Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack


DaSleeper
#151
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Did you read the other articles available yet sleepy guy?

You're the one who made the statement about him shooting at a car....You back it up!

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

The police don't go running around in their underwear firing wildly into the sky do they Colpy? And firing at a car driving away isn't self defense.
If he wanted to defend himself and his property he would have grabbed a fire extinguisher. It's legal to fire one of those off all you want.

That's a geat idea Colpy then he'd be up for manslaughter charges and not a danger to the public for the next 10 years.

....
 
petros
#152
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

You're the one who made the statement about him shooting at a car....You back it up!

....

And continue to be the only one with a grasp on this? Why cheat yourself sleepy guy?
Last edited by petros; Feb 7th, 2011 at 08:14 PM..
 
DaSleeper
#153
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

And contiinhue to be the only one with a grasp on this? Why cheat yourself sleepy guy?

Quote: Originally Posted by ****

Yes or no? If you say no I will put you on ignore forever.

And I thought you were gonna use that line on me....that was used on you a while back, in December...
 
Unforgiven
#154
What Colpy and DaS are missing it seems is that he fired into the air. I expect Colpy is right in that if he fired center mass he would not have been charged with reckless discharge of a firearm. He fired into the air and in so doing, technically put anyone who may have been in range of those two or three rounds in mortal danger. That is what he is charged with. After the fire bombers fled, he reentered his house which I expect was not burnt down and extinguished any fire that was still burning. Called 911 and then loaded up other firearms and left them unattended around the house. Two counts of this I think.

There is good reason behind both charges of reckless discharge and improper storage. Anyone who owns a gun know you can't leave a loaded gun laying around. It's dangerous.

Now this guy can throw himself on the mercy of the court and have the jury feel for him, or he can spend what ever he likes on a defense which I am sure the lawyer will advise. Either way, I have to agree with the point that he should have shot the guy fire bombing his house. But he shouldn't have fired in the air, and he shouldn't have loaded other weapons and left them laying around.
 
DaSleeper
#155
First, I looked up several articles on this attack and also watched the video with the lawyer again and can't seem to find any reference of him firing in the air which even in a rural community might be considered unsafe..
He could have fired in the ground ahead of him for all we know.

Another assumption that is made is that his firearm were not properly stored, when the lawyer said that he took the 38 revolver out of his safe.
Also the careless storage charge could mean anything....even that his 38 was still out for the cops to inspect, It's a very common charge that they throw at people,
 
petros
#156
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

And I thought you were gonna use that line on me....that was used on you a while back, in December...

Why on earth would I do that?

Look it's obvious the OP was never properly read or researched and it has been fun watching some people try to make this guy out to be something more than just another lunatic arrested in his underwear. It's just that this gonch wearing lunatic was arrested for thinking with his steel dick which is out of the norm.

What I really want to know is what did this guy do to piss people off that they'd fire bomb him?
 
Unforgiven
#157
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

First, I looked up several articles on this attack and also watched the video with the lawyer again and can't seem to find any reference of him firing in the air which even in a rural community might be considered unsafe..
He could have fired in the ground ahead of him for all we know.

Another assumption that is made is that his firearm were not properly stored, when the lawyer said that he took the 38 revolver out of his safe.
Also the careless storage charge could mean anything....even that his 38 was still out for the cops to inspect, It's a very common charge that they throw at people,

Well he did fire the gun right or do you also dispute that? Maybe it was into the ground maybe it was into the air maybe it was at the car maybe it was a lot of things. Fact is he was charged and in the jurisdiction where he lives, the Crown Attorney accepted the evidence that he pointed the firearm at someone.

He admitted to firing the gun and so will take the hit for that. Since probably simply brandishing the weapon would have been enough to scare off the attackers. At which point it's no longer self defense.

Also the two counts of improper storage means that he was leaving guns around unattended.
He will also bite it on that I would imagine.

When it comes to sentencing though, I suspect he won't do a day in jail and maybe will lose his license to keep hand guns or other restricted weapons.
Last edited by Unforgiven; Feb 7th, 2011 at 10:07 PM..
 
petros
#158
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

First, I looked up several articles on this attack and also watched the video with the lawyer again and can't seem to find any reference of him firing in the air which even in a rural community might be considered unsafe..
He could have fired in the ground ahead of him for all we know.

Another assumption that is made is that his firearm were not properly stored, when the lawyer said that he took the 38 revolver out of his safe.
Also the careless storage charge could mean anything....even that his 38 was still out for the cops to inspect, It's a very common charge that they throw at people,

If he fired at the people it wouldn't be just a discharging a firearm charge. Properly stored or not If he had time to go to his safe and retrieve and load his weapon but didn't call the FD or police or grab a fire extinguisher then it had nothing to do with protecting himself. At that point he was no longer a victim but an aggressor. Now he will face a judge over being a fool and lose his privledges to weapons for life.

