do do that sometimes. There are members who take a dim view of citizens taking the law into their own hands. The have forgotten Sir Robert Peel's 9 principles of consentual policing, namely that they are paid to do what is incumbent upon the citizens who employ them. The law is not the the dominion of the police or parliamentarians, nor are the courts the custodians of it, (as certain justices of the SCC so pompously believe), no, the law belongs to all of us, equally. The law is ours to take into our own hands, it is justice that is left to the courts. Some LEO's feel law enforcement is theirs and theirs alone, and will royally put you in a world of hurt for stepping on their turf. They would rather take pictures of the dead bodies of you and your kin than have you usurp their authority by defending yourself and yours with force. They're not all like that, but that atmosphere is quite pervasive.
 
Machjo
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

If Canada only had a Stand Your Ground (external - login to view)law like Florida???

You absolutely should be allowed to stand your ground.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

So, maybe an MP should submit a private members bill to give people back their right to defend themselves. Write letters Colpy, I'll add my name to it if you do

I'll sign it too depending on how Colpie words it. I think as far as gun laws go, he and I agree for the msot part.
 
bobnoorduyn
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

I would place some restrictions on that: he should be allowed to use lethal force in defense of self, others and significant property (like a house for example), but not for any crime. What about shoplifting a candybar? But I do agree with you overall, just not quite to the extreme you propose.

I don't have it handy, but yes, you can use reasonable force to deter an indictable offense. Shoplifting, though minor, is still such an offense. You have to inform the person they are under arrest and you can use reasonable force to hold them until authorities arrive. If you advise a person they are under arrest and they resist, they are now resisting arrest, which is not only also indictable, but a far more serious offense. Many defense councellors advise that you should inform a person that they are under arrest, and if they resist you have far more latitude in the force you can use than in self defense. In other words, yelling to the fire bombers that they are under arrest, and if they still throw fire bombs, you are more justified in using deadly force than you would be than only for defense of self. It's a strange world, but that's how it was explained to me.
 
Machjo
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

I don't have it handy, but yes, you can use reasonable force to deter an indictable offense. Shoplifting, though minor, is still such an offense. You have to inform the person they are under arrest and you can use reasonable force to hold them until authorities arrive. If you advise a person they are under arrest and they resist, they are now resisting arrest, which is not only also indictable, but a far more serious offense. Many defense councellors advise that you should inform a person that they are under arrest, and if they resist you have far more latitude in the force you can use than in self defense. In other words, yelling to the fire bombers that they are under arrest, and if they still throw fire bombs, you are more justified in using deadly force than you would be than only for defense of self. It's a strange world, but that's how it was explained to me.

Actually, that does make sense and seems reasonable enough. By announing an arrest, you're making it clear to them that what they are doing is illegal, that you are taking action, and that you have the law on your side. It avoids any accusations of no fair warning before lethal force is used.

I will agree though that while using lethal force against shiplifting would be way out of line, arresting a shoplifter, trying to stop him from escaping, and using lethal force should that shoplifter escalate the issue would be reasonable, since then would wouldn't be killing him for the shoplifting, but rather for putting your safety in danger as you try to arrest him. This would send a clear signal to a shoplifter that if he values his life, once arrested he'd better cooperated.
 
Colpy
+1
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

I don't have it handy, but yes, you can use reasonable force to deter an indictable offense. Shoplifting, though minor, is still such an offense. You have to inform the person they are under arrest and you can use reasonable force to hold them until authorities arrive. If you advise a person they are under arrest and they resist, they are now resisting arrest, which is not only also indictable, but a far more serious offense. Many defense councellors advise that you should inform a person that they are under arrest, and if they resist you have far more latitude in the force you can use than in self defense. In other words, yelling to the fire bombers that they are under arrest, and if they still throw fire bombs, you are more justified in using deadly force than you would be than only for defense of self. It's a strange world, but that's how it was explained to me.

That would be incorrect.

You have right up to a point.........you can arrest someone if they are "found committing" an offense, but only immediately, or after a continuous pursuit, or if you see someone fleeing what you have reason to believe are people lawfully entitled to arrest them. You can only use reasonable and proportional force.

The only reason you are allowed to use lethal force is if you are in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm. There are no extenuating circumstances beyond that.........arrest or not........there is only one justification.

BTW, any person arrested, even by a civilian, has to be informed immediately that they are under arrest, and why, and informed of their right to counsel.

