Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack


petros
#91
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

Now this is too much American TV!

I don't watch TV. I don't need a gun or John Wayne movies to protect my home because I'm not afraid. I'm not going to cower in my own home stroking a steel ***** while life passes by the peephole in my window because I watch too much TV and it ****ed me up. Nooo thank you but I will do whatever it takes to protect myself and my gals just like men did long before guns, TV and John Wayne movies.
 
cdn_bc_ca
+2
#92
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

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.

Based on your criteria above, here's probably what would've happened if it were a Colpy vs. Colpy scenario:

1. Colpy the Vandal tries to light a house on fire using molotov cocktails

2. Colpy the Resident notices an act of violence and quickly goes through "Colpy's 3 step method for self-defense"
a) there was intent - "he was already throwing gasoline on the house!"
b) there was a weapon - bottles of gasoline
c) delivery system - "yep, he was throwing them."

So he goes and grabs his gun and runs outside and fires 2-3 rounds to scare the vandal off.

3. Colpy the Vandal notices Colpy the Resident's act of violence quickly goes through "Colpy's 3 step method for self-defense"
a) there was intent - "he was already firing his gun in the air"
b) there was a weapon - a gun "duuuh"
c) deliver system - "yep, he was pulling the trigger"

So now Colpy the Vandal whips out his own gun, because Colpy's always have guns on hand.

We have a classic Mexican standoff here boys!

4. Then both Colpy's notices yet another act of violence and both quickly go through "Colpy's 3 step method for self-defense"
a) there was intent - "he was already throwing the newspaper at us"
b) there was a weapon - fists and feet
c) delivery system - "yep, he was throwing them"

Poor paper boy, all he wanted to do was save a little walking time.
Last edited by cdn_bc_ca; Feb 4th, 2011 at 01:36 PM..
 
petros
#93
You missed the option where neighbour across the street calls cops, cops see Colpy armed with pistol and then the meat wagon comes for Colpy.
 
cdn_bc_ca
#94
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

You missed the option where neighbour across the street calls cops, cops see Colpy armed with pistol and then the meat wagon comes for Colpy.

My bad...
 
Unforgiven
+1
#95
Colpy vs the Truffle Shuffle.

 
cdn_bc_ca
#96
Lol...
 
Colpy
#97
Quote: Originally Posted by cdn_bc_caView Post

Based on your criteria above, here's probably what would've happened if it were a Colpy vs. Colpy scenario:

1. Colpy the Vandal tries to light a house on fire using molotov cocktails

2. Colpy the Resident notices an act of violence and quickly goes through "Colpy's 3 step method for self-defense"
a) there was intent - "he was already throwing gasoline on the house!"
b) there was a weapon - bottles of gasoline
c) delivery system - "yep, he was throwing them."

So he goes and grabs his gun and runs outside and fires 2-3 rounds to scare the vandal off.

3. Colpy the Vandal notices Colpy the Resident's act of violence quickly goes through "Colpy's 3 step method for self-defense"
a) there was intent - "he was already firing his gun in the air"
b) there was a weapon - a gun "duuuh"
c) deliver system - "yep, he was pulling the trigger"

So now Colpy the Vandal whips out his own gun, because Colpy's always have guns on hand.

We have a classic Mexican standoff here boys!

4. Then both Colpy's notices yet another act of violence and both quickly go through "Colpy's 3 step method for self-defense"
a) there was intent - "he was already throwing the newspaper at us"
b) there was a weapon - fists and feet
c) delivery system - "yep, he was throwing them"

Poor paper boy, all he wanted to do was save a little walking time.

First of all, it wouldn't be Colpy vs Colpy, because Colpy is not in the habit of firebombing his neighbours.

Secondly, it is obvious you haven't read all the thread, as I have stated; Colpy doesn't fire warning shots. If there is reason to shoot, shoot to stop..........or don't shoot.....for reasons laid out in an earlier post. So, Colpy exits house, confronted with arsonist armed with molotov cocktail, Colpy fires centre mass.......thus stopping the arsonist's attack......end of story.

BTW, you should really pay attention to what I'm saying....I do know what I'm talking about, you don't have a clue. I have been trained in Canadian self-defense law and practice by some of the best professionals in the country.......and I have trained guards, both armed and not, in self-defense.........The Intent/Weapon/Delivery System is not my pattern, but is the standard taught to every police officer in the country.

And I don't have newspapers delivered to the house.

So there.
 
cdn_bc_ca
#98
I have no doubts about your experience or the standards that are in place for every police officer. What I have doubts about is the fact that you think that an attack on your property is the same as an attack on your physical body. That is not the case and never will be. You've just lost all credibility there. Nowhere in your revised Colpy sequence of events states that the "arsonist armed with molotov cocktail" attempts to throw said cocktail at you so again, you cannot just go and shoot, shoot to stop or whatever.

