Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack


Colpy
#61
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

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

The problem with Chen was that you can only arrest someone you "find committing" an offense, only immediately, or after an uninterupted pursuit, or if you witness a pursuit by someone authorized to arrest..

Chen saw the theft committed early in the day on the surveillance camera, and attempted to arrest the man when he returned hours later.

The arrest was simply not legal.....section 494 is very clear. And somebody called the police when they saw Chen et al struggling with the man, and reported an assault.....in fact, a false arrest.

But who in hell reads the Criminal Code for jollies? I teach this stuff to security guards, so it is my business......

The shock was that the police and prosecutors went forward with the charges.........therein lies the rub. The law could have been explained to Mr. Chem, the crack-head thief arrested by the police on the evidence of the tape, and all would have progressed with a benefit to peace, order, and good government.

With Mr. Thompson, it is worse. If he was in danger of death or grievous bodily harm, he committed no offense in shooting at his attackers.

Read that again.....he committed NO OFFENSE.

If shooting at attackers was illegal, neither the police nor anyone else would be permitted to carry guns.

I could list half a dozen cases off the top of my head where guards or police opened fire in circumstances A LOT more dubious than this, but no charges were laid.
 
petros
#62
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

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

Both security and property are financial terms and there are several legal types of property and 9 times out of 10 when govt is talking about property protection they are talking financial rights and not about using firearms in an illegal manner.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#63
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

The problem with Chen was that you can only arrest someone you "find committing" an offense, only immediately, or after an uninterupted pursuit, or if you witness a pursuit by someone authorized to arrest..

Chen saw the theft committed early in the day on the surveillance camera, and attempted to arrest the man when he returned hours later.

The arrest was simply not legal.....section 494 is very clear. And somebody called the police when they saw Chen et al struggling with the man, and reported an assault.....in fact, a false arrest.

But who in hell reads the Criminal Code for jollies? I teach this stuff to security guards, so it is my business......

The shock was that the police and prosecutors went forward with the charges.........therein lies the rub. The law could have been explained to Mr. Chem, the crack-head thief arrested by the police on the evidence of the tape, and all would have progressed with a benefit to peace, order, and good government.

With Mr. Thompson, it is worse. If he was in danger of death or grievous bodily harm, he committed no offense in shooting at his attackers.

Read that again.....he committed NO OFFENSE.

If shooting at attackers was illegal, neither the police nor anyone else would be permitted to carry guns.

I could list half a dozen cases off the top of my head where guards or police opened fire in circumstances A LOT more dubious than this, but no charges were laid.

I agree with most of what you say....the mistake that mister Thompson made was volunteering information to the police.
What he should have done, since he had not aimed at anybody was police the brass if he had used an automatic, before calling the police and lawyer up if they start asking to many pointed question...
But of course...in the excitement, having to wake up to such a thing as people putting your house on fire, one cannot be expected to think of that.....
 
Trotz
#64
Unfortunately, it seems the correct behaviour here (according to the government) would have been for the man to watch his own house burn into the ground and collect insurance on it, even though in the process he would have lost all his possessions...
 
petros
#65
Quote: Originally Posted by TrotzView Post

Unfortunately, it seems the correct behaviour here (according to the government) would have been for the man to watch his own house burn into the ground and collect insurance on it, even though in the process he would have lost all his possessions...

It helps if you phone the fire dept.
 
Colpy
#66
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

It helps if you phone the fire dept.

Yeah. Sure.

Ask any fireman how long you should hang out in a house on fire.

While people are throwing gasoline on it.

Their advice is "Get out, call from the neighbour's house"

Mr. Thompson got out.....
 
Colpy
#67
Another editorial:

Changing the criminal citizen's arrest law | Editorial | Comment | Ottawa Sun (external - login to view)
 
bobnoorduyn
+2
#68
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

It helps if you phone the fire dept.