I do like a law that allows proportional force without retreat.....although I am VERY unsure that shooting a guy eight times that punched you is proportional...........as is the case in the Florida trial where the charges of murder were dismissed under the Stand Your Ground law.......
 
Unforgiven
#41
He fired a gun. Was it against the law or not?

Well Colpy old bean, did you think that it's you that gets to decide that? Maybe the home owner? Is it perhaps the *******s who were throwing the fire bombs? Maybe the police get to decide if it was against the law.

Or does it go to court, both sides argued before a judge and then the one person who is qualified to be the judge of this, decides.

Now I can see that you are upset, and I get why.
But the thing is he is charged not convicted. Now if you feel that he shouldn't be charged or even questioned, because the people trying to burn down his house and I assume kill him, were caught on video doing it then you are nuts.
He did fire the gun as he has said he did. The judge can say whether it was right that he did so, or not. If it was right, then he gets his guns back, his license and a precedent is set that can then travel the length of the judicial system if need be.

So don't get your man panties in a knot because the police have to charge him with an offence he admits to.
Of course you know, there is firing your guns and then there is firing your guns. One thing you can't just up and do, the other you of course can.

Now don't be a little bitch and just let it go through the courts and then we can see what the deal is.

As far as I am concerned I think that you can't shoot someone for burning your car, but you can shoot someone for trying to kill you.
 
Colpy
+1
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

He fired a gun. Was it against the law or not?

Well Colpy old bean, did you think that it's you that gets to decide that? Maybe the home owner? Is it perhaps the *******s who were throwing the fire bombs? Maybe the police get to decide if it was against the law.

Or does it go to court, both sides argued before a judge and then the one person who is qualified to be the judge of this, decides.

Now I can see that you are upset, and I get why.
But the thing is he is charged not convicted. Now if you feel that he shouldn't be charged or even questioned, because the people trying to burn down his house and I assume kill him, were caught on video doing it then you are nuts.
He did fire the gun as he has said he did. The judge can say whether it was right that he did so, or not. If it was right, then he gets his guns back, his license and a precedent is set that can then travel the length of the judicial system if need be.

So don't get your man panties in a knot because the police have to charge him with an offence he admits to.
Of course you know, there is firing your guns and then there is firing your guns. One thing you can't just up and do, the other you of course can.

Now don't be a little bitch and just let it go through the courts and then we can see what the deal is.

As far as I am concerned I think that you can't shoot someone for burning your car, but you can shoot someone for trying to kill you.

It seems obvious the man had no choice. True, I was not there, and know only what was in the media, and God knows they are often wrong............but, assuming they have it right.....

The police do not HAVE to press charges, and when they do, the man is twice victimized, as this will undoubtedly cost him thousands of dollars..........IMHO, the police often assume it is only them that are allowed to defend themselves.........

There already are precedents, going back hundreds of years, that self-defense is one of our most basic rights....you do have a right to "security of the person" listed in the Charter. Therefore, he has admitted nothing, as firing a weapon in defense is NOT an offense. If it were, police and guards would not be permitted to carry them. And the POLICE should have made that determination in an investigation.........and not charged him, according to what we know. There could be other, unknown circumstances.

They seized his weapons, leaving him defenseless, unless, of course, he didn't register all of his guns.

Want a real good look at how well you are protected by the police in McGuinty's Liberal Ontario?

Read Helpless, by Christie Blatchford.

Or start with this.............the nanny state society is the antithesis of liberty.

Death of Personal Responsibility: Helmet required
 
bobnoorduyn
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

That would be incorrect.

You have right up to a point.........you can arrest someone if they are "found committing" an offense, but only immediately, or after a continuous pursuit, or if you see someone fleeing what you have reason to believe are people lawfully entitled to arrest them. You can only use reasonable and proportional force.

The only reason you are allowed to use lethal force is if you are in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm. There are no extenuating circumstances beyond that.........arrest or not........there is only one justification.

BTW, any person arrested, even by a civilian, has to be informed immediately that they are under arrest, and why, and informed of their right to counsel.

I do like a law that allows proportional force without retreat.....although I am VERY unsure that shooting a guy eight times that punched you is proportional...........as is the case in the Florida trial where the charges of murder were dismissed under the Stand Your Ground law.......