Just based on the article, the guy fired shots in the air and got in trouble for it. Just imagine what would happen if he pulled a Colpy and shot centre mass seriously injuring or even killing the guy(s). Even a clueless person could figure the outcome.

> And I don't have newspapers delivered to the house.

Not even local newspapers?
 
Colpy
#99
Quote: Originally Posted by cdn_bc_caView Post

I have no doubts about your experience or the standards that are in place for every police officer. What I have doubts about is the fact that you think that an attack on your property is the same as an attack on your physical body. That is not the case and never will be. You've just lost all credibility there. Nowhere in your revised Colpy sequence of events states that the "arsonist armed with molotov cocktail" attempts to throw said cocktail at you so again, you cannot just go and shoot, shoot to stop or whatever.

Just based on the article, the guy fired shots in the air and got in trouble for it. Just imagine what would happen if he pulled a Colpy and shot centre mass seriously injuring or even killing the guy(s). Even a clueless person could figure the outcome.

> And I don't have newspapers delivered to the house.

Not even local newspapers?

Once again, you demonstrate your lack of understanding.

The use of force depends on my being in fear of death or grievous bodily harm.

Certainly having my house set on fire while I am in it satisfies that requirement.

My use of force against a specific individual (listen carefully now) depends on their expressed intent (yelling threats, throwing molotov cocktails at the house), their possession of a weapon (in this case the gasoline bottles) and their ability to deliver the attack (they obviously are quite capable of throwing the bottles) At that point, I do not have to warn them, and I do not have to wait until they "get the first shot" by having them throw a bottle at me and perhaps set me on fire.....the INTENT has been shown by their threats and their throwing trying to set my house on fire......once I have determined INTENT/WEAPON/DELIVERY I can respond....and use whatever force is required to stop my attacker.

This of course, dependent on my inability to retreat, and my reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm.

All of which are present here.

In addition, there is the old English Common Law principle that "a man's home is his castle"...............................

When someone tries to set my house on fire while I am in it, while yelling threats against me, that is not only an attack on my property, but on my person as well.

I wouldn't use the local paper to line the bottom of a bird cage.
 
petros
#100
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

First of all, it wouldn't be Colpy vs Colpy, because Colpy is not in the habit of firebombing his neighbours.

Lots of people smoke cigars without it being habitual.
 
Cliffy
#101
I agree with Colpy. That guy should have shot to kill instead of shooting in the air. With any threat of bodily harm, lethal force is the only option but that does not necessarily mean using a gun. The greatest weapon you can use, even in a gun fight, is to not care if you live through the encounter. The biggest killer is fear. To act without fear gives you the advantage. Your actions will be unexpected.
 
CDNBear
#102
Quote: Originally Posted by cdn_bc_caView Post

What I have doubts about is the fact that you think that an attack on your property is the same as an attack on your physical body.

Tell that to the young man currently being held in an arson case in Georgina Township. He's been charged with 4 counts attempted murder, 4 counts of assault with a weapon, 4 counts uttering..., because there were people in the house.

Arson, when no one is home, attempted murder if someone is.

Quote:

That is not the case and never will be.



Reality dictates otherwise.

Quote:

You've just lost all credibility there.

A great example of projection.
 
petros
#103
Arson comes in second after killing someone on the felony scale. It's a not quite the same in Canada tho.
 
ironsides
#104
Quote: Originally Posted by cdn_bc_caView Post

I have no doubts about your experience or the standards that are in place for every police officer. What I have doubts about is the fact that you think that an attack on your property is the same as an attack on your physical body. That is not the case and never will be. You've just lost all credibility there. Nowhere in your revised Colpy sequence of events states that the "arsonist armed with molotov cocktail" attempts to throw said cocktail at you so again, you cannot just go and shoot, shoot to stop or whatever.

Just based on the article, the guy fired shots in the air and got in trouble for it. Just imagine what would happen if he pulled a Colpy and shot centre mass seriously injuring or even killing the guy(s). Even a clueless person could figure the outcome.

> And I don't have newspapers delivered to the house.

Not even local newspapers?

I hope you never are put in a position of protecting your loved ones. Just watch the following.


Couger vs Bear


The Bear - Film by Jean-Jacques Annaud (external - login to view)
 
Unforgiven
#105
Colpy vs the terrorists.



It's called gun control for a reason.
 
bobnoorduyn
#106
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

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.

Well, in some parallel universe fights don't happen. In our universe the losers are invariably either the weakest or least appropriately armed. Women nearly always lose to men when both are unarmed, strength in numbers will also determine the winner when neither side is armed, or are armed with primitive weapons, (think Rwanda, Hutus and Tutsis, or much of Africa for that matter). An 80 year old grandma with skill at arms does not need to be a victim of 2 or more 20 something crack heads. An agressor being shot by a defender does not make them a victim, except in our upside down society.
 
petros
#107
What the hell is you grandma doing hanging out with 20 year old crack heads? What the hell kind of grandson are you to allow your grandmother to do crack?
 
bobnoorduyn
#108
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Lots of people smoke cigars without it being habitual.