You are obviously well citified, I live close to a city but am served by a volunteer FD, any house here will be well invloved or compeletly destroyed by the time they arrive. So it goes for police, unless they are are the Tim's down the highway, their response time will be no less than ten minutes. BTW, I can shoot 50 rounds, using a single standard 7 round mag and using loose rounds in my pocket in two minutes and 27 seconds, and I can hit the target 80% of the time. An assailant shooting and unarmed victim doesn't need to miss that often, and like myself, I didn't have anyone else shooting back at me. I only like the popularity of the 9mm because it is the least lethal of all non prohibited (this country's classification) center fire handguns, you are more likely to survive a 9mm wound than one from my biga$$ .45. Though I have slugs, SSG's, and 000 Buck for my 12 ga., I find it a rather unweildy defense weapon with it's 32" barrel and full choke.

Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

I agree with most of what you say....the mistake that mister Thompson made was volunteering information to the police.
What he should have done, since he had not aimed at anybody was police the brass if he had used an automatic, before calling the police and lawyer up if they start asking to many pointed question...
But of course...in the excitement, having to wake up to such a thing as people putting your house on fire, one cannot be expected to think of that.....

What I advise everyone I advocate for above all is; Say nothing, absolutely nothing; every word or utterance will be used against you.
Last edited by bobnoorduyn; Jan 26th, 2011 at 04:37 AM..
 
Colpy
#69
Quote:

This isn't an argument for guns, it's more basic than that: it's the difference between a citizen and a nanny-state baby. In Lee Harris's forthcoming book Civilization And Its Enemies, he talks about the threat of societal forgetfulness: "Forgetfulness occurs when those who have been long inured to civilized order can no longer remember a time in which they had to wonder whether their crops would grow to maturity without being stolen or their children sold into slavery by a victorious foe."
..................................

But, of course, no one will ever hijack an American plane ever again - not because of idiotic confiscations of tweezers, but because of the brave passengers on the fourth flight. That's why the great British shoebomber had barely got the match to his sock before half the cabin pounded the crap out of him. Even the French. To expect the government to save you is to be a bystander in your own fate.

SteynOnline - BYSTANDERS IN THEIR OWN FATE (external - login to view)

Mark Steyn is a fricking genius.

I love that last line....

Time for us to refuse to be "bystanders to our own fate"......no matter how much the state would like us to be........
 
ironsides
#70
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

He fired shots for **** sakes.


The only thing he did wrong was miss those 3 men, and should have been punished for that only.
 
CDNBear
#71
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

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?

Facts make them change tactics, instead of just concede, learn and grow Colpy.

Stop wasting your time, lol.

Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

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

When you're in your property, what do you do?
 
TenPenny
+1
#72
A discussion about fires and guns seems like a good place to post this:

 
CDNBear
#73
Are you trying to equate mental illness to legitimate self defense?
 
Colpy
#74
Quote:

(Vaughan ON February 1, 2011) The Canadian Shooting Sports Association/Canadian Institute for Legislative Action (CSSA/CILA) support the historic, fundamental right of an individual to defend themselves when under attack.
Ian Thomson of Welland was recently charged with numerous firearms offences when he defended himself again three masked men throwing Molotov cocktails at his home and dog house. While Mr. Thomson was not injured, one of his dogs suffered burns. Firearms lawyer Edward L. Burlew LL.B., is defending Thomson by demonstrating that Canadians must be allowed to protect their own safety and property without being forced to defend themselves against criminal charges. Thomson, who is a qualified firearms instructor, shot a firearm outside his home to dissuade the attackers.
"The courts have stated police do not have an official mandate to protect the safety of individual Canadians," explains CILA executive director Tony Bernardo. "Who among us would stand still if someone was trying to burn down our house with us inside? In the literal heat of the moment, it is surely instinctual to use reasonable force to end this kind of attack. If a qualified individual has a firearm in a home that is being fire-bombed, can anyone expect the endangered victim not to use it?"
Bernardo says he wishes Burlew well in what may develop into a landmark case.
"While we do not know the details of this case before the evidence is...