Well, I may have been a bit misunderstood, you don't have to wait until someone takes the wheels off your vehicle before you can arrest them, the fact of whether they have committed an offense or in the process of committing one might be up for debate, but you can arrest them if the intent is obvious to a reasonable person, though you might have to convince a judge. Someone trespassing on your property during daylight may or may not be committing a criminal act, there is a bit of grey so caution must be excercised. People do get lost, or are chasing a lost dog, reading the meter, whatever. Nightime changes the rules, trespass is nearly always indictable.

When placing a person under arrest they have three choices; submit, or; take flight whereby you do have the authority to give chase and apprehend them,(we have the right under the CC to take back that which was ours and taken from us unlawfully); or engage, whereby you can use whatever force necessary up to and including deadly force. You are not only defending yourself but attempting to apprehend someone who is resisting arrest.

With defense of self and/or those under your care you have to be in immediate threat of death or greivous bodily harm; if assailants resist your attempt at arrest that makes them more liable, and you less so. It is an added protection to you as it will aid your defense if you have to use force to defend or retrieve your property. However, forceably entering a dwelling house is always indictable, and if you fire three or more shots while you're saying "you are under arrest", whatever.

As a citizen you do not have to advise an arrested suspect of any charges or rights, that is the duty of the authorities, only say that they are under arrest, and that is to protect yourself. Citizens apprehend convenience store robbers and such plenty of times and don't even tell them they are under arrest.
 
Tonington
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

So don't get your man panties in a knot because the police have to charge him with an offence he admits to.

He admitted to firing his gun. He didn't admit to an offence.
 
bobnoorduyn
+1
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

I will agree though that while using lethal force against shiplifting would be way out of line, arresting a shoplifter, trying to stop him from escaping, and using lethal force should that shoplifter escalate the issue would be reasonable, since then would wouldn't be killing him for the shoplifting, but rather for putting your safety in danger as you try to arrest him. This would send a clear signal to a shoplifter that if he values his life, once arrested he'd better cooperated.

Like I mentioned to Colpy, while you can arrest the person shoplifting, if they turn out to be aggressive, for whatever reason, a resisting arrest defense may be your only option if things go South and you have to use deadly force. Police have had to use such force arresting suspects on far less serious offenses.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

He admitted to firing his gun. He didn't admit to an offence.

If there is one lesson to be learned here it is this, you have the right to remain silent, USE IT, I have seen too many good folks convict themselves by trying to be the good guy and setting the record straight. It just does not work that way, your own words will convict you faster than the best prosecutor ever will.
 
Colpy
#46

Now we're talking! Lorne Gunter has it exactly right.......

Quote:

When Canada became independent at Confederation in 1867, Canadians retained the rights they had at the time as British subjects. These included three “absolute rights”: the right to personal liberty, the right to private property and the right to self-defence, up to and including the right to kill an attacker or burglar.
William Blackstone, Britain’s famous constitutional expert, argued the right to self-defence included the right to kill even an agent of the king found on one’s property after dark, uninvited. He also traced the right to armed self-defence back to the time of King Canute (995–1035) when subjects could be fined for failing to keep weapons for their own protection.
Even in Upper Canada for much of the 19th Century it was the law that all adult males be armed, at their own expense. In part, this was so a militia could be formed quickly for defence of the colony and in part so individuals were prepared to defend themselves and their property.
These rights have not been extinguished just because Canada has become modernized and urbanized, or because our officials would rather pretend they don’t exist and never have.

Read more: Lorne Gunter: Canadians have a right to self-defence, even if our officials deny it | Full Comment | National Post
 
petros
#47
Quote:

When Canada became independent at Confederation in 1867, Canadians retained the rights they had at the time as British subjects. These included three “absolute rights”: the right to personal liberty, the right to private property and the right to self-defence, up to and including the right to kill an attacker or burglar.

Nope. Unless retained under the Charter those B'rithish laws have been overwritten. There is no grandfathering.

If you are so hopped up about the lifestyle of being able to pack side arm and shoot people move to the SW US or Montana.

It's just not part of our mythos or folklore.

Sorry Charlie
 
Unforgiven
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

It seems obvious the man had no choice. True, I was not there, and know only what was in the media, and God knows they are often wrong............but, assuming they have it right.....

Assumption is perfectly alright for here and our discussion, but when it comes to the technical points of the law and justice, assumption has no place.

Quote:

The police do not HAVE to press charges, and when they do, the man is twice victimized, as this will undoubtedly cost him thousands of dollars..........IMHO, the police often assume it is only them that are allowed to defend themselves.........