Using deadly force against intruders usually isn't habitual, (we welcome them in this country), North Korea is a different story, but I digress. There is a difference between defending your property, self, and those under your care; that is more of a duty than a habit. Criminality is habitual, that is part of what it is. Anyone who would firebomb a house, with or without occupants, has serious issues and most likely a criminal past, thus having a predisposition to criminality, or habit.
 
petros
#109
Running out in your gonch firing wildly into the air is not protecting your property. It's using a steel ***** because your's won't shoot anything but blanks.
 
bobnoorduyn
#110
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

What the hell is you grandma doing hanging out with 20 year old crack heads? What the hell kind of grandson are you to allow your grandmother to do crack?

I know you're just being facetious, but where I'm from, they're called "home invasions". There are many cases of elderly folk whose homes have been invaded by whackos looking for prescription opiates. The kids have no regard for the welfare of the victim. BTW, I offered the use of one of my .45's but my mum declined, she hates guns.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Running out in your gonch firing wildly into the air is not protecting your property. It's using a steel ***** because your's won't shoot anything but blanks.

I don't know that he was firing wildly, but in your own words he was using a "steel *****", I really don't want to know what you would do with your real one to diffuse the situation had you been given the opportunity.
 
petros
#111
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

I offered the use of one of my .45's but my mum declined, she hates guns.

Smart woman. You leave your 80 year old mother who is on opiates living in an unsecure building?

Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post



I don't know that he was firing wildly, but in your own words he was using a "steel *****", I really don't want to know what you would do with your real one to diffuse the situation had you been given the opportunity.

You should have read the article in full. Do you think it would have been a good idea for him to call the cops and FD before ejaculating into the night sky?
 
bobnoorduyn
#112
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Smart woman. You leave your 80 year old mother who is on opiates living in an unsecure building

Well,yeah she's smart, but I didn't leave her anywhere, other than at her home It was my dad who was on opiates in his final days, but one of my cousins did steal some of his leftovers. Mum just doesn't like guns because one uncle died as a result of a hunting accident. The rest of my extended family regards them as tools, and respects them likewise.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

You should have read the article in full. Do you think it would have been a good idea for him to call the cops and FD before ejaculating into the night sky?

You remind me of the eggheads from Transport Canada who used to ask,"why are normal checklists read while emergency checklists are committed to memory instead of the other way around/". The thought being that emergincies require more diligence. The reality is that when dealing with normalcy, you have the luxury of time to make sure everything is done right, not so during an emergency. In an emergancy you do the actions first, by memory, then, once the situation is under control, you follow up with the checklist. You do not run a long checklist until you burn a wing off or drive an MD11 into St. Margret's bay, you do the actions first. Take a walk in the real world.
 
ironsides
#113
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Smart woman. You leave your 80 year old mother who is on opiates living in an unsecure building?


You should have read the article in full. Do you think it would have been a good idea for him to call the cops and FD before ejaculating into the night sky?

Secure your area/home first, hopefully you got the intruders there, but if not two quick snaps at each of them as they are running out the door is acceptable.
 
CDNBear
#114
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Arson comes in second after killing someone on the felony scale. It's a not quite the same in Canada tho.

Actually, it comes in third after attempting to kill someone.

Setting fire to an occupied home, is attempted murder.

Don't believe me, call your local Police Detachment.
 
Unforgiven
+2
#115
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

BTW, I offered the use of one of my .45's but my mum declined, she hates guns.

Ah, here it is. I knew this was coming a long at some point and so I'll use it now to raise my point about guns.

Your mom, as nice a lady as I am sure she is, isn't trained, inspected or permitted to use or keep a gun. You, a so called law abiding gun owner, have no hesitation what so ever to give a gun to someone who isn't trained, or permitted to keep a gun, let alone a semi automatic handgun in her home. Of course you mean well and I understand that, but what you don't see is, that she would likely be giving that gun up should something happen.

I know it sounds really really easy to gun down a seriously evil person who is bent on killing, then raping then eating some of what's left, in your mind. But it's not that way in reality. Unless trained, most people are going to at the very least hesitate and question themselves and the situation. Before they know it, the gun is out of their hands and in the hands of someone who at the very least, broke into a home they knew someone was in to steal things.

Now that criminal has a gun and your mother. Just what good is that going to do anyone?

So what ends up happening, is you, a law abiding gun owner is putting a gun in the hands of a criminal. This should never ever even cross your mind. That's the problem with gun ownership today. Too many people who own guns, take that responsibility far to lightly. Because of that, we need to have the government implement a gun registry. So that when someone finds a gun that is in the wrong hands, it can be traced back to the person who was supposed to be responsible for it and remove that responsibility they obviously can't handle.