Quote has been trimmed
www.cdnshootingsports.org/201...f-defence.html (external - login to view)
 
Unforgiven
#75
A few things about this bother me.

First, after he fired the first shot, the guys who were trying to kill him ran. Once they run off they are no longer a threat and so, the second and third shot he fired was not in self defense.

He didn't call 911 first, he said he went to get his gun from the safe and loaded it, then went out to confront his attackers and flee the burning house. He didn't run away, he went toward his attackers. Not something you do when in fear of your life.

There was some kind of big deal made about the Port Colborne Fire Dept. arriving some 20 minutes after he called them.
Yet his home didn't burn down as you would have expected it to if it was engulfed. Sounds to me, based on my own experience that the fuel burned off rather than igniting the house. I expect there was some substantial damage but not what would be seen if someone was actually trapped inside an engulfed home with their life endanger. A point about the Fire Dept, 20 minutes isn't a bad time when dealing with a rural home and a volunteer fire dept. They have to gather at the station and then head out to the fire. So I don't think you can really blame the Fire Dept of Port Colbourne for the time of the response as it's being alluded to.

He later re-entered the house and loaded some guns and placed them about the house, which is against the law. Even if he was in fear of his life, he isn't going to justify having loaded weapons laying around unattended.

In my opinion the police did the right thing in charging him and bringing this situation before a court and jury. If nothing else the laws that seem to be in dispute here can be tested and if need be a precedent set.
 
Colpy
#76
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

A few things about this bother me.
First, after he fired the first shot, the guys who were trying to kill him ran. Once they run off they are no longer a threat and so, the second and third shot he fired was not in self defense.
He didn't call 911 first, he said he went to get his gun from the safe and loaded it, then went out to confront his attackers and flee the burning house. He didn't run away, he went toward his attackers. Not something you do when in fear of your life.
There was some kind of big deal made about the Port Colborne Fire Dept. arriving some 20 minutes after he called them.
Yet his home didn't burn down as you would have expected it to if it was engulfed. Sounds to me, based on my own experience that the fuel burned off rather than igniting the house. I expect there was some substantial damage but not what would be seen if someone was actually trapped inside an engulfed home with their life endanger. A point about the Fire Dept, 20 minutes isn't a bad time when dealing with a rural home and a volunteer fire dept. They have to gather at the station and then head out to the fire. So I don't think you can really blame the Fire Dept of Port Colbourne for the time of the response as it's being alluded to.
He later re-entered the house and loaded some guns and placed them about the house, which is against the law. Even if he was in fear of his life, he isn't going to justify having loaded...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Well, I wish I knew where you are getting your info.........I have read that he fired in the air, that he fired at the attackers, and that he fired at their fleeing car. I have NO idea which is accurate, and I would be very interested in any link you can provide......

Obviously, 20 minutes is not a bad response time for a rural fire dep't.......and I agree that usually gasoline will burn off without igniting anything even slightly fire resistant underneath. But that is totally irrelevant. If you are dumb-ass enough to threaten my life with a sharpened stick, (or a bottle of gasoline) and fail to leave me a convenient avenue of escape, then I am perfectly legally entitled to blow you out of your shoes with my super-dupper, 9 round semi-automatic, laser sighted 12 ga riot gun. The difference in offensive capability has no bearing on my right to defend myself.............same as the old saw about bringing a knife to a gun fight..........those that carry guns for a living are instructed to shoot an aggressive knife-weilding assailant at 21 feet, and to shoot centre mass, and to keep shooting until the threat has ended........ There is no question about that........the line is if you have reason to believe you are in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm. Certainly having your house fire-bombed qualifies.

The idea that keeping a loaded gun around immediately after you have been attacked is somehow questionable is SO far beyond the Pale..........ANYONE with the sense of a gnat does not disarm themselves in the face of what might be an ongoing attack.......in all sincerity, I have to ask: Are you serious????????

In the short time I was working training armed guards, there were two instances in Canada of guards pursuing and firing on robbers escaping in vehicles.........both on crowded streets in Toronto. I used them as examples of what NOT to do..........but in NEITHER case were charges laid. Nor should there have been.