While there is some play as to judgement calls where the police are concerned, in matters as complex and important as this must go before a judge. The police are there to gather evidence and the facts involved in the case. If evidence of indictable offence are present, police are obliged by the standard of their profession to make the charge.

Quote:

There already are precedents, going back hundreds of years, that self-defense is one of our most basic rights....you do have a right to "security of the person" listed in the Charter. Therefore, he has admitted nothing, as firing a weapon in defense is NOT an offense. If it were, police and guards would not be permitted to carry them. And the POLICE should have made that determination in an investigation.........and not charged him, according to what we know. There could be other, unknown circumstances.

Hundreds of years ago people owned people and women were also a man's property in some respects. Times change Colpy. So does the ways and means of the law. Much to the disappointment of some who wish to remain living in the past.

Quote:

They seized his weapons, leaving him defenseless, unless, of course, he didn't register all of his guns.

If he didn't register all of his guns then he is a criminal and shouldn't be allowed to have any guns at all.
Many people are and should be unarmed. Hardly defenceless but certainly not armed with a gun.

Quote:

Want a real good look at how well you are protected by the police in McGuinty's Liberal Ontario?

Read Helpless, by Christie Blatchford.

Oh Colpy, you are so short sighted friend and I dare say a bit naive. Everyone has plenty of guns and so it's not going to be a good brandishing of the weapon that sorts things out. Even a shot into the ground isn't going to make all those Mohawk warriors flinch and run away. The only way to remove a well armed group that is organized and ready to make a stand, is start killing them until you get to the people who don't want to die more than they want to be right. All well and good if you aren't a politician. But that's what the name of the game is son.

Quote:

Or start with this.............the nanny state society is the antithesis of liberty.

Christ this is so dumb. You fail to grasp that in a society where fools are allowed to live and breed, the onus on all others is to make things fool proof. This does mean that any thing can be made damn fool proof.

Now if everyone has to have a gun, then instead of just arming a few kooks like yourself who feel there is an imminent danger about to befall them, we have to arm every kook in the land. Not just that, but all the children have to be armed, which is even more crazy than arming all the nuts, and of course those who can't manage to do anything with a gun other than fire it.

The thousands dead seem no consequence to you. This is much more dangerous than all the Caledonia's in the world.

In the case of self defence, it must go before a judge in a court with due process. That it makes you mad is inconsequently a matter of fact.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

He admitted to firing his gun. He didn't admit to an offence.

I would say that if he was charged with it, it was an offence to discharge a firearm within the town. So admitting he fired his gun is admission to that offence even if he doesn't choose to see it that way.
 
petros
#49
My turn.
Quote:

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

It seems obvious the man had no choice. True, I was not there, and know only what was in the media, and God knows they are often wrong............but, assuming they have it right.....



He had no choice? Choice between reality and not wearing pants? First of all he had an obligation to call the cops and PD instead of running out in his gonch firing shots into who knows whose roof while they lay in bed as the arsonists drove away.. It happens....LOTS. Look it up.

If people in North Central Regina had the opportunity to open fire everytime someone came in their yards it would turn into a race war.

This is why we have laws.

Quote:

Quote:

The police do not HAVE to press charges, and when they do, the man is twice victimized, as this will undoubtedly cost him thousands of dollars..........IMHO, the police often assume it is only them that are allowed to defend themselves.........

Where do you come up with this crap? It's 100% up to the Crown on a weapon's charge. Especially if he discharged while running after people in his gonch firing as they drove away.

What was his BAC?

Quote:

Quote:

Want a real good look at how well you are protected by the police in McGuinty's Liberal Ontario?

Read Helpless, by Christie Blatchford.

You're helpless and Hopeless by John Lichtenstein.

Quote:

Quote:

Or start with this.............the nanny state society is the antithesis of liberty.

Welcome to Palestine where some occupying alien living on your land can carry an uzi or an AK as a fashion statement and take pot shots at you while you try to pick olives and you only have rocks to fight back with.

You do realize the world is going Socialist and there isn't a freakin' thing you can do about it?

Do you have any old Testes model engines laying around just in case too just in case? How about the right clay, a tube and some black powder,sugar and tire shavings?
 
Colpy
+1
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Nope. Unless retained under the Charter those B'rithish laws have been overwritten. There is no grandfathering.

Bull Shyte

From the Charter:

Quote:

(external - login to view)

That aside from the fact that government cannot grant or remove what is one's right.......they can only recognize them, or refuse to recognize them.
 
petros
#51
Quote:

existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.