There are other options. None are free and easy but then arming Mom with an illegal hand gun isn't going to be free or easy when it comes down to it either.

As to the OP here, the crux is that when he exited his home, he had plenty room to escape and thus, no longer under attack. Once he exited the house, they fled. Even masked the police found two of the three and arrested them. The third is wanted and should he pop his head up, they're going to arrest him too.

If someone is trying to kill you, then in my book you can kill them if that's what it takes to keep you from dying. But the moment they flee, you aren't under threat any longer and have no right to do anything other than call them names as they run away. Bullets go in the front not the back.
 
ironsides
#116
I'm sure you don't want them coming back for a second try. No guarantee the authorities will stop them.

Two quick shots and don't miss the first time.
 
Unforgiven
#117
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

I'm sure you don't want them coming back for a second try. No guarantee the authorities will stop them.

Two quick shots and don't miss the first time.

That's bull****. It's no longer self defense.
 
ironsides
#118
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

That's bull****. It's no longer self defense.

Self defense is defending yours or someone else's life. The mistake made was those shots that missed, where did they go? Shooting someone with a gun who just shot at you is self defense, no matter which way they are going. Who is to say that person was not planning to circle behind you or something. Get them while you can, they are armed. Do not give them a second chance.
 
Colpy
#119
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

Ah, here it is. I knew this was coming a long at some point and so I'll use it now to raise my point about guns.
Your mom, as nice a lady as I am sure she is, isn't trained, inspected or permitted to use or keep a gun. You, a so called law abiding gun owner, have no hesitation what so ever to give a gun to someone who isn't trained, or permitted to keep a gun, let alone a semi automatic handgun in her home. Of course you mean well and I understand that, but what you don't see is, that she would likely be giving that gun up should something happen.
I know it sounds really really easy to gun down a seriously evil person who is bent on killing, then raping then eating some of what's left, in your mind. But it's not that way in reality. Unless trained, most people are going to at the very least hesitate and question themselves and the situation. Before they know it, the gun is out of their hands and in the hands of someone who at the very least, broke into a home they knew someone was in to steal things.
Now that criminal has a gun and your mother. Just what good is that going to do anyone?
So what ends up happening, is you, a law abiding gun owner is putting a gun in the hands of a criminal. This should never ever even cross your mind. That's the problem with gun ownership today. Too many people who own guns, take that responsibility far to lightly. Because of that, we need to have the government implement a gun...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Well, I've been waiting for Bob to take up the cudgel on this one, but that has not happened (he must have missed it)....so I'll step up to the plate.

First of all, you make too many assumptions your reply:
1. The lady is not trained.
2. The lady is not permitted to have firearms.
3. The lady lives in Canada, not in the USA.....where defensive gun use is not discouraged.
4. The firearms (a .45) he offered to lend her is a handgun. There are lots of long guns that fire pistol ammo.
5. The basic assumption that led to all the above: the action of lending the lady a firearm would be illegal, irresponsible, or both.

Because someone does not like firearms does not mean they are not trained in their use.

Now, let's get to the crux of the matter......firearms are used in self defense in the USA about 2 million times per year, and in Canada about 20,000 times a year. Rarely are shots fired. Nine times out of ten, the mere display of a weapon deters criminal assault. Therefore your contention that "she would likely be giving that gun up should something happen" is garbage.......there is VERY little chance that the weapon would wind up in criminal hands, it is ten times more likely the criminal flees with no shot being fired. That makes the crux of your argument nonsense. So much for arming the criminal element, a ludicrous argument, easily shot to pieces.

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck, Ph.D. (external - login to view)

www.garymauser.net/pdf/CSD-JCJ-JFP-8-3-99.pdf (external - login to view)

Secondly, I doubt Bob is one to simply dump a firearm on Mom without some knowledge of her effective capability to use it. I'm sure he would have offered some rudimentary instruction.......if she had none previously. Now you might say that is an assumption on my part, but I think it is a reasonable one, having read his posts.

Thirdly, as has been posted here over and over and over, the man's house was afire, they put one through his window, WHEN HE EXITED THE HOUSE HE WAS RUNNING OUT INTO THE PRESENCE OF ATTACKERS ARMED WITH MOLOTOV COCKTAILS. He should have shot the first guy centre mass.

And Fourth, and more to the point....when it come right down to it, if you care more about some idiot piece of legislation than about the ability of your loved ones to defend themselves when threatened, your priorities are completely ****ed.
 
petros
#120
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Who is to say that person was not planning to circle behind you or something. Get them while you can, they are armed. Do not give them a second chance.

A shrink. Paranoia is nasty.
 
no new posts