Flexibility should be part of law enforcement.
 
cdn_bc_ca
#77
The question is, was the person defending himself or defending his property?

I'm inclined to think that he was defending his property because he had other avenues of escape. Furthermore, the vandals were not directly inflicting bodily harm. Lastly, if he had time to go get his guns and load them, he should have used that time to call 911.

What he should have done is turn the situation from a defense of property to a defense of his own life. All he had to do is load up his weapon, go outside to negotiate and if the vandals tried to cause him bodily harm, he would then have the right to defend himself. The cops do this all the time.

If there is a law that allows one to defend their own property, it could potentially cause a lot of headaches as people have different interpretations of what constitutes a "defense of property." For example, if a vandal sets your house on fire and runs away, are you going to chase him with gun in hand for 4 blocks trying to kill him? Or if one person crosses your lawn breaks an ornament or destroys your prize winning roses are you going to blow his brains out?
 
Colpy
#78
Quote: Originally Posted by cdn_bc_caView Post

The question is, was the person defending himself or defending his property?

I'm inclined to think that he was defending his property because he had other avenues of escape. Furthermore, the vandals were not directly inflicting bodily harm. Lastly, if he had time to go get his guns and load them, he should have used that time to call 911.

What he should have done is turn the situation from a defense of property to a defense of his own life. All he had to do is load up his weapon, go outside to negotiate and if the vandals tried to cause him bodily harm, he would then have the right to defend himself. The cops do this all the time.

If there is a law that allows one to defend their own property, it could potentially cause a lot of headaches as people have different interpretations of what constitutes a "defense of property." For example, if a vandal sets your house on fire and runs away, are you going to chase him with gun in hand for 4 blocks trying to kill him? Or if one person crosses your lawn breaks an ornament or destroys your prize winning roses are you going to blow his brains out?


I don't get this "if he had time to load his guns, he had time to call 911" Calling 911 does not instantaneously throw up a force field around you, making you safe. You can die after dialling 911, or even while dialling 911. And I can load a handgun a LOT quicker than I can dial 911 and explain the situation to the operator...........

Defense first, seek help second

Philisophically, I believe you should have every right to defend your property. I see no reason to give way to criminal behaviour, or to threats. And I think that creating a society where submission to unlawful activity is the norm is a huge mistake.

In Canada, you can use force to prevent a crime being committed, as long as that force is proportional to the resistance offered. You may NOT use lethal force simply to protect property...........
 
Unforgiven
#79
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Well, I wish I knew where you are getting your info.........I have read that he fired in the air, that he fired at the attackers, and that he fired at their fleeing car. I have NO idea which is accurate, and I would be very interested in any link you can provide......

His lawyer gave an interview on the Daily Split that is on youtube. I found the link within one of your links though damned if I can remember which now. His lawyer Mr. said he fired to miss the attackers. Three shots were fired and they started running after the first shot.

Quote:

Obviously, 20 minutes is not a bad response time for a rural fire dep't.......and I agree that usually gasoline will burn off without igniting anything even slightly fire resistant underneath. But that is totally irrelevant.

I agree but his lawyer in the interview brought it up like it was some important point having something to do with police response time or something.

Quote:

If you are dumb-ass enough to threaten my life with a sharpened stick, (or a bottle of gasoline) and fail to leave me a convenient avenue of escape, then I am perfectly legally entitled to blow you out of your shoes with my super-dupper, 9 round semi-automatic, laser sighted 12 ga riot gun.

You know or should know that it's reasonable force. Always has been always will be. Threats are against the law but have to have a criteria met before they are credible. So no if someone threatens you, you can't blow them away with your 12 gauge riot gun no matter how much you want to.