We aren't British.

If you want real rights and not priveleges stop barking at the rose bushes and bark at the oaks but first you'll need to learn the difference between the rights of a person and those of a human.
 
Colpy
+1
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post


We aren't British.

If you want real rights and not priveleges stop barking at the rose bushes and bark at the oaks but first you'll need to learn the difference between the rights of a person and those of a human.

OMG! You were dropped on your head, weren't you?

Our constitution was an Act of the British Parliament up until 1982.........and all the rights we had then, we still have.
 
petros
#53
Quote:

colpy;
Our constitution was an Act of the British Parliament up until 1982

Putz, It's 2011 and you aren't British.
 
Colpy
+1
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Putz, It's 2011 and you aren't British.


Written in 1982:

26. (external - login to view)The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada. (external - login to view)

At that time, our constitution was an Act of the British Parliament.

Last thing I've to say on the subject of the Constitutional rights of the subject of the British crown...........be they English or Canadian:

Who is the Head of State?

Why is our system of Jurisprudence called English Common Law?


Why is William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England taught as the basis of Canadian law to our lawyers?
Last edited by Colpy; Jan 24th, 2011 at 10:18 PM..
 
wulfie68
+2
#55
I'd sign Colpy's private member's bill too.

A couple things do bug me about this discussion though, just little details that seem off to me.

- I thought it was the Crown Prosecutor that presses charges, not the cops or anyone else. Some may think I'm being a little **** on the hair splitting but I don't want to give the cops a black eye for something that is out of their hands: punish them for what they do wrong, not the mistakes of others.

- the point was brought up that being charged isn't the same as being convicted, which is true. On the other hand, if he is charged, guilty of the charges or not, he still has to pay for a defense lawyer and other related expenses, for shooting at some guys that could have killed him? Thats a pretty major insult added to injury and shows poor judgement by the Crown, especially when the complaints are almost non-stop about how over-burdened our courts are.
 
#juan
+3
#56
On this topic I have to agree one hundred percent with Colpy. If some dork is throwing Molotov CCocktails at your house, you should be within your rights to stop him with whatever means are available.......including shooting holes in him.
 
Colpy
#57
Another comment that is completely correct:

Quote:

The right of Canadians to safeguard themselves, their families and their property is rooted in our common-law tradition, and clearly laid out in the Criminal Code. This includes the right to use force when “under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm.” The Code also specifies that “Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority.”
Instead of being hit with a flurry of charges, victims who defeat their attackers should get a citation for bravery. We need more Ian Thomsons, David Morrows, Lawrence Manzers and David Chens. Only by letting individual citizens protect themselves with reasonable force without fear of legal consequence can the law be put back on the side of the lawful citizen.


Read more: Matt Gurney: Protecting the lawful citizen | Full Comment | National Post

This column interesting for its coverage of situations where the police were unable....or unwilling......to respond in a timely fashion......
 
DaSleeper
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Another comment that is completely correct:

[/COLOR]
Read more: Matt Gurney: Protecting the lawful citizen | Full Comment | National Post

This column interesting for its coverage of situations where the police were unable....or unwilling......to respond in a timely fashion......
[/LEFT]

Quote:

Last week, the federal Conservatives announced that they would introduce legislation to change the rules for citizens’ arrests, to ensure other well-meaning individuals do not face a repeat of the Chen fiasco.

Maybe we will finally revert from the "Nanny State" we have become to one where one is allowed to defend himself/herself and his/her property...........
 
TenPenny
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Maybe we will finally revert from the "Nanny State" we have become to one where one is allowed to defend himself/herself and his/her property...........

Subtle difference: in the article Colpy quoted, the reference is to 'protecting themselves', not property.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Subtle difference: in the article Colpy quoted, the reference is to 'protecting themselves', not property.

Not quite subtle....David Chen was protecting his property.....non?
Quote:

And of course, there is the case of Toronto store-owner David Chen. After suffering daily harassment by shoplifters and manifest indifference by the police, in May 2009 Chen finally made a citizens’ arrest of one of the most notorious repeat offenders. Instead of thanking him for doing their job, police charged Chen with assault and forcible confinement. Acquitted of both counts last October, his actions may prove a tipping point. Last week, the federal Conservatives announced that they would introduce legislation to change the rules for citizens’ arrests, to ensure other well-meaning individuals do not face a repeat of the Chen fiasco.



Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...#ixzz1C4hATD37

 
no new posts