[/quote] The difference in offensive capability has no bearing on my right to defend myself.............same as the old saw about bringing a knife to a gun fight..........those that carry guns for a living are instructed to shoot an aggressive knife-weilding assailant at 21 feet, and to shoot centre mass, and to keep shooting until the threat has ended........ There is no question about that........the line is if you have reason to believe you are in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm. Certainly having your house fire-bombed qualifies.[/quote]

Go look it up. You have to actually fear for your life, you have to be under imminent attack by a credible threat. Someone acting aggressive toward you with a gun in their hand, I would say you probably have cause. Someone standing around with a stick calling you names, not so much. Again you can go look this up. It's available on the Internet and stated quite clearly.

[
Quote:

The idea that keeping a loaded gun around immediately after you have been attacked is somehow questionable is SO far beyond the Pale..........ANYONE with the sense of a gnat does not disarm themselves in the face of what might be an ongoing attack.......in all sincerity, I have to ask: Are you serious????????

There is a huge difference between having a loaded weapon on you or near you, and having six loaded weapons stashed around the house. While I would agree that he had the right to have a loaded weapon on his person after the attack, there is no way that he has the right to leave loaded weapons laying around.

Quote:

In the short time I was working training armed guards, there were two instances in Canada of guards pursuing and firing on robbers escaping in vehicles.........both on crowded streets in Toronto. I used them as examples of what NOT to do..........but in NEITHER case were charges laid. Nor should there have been.

Oh hell you don't mess with the money. Screw around with the money and you can be hunted down for three weeks and shot in the bath tub. But we're talking money here not some dime a dozen life. Of course firing into a a crowd should not only get your license revoked for good but you should be charged with reckless endangerment. You don't ever shoot into a crowd. I know that and you should too. Today any guard who shot his weapon chasing after criminals would be tossed to the lions and rightly so. Money is insured and should it get stolen, it can be replaced. Shooting some bystander in the head and killing them or ruining their life for a few grand isn't worth it. If it happened to you, you might understand that.

Quote:

Flexibility should be part of law enforcement.

There is an amount of judgement police officers are allowed, but when it's a case like this, there is no wiggle room. It has to go before the courts where a judge can make a ruling.
 
cdn_bc_ca
+1
#80
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

I don't get this "if he had time to load his guns, he had time to call 911" Calling 911 does not instantaneously throw up a force field around you, making you safe. You can die after dialling 911, or even while dialling 911. And I can load a handgun a LOT quicker than I can dial 911 and explain the situation to the operator...........

Was he in a situation where he was in a real threat of IMMEDIATE death? Not really. He had time to get his guns. Even if the fire got out of control, he can always save himself by running out the back door. Calling 911 accomplishes 2 things, it brings the cops and it brings the firemen. I can also load a handgun faster than calling 911, but I have the advantage of being able to call 911 WHILE I'm out getting the key to unlock the trigger lock and load the ammunition.

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Philisophically, I believe you should have every right to defend your property. I see no reason to give way to criminal behaviour, or to threats. And I think that creating a society where submission to unlawful activity is the norm is a huge mistake.

In Canada, you can use force to prevent a crime being committed, as long as that force is proportional to the resistance offered. You may NOT use lethal force simply to protect property...........

I agree with most of what you said above. But the problem is determining the amount of force that would be "proportional to the resistance offered" without getting yourself into trouble with the law. In the case of this thread, what would be the appropriate measure of force?

I'm guessing by the comments that Colpy has made in this thread that if he were in the same situation the outcome would be drastically different. Anyone hazard a guess of what that would be?
 
Unforgiven
#81
Quote: Originally Posted by cdn_bc_caView Post

Was he in a situation where he was in a real threat of IMMEDIATE death? Not really. He had time to get his guns. Even if the fire got out of control, he can always save himself by running out the back door. Calling 911 accomplishes 2 things, it brings the cops and it brings the firemen. I can also load a handgun faster than calling 911, but I have the advantage of being able to call 911 WHILE I'm out getting the key to unlock the trigger lock and load the ammunition.



I agree with most of what you said above. But the problem is determining the amount of force that would be "proportional to the resistance offered" without getting yourself into trouble with the law. In the case of this thread, what would be the appropriate measure of force?

Yep firing a warning shot would have scared the attackers off. Someone running away from you isn't an immediate threat anymore.

Quote:

I'm guessing by the comments that Colpy has made in this thread that if he were in the same situation the outcome would be drastically different. Anyone hazard a guess of what that would be?

You know I honestly think Colpy believes that there would be a parade in his honour if he shot someone like this.
Reality shows that he would be arrested, charged and after the search of his home more charges and likely a very expensive trial after which keeping guns legally wouldn't be an option for him.
 
Colpy
#82
Quote:

Unforgiven;1376756]His lawyer gave an interview on the Daily Split that is on youtube. I found the link within one of your links though damned if I can remember which now.

Thanks. I'll see if I can find it.


Quote:

You know or should know that it's reasonable force. Always has been always will be. Threats are against the law but have to have a criteria met before they are credible. So no if someone threatens you, you can't blow them away with your 12 gauge riot gun no matter how much you want to.

Go look it up. You have to actually fear for your life, you have to be under imminent attack by a credible threat. Someone acting aggressive toward you with a gun in their hand, I would say you probably have cause. Someone standing around with a stick calling you names, not so much. Again you can go look this up. It's available on the Internet and stated quite clearly.

Absolutely! And having to exit my house which is having bottles of gasoline thrown at it, and go outside where the people throwing the gasoline are situated............that is imminent attack and a credible threat. Unless you happen to be fire proof.

Now....to legally use force to defend yourself, you have to consider that your opponent has three things: (1) Intent (he was already throwing gasoline on the house!) (2) a weapon (can even be fists or feet, depending on the circumstance.....bottles of gasoline are a LETHAL weapon) and (3) a delivery system......yep, they were throwing them.

When I say THREATEN, I mean show intent.....and YES if you have a pointy stick within 21 feet of me, and I have no escape route, and you say you intend to hurt me with it, I can disintegrate you with my ray gun, if I have one handy, or call in an airstrike, or whatever else is necessary to stop your attack. If you are in possesion of a weapon, and you voice a threat, you have already commited assault.

Sorry, Unforgiven, but I don't need to look it up...... I teach this stuff (now to unarmed guards) and you do not understand the law. Simple as that.

As well, I can use force on anyone to remove them from trespassing on my property..........the force must be proportional. Pistol versus molotov cocktail is obviously proprtional.

Quote:

There is a huge difference between having a loaded weapon on you or near you, and having six loaded weapons stashed around the house. While I would agree that he had the right to have a loaded weapon on his person after the attack, there is no way that he has the right to leave loaded weapons laying around.

Yeah well, minor point.....as he was the only guy that lived there.....I guess the .357 and my trusty 12 ga would have been enough, but frightened people do fightened things....who is to blame him? He was the only one there, he was in possession of them....he was in fear....no foul.


Quote:

Oh hell you don't mess with the money. Screw around with the money and you can be hunted down for three weeks and shot in the bath tub. But we're talking money here not some dime a dozen life. Of course firing into a a crowd should not only get your license revoked for good but you should be charged with reckless endangerment. You don't ever shoot into a crowd. I know that and you should too. Today any guard who shot his weapon chasing after criminals would be tossed to the lions and rightly so. Money is insured and should it get stolen, it can be replaced. Shooting some bystander in the head and killing them or ruining their life for a few grand isn't worth it. If it happened to you, you might understand that.

What part of "I used them as examples of what NOT to do", with emphasis on the NOT, do you find difficult to understand?????

And it was not that long ago. Within 10 years, for one example.

And you watch too much US TV. "Reckless endangerment" is a crime in the USA, not Canada............


Quote:

There is an amount of judgement police officers are allowed, but when it's a case like this, there is no wiggle room. It has to go before the courts where a judge can make a ruling

Ah baloney. Obviously, this guy was defending his life, preventing a criminal act, being perpetrated by trespassers who meant him serious harm.

The charges are a slap in the face to the individual, to justice in general, and to all our rights in particular.
 
petros
#83
I'm baffled how a grown man can believe a vote for a specific political party will ever reverse gun laws.


While I'm at it I may as well tell you there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Faerie.
 
bobnoorduyn
+2
#84
Here you go

YouTube - Right Interviews - Lawyer Edward Burlew Discusses Gun Issues



What I love about Tuesday morning quarterbacks is that they have so much foresight on Monday night's football game. I would have bought BreEx too, but not the day after it cratered. I too often deal with those who claim they would have done this or that differently given the transcripts of how the actual events played out. The problem is that we aren't given those transcripts beforehand. It is too easy to say what we would have done and use that as a basis on which to judge someone. A fellow shows up with intent and a knife, you have a gun. Do you wait until he stabs you before you fire? The reason for the 7 meter (21') training is that an average person can close that gap in 1.5 seconds. I can fire off 7 rounds, reload the mag from loose ammunition and fire off another 7 in the time it takes to call 911. I have seen police videos that show dedicated agressors can do likewise, and they have no regard for collateral casualties. A negotiation can turn from a simple theft to a deadly encounter in a heartbeat. Giving the aggressor the benefit of the doubt invariably leads to the death or serious injury of the victim.

What I can't seem to wrap my head around is those who would willingly leave themselves open to be victims, but I would respect their decision. That they would also cede any duty they might have to defend those under their care, I would question their morals. That they would make myself or others do likewise I would damn their souls to hell forevermore.
Last edited by bobnoorduyn; Feb 3rd, 2011 at 11:01 PM..
 
petros
#85
Quote:

A fellow shows up with intent and a knife, you have a gun. Do you wait until he stabs you before you fire?

One guy has a rock. One guy has a stick. Who wins?

If everyone in Asian was disarmed of all knives guns sticks rocks or what have you, would I be illegal because I'm 30cm taller and 25kg more muscluar?

The only fair fight is the one that doesn't happen.
 
Unforgiven
#86
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Thanks. I'll see if I can find it.




Absolutely! And having to exit my house which is having bottles of gasoline thrown at it, and go outside where the people throwing the gasoline are situated............that is imminent attack and a credible threat. Unless you happen to be fire proof.

Without question.

Quote:

Now....to legally use force to defend yourself, you have to consider that your opponent has three things: (1) Intent (he was already throwing gasoline on the house!) (2) a weapon (can even be fists or feet, depending on the circumstance.....bottles of gasoline are a LETHAL weapon) and (3) a delivery system......yep, they were throwing them.

Not quite. Any force you use must be reasonable. As always the devils in the details. According to your version, someone caught breaking into your house, has the right to shoot you if you start beating them to make the leave.

The problem with that is it's unreasonable. You have the right to use reasonable force to remove someone from your property like grabbing them by the scruff and walking them off your property after telling them clearly to leave and they persist in staying.

I've done this twice and never been charged. The trespasser was charged in both cases. If I beat him to death, I would be charged and most likely convicted.

Quote:

When I say THREATEN, I mean show intent.....and YES if you have a pointy stick within 21 feet of me, and I have no escape route, and you say you intend to hurt me with it, I can disintegrate you with my ray gun, if I have one handy, or call in an airstrike, or whatever else is necessary to stop your attack. If you are in possesion of a weapon, and you voice a threat, you have already commited assault.

Not the case here though. Once he was outside, his life was no longer in danger from the burning house.
Not that it wasn't threatened by the attackers at that point, but he had an escape route, and he was armed with a weapon, which after he discharged it, the attackers fled.

I think it would be safe to assume that the fire was out and there was no longer a threat of or from the house burning as he took the time to load up a number of weapons. So while he may, and justifiably so, felt threatened at that point, he was not as they had fled. The attack was stopped. There was no actual threat to him at that point.

Quote:

Sorry, Unforgiven, but I don't need to look it up...... I teach this stuff (now to unarmed guards) and you do not understand the law. Simple as that.

As well, I can use force on anyone to remove them from trespassing on my property..........the force must be proportional. Pistol versus molotov cocktail is obviously proprtional.

Believe what you want but a fleeing person is not a threat.

Quote:

Yeah well, minor point.....as he was the only guy that lived there.....I guess the .357 and my trusty 12 ga would have been enough, but frightened people do fightened things....who is to blame him? He was the only one there, he was in possession of them....he was in fear....no foul.

I think there is a lot more to this than is presented just now. For one thing the guy said he has no enemies, yet the neighbour whose chickens he killed was convicted of uttering death threats. I don't for a moment think this was just some random attack. The guy in the video was yelling and clearly harboured some sort of hateful grudge toward the guy. So something doesn't add up.

Quote:

What part of "I used them as examples of what NOT to do", with emphasis on the NOT, do you find difficult to understand?????

And it was not that long ago. Within 10 years, for one example.

Fair enough I misread what you posted there.

Quote:

And you watch too much US TV. "Reckless endangerment" is a crime in the USA, not Canada............

Oh come on. Criminal Negligence if you must.

Quote:

Ah baloney. Obviously, this guy was defending his life, preventing a criminal act, being perpetrated by trespassers who meant him serious harm.

The charges are a slap in the face to the individual, to justice in general, and to all our rights in particular.

Was he? If someone can disagree then it's questionable. There was a number of cops there, assuming they are not idiots and applied the law as they felt they should, he was charged. I have to say that trumps Internet guy every time on the should he have been scale.
 
ironsides
#87
Quote: Originally Posted by cdn_bc_caView Post

Was he in a situation where he was in a real threat of IMMEDIATE death? Not really. He had time to get his guns. Even if the fire got out of control, he can always save himself by running out the back door. Calling 911 accomplishes 2 things, it brings the cops and it brings the firemen. I can also load a handgun faster than calling 911, but I have the advantage of being able to call 911 WHILE I'm out getting the key to unlock the trigger lock and load the ammunition.



I agree with most of what you said above. But the problem is determining the amount of force that would be "proportional to the resistance offered" without getting yourself into trouble with the law. In the case of this thread, what would be the appropriate measure of force?

I'm guessing by the comments that Colpy has made in this thread that if he were in the same situation the outcome would be drastically different. Anyone hazard a guess of what that would be?

When I am under a threat where I have to shoot, I usually fire two shots rapid center body. While your calling 911 the robber if your lucky has clubbed you and not shot you.
If you are confronted with a armed person, just do everything they say to do, you may come out with just a big scare.
 
petros
#88
If you manage to get into my home and I'm there and harm me or anyone in my family you will without any question be exiting my home through the basement floor drain.

No noise. No gun. No messy stains. No out of the ordinary purchases. Zero organic matter to find.

My lovely wife has been working with dark and criminal aspects of the mental health field in both Fed and Prov prison and jail for 18 years.

It doesn't matter if you have a gun, a knife or a pop tart, before you can blink you are on the floor, blinded, your balls in your throat with whatever was in your hand stuffed up your ass.

Amen.
 
Unforgiven
#89
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

If you manage to get into my home and I'm there and harm me or anyone in my family you will without any question be exiting my home through the basement floor drain.

No noise. No gun. No messy stains. No out of the ordinary purchases. Zero organic matter to find.

My lovely wife has been working with dark and criminal aspects of the mental health field in both Fed and Prov prison and jail for 18 years.

It doesn't matter if you have a gun, a knife or a pop tart, before you can blink you are on the floor, blinded, your balls in your throat with whatever was in your hand stuffed up your ass.

Amen.

Now this is too much American TV!
 
cdn_bc_ca
#90
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

When I am under a threat where I have to shoot, I usually fire two shots rapid center body. While your calling 911 the robber if your lucky has clubbed you and not shot you.
If you are confronted with a armed person, just do everything they say to do, you may come out with just a big scare.

The situation you came up with above is completely different from the OP. Your talking about an armed robbery within a household as opposed to arson.
 
no new posts