He knew the laws and chose to break them. He did absolutely nothing heroic and put his community at risk.
 
ironsides
#159
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I would put the fires out after calling the police and FD. They were on video. That's far better than eye for an eye.

No. Firing at someone who is driving away is not defending myself and leaving my house and property to burn is not something I'd do.

How about if there driving straight at you, would you be them pass or tap tap em. Looked like thy got little pissed at their boss and were burning his stuff.
 
petros
#160
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

How about if there driving straight at you, would you be them pass or tap tap em. Looked like thy got little pissed at their boss and were burning his stuff.

I'd get my *** out of the way. I'm not about to take a life and lose my freedom regardless of what they did to my house.
 
Colpy
#161
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Why on earth would I do that?

Look it's obvious the OP was never properly read or researched and it has been fun watching some people try to make this guy out to be something more than just another lunatic arrested in his underwear. It's just that this gonch wearing lunatic was arrested for thinking with his steel dick which is out of the norm.

What I really want to know is what did this guy do to piss people off that they'd fire bomb him?

I don't know, maybe the thought of him in his underwear made them hot....you know, he really shouldn't run around like that,,,,just eggs them on.

Blame the victim.

Disgusting.

Liberals are just like lemmings....only not as cute.

(that has to be an Ann Coulter quote)
 
DaSleeper
#162
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Why on earth would I do that?

Look it's obvious the OP was never properly read or researched and it has been fun watching some people try to make this guy out to be something more than just another lunatic arrested in his underwear. It's just that this gonch wearing lunatic was arrested for thinking with his steel dick which is out of the norm.

What I really want to know is what did this guy do to piss people off that they'd fire bomb him?

Well... did he shoot at the car? a simple yes or no will do
 
Cliffy
+1
#163
The biblical response would have been for him to have fire bombed their car. Everybody should have a Molotov cocktail or two stored in their garage just for such occasions.
 
DaSleeper
#164
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

Well he did fire the gun right or do you also dispute that? Maybe it was into the ground maybe it was into the air maybe it was at the car maybe it was a lot of things. Fact is he was charged and in the jurisdiction where he lives, the Crown Attorney accepted the evidence that he pointed the firearm at someone.

He admitted to firing the gun and so will take the hit for that. Since probably simply brandishing the weapon would have been enough to scare off the attackers. At which point it's no longer self defense.

Also the two counts of improper storage means that he was leaving guns around unattended.
He will also bite it on that I would imagine.

When it comes to sentencing though, I suspect he won't do a day in jail and maybe will lose his license to keep hand guns or other restricted weapons.

The unsafe storage charge is a joke. My nephew went to court on such a charge in North Bay after a B&E in his house while he was working in alberta and the guns were found by the cops, well hidden in his house only after he gave them detailed instructions over the phone how to find them since they were not in the gun locker that the thieves had broken into,
He didn't even have a lawyer. And the charges were dismissed by the judge...
I predict that his guns will also be returned and that his defense will be paid for by the many gun clubs across Canada and the U. S.
I don't think that he had that lawyer's name in his address book.
If I ever got in similar trouble I would call O.F.A.H. or the Ontario handgun association
 
Unforgiven
#165
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

The unsafe storage charge is a joke. My nephew went to court on such a charge in North Bay after a B&E in his house while he was working in alberta and the guns were found by the cops, well hidden in his house only after he gave them detailed instructions over the phone how to find them since they were not in the gun locker that the thieves had broken into,
He didn't even have a lawyer. And the charges were dismissed by the judge...
I predict that his guns will also be returned and that his defense will be paid for by the many gun clubs across Canada and the U. S.
I don't think that he had that lawyer's name in his address book.
If I ever got in similar trouble I would call O.F.A.H. or the Ontario handgun association

That could very well be the case. But each case is different right? So that is why we have a judge make the call and not the police. If it rests with the police to make the call, then you have a right to argue with the police. Since you don't have the right to argue with the police, they aren't allowed to make that call.

I know of a story where some schmuck in the US put the loaded hand gun in the drawer under the stove. Friend turns on the oven and the guy gets shot by the gun as the magazine starts to melt. Do you figure charging him with unsafe storage is also a joke?
 
DaSleeper
#166
I changed my mind about calling the O.F.A.H.

I have this friend with a backhoe.
 
Unforgiven
+1
#167
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

I changed my mind about calling the O.F.A.H.

I have this friend with a backhoe.

I mean I am with ya, but I just don't get it!
 
DaSleeper
#168
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

I mean I am with ya, but I just don't get it!

 
earth_as_one
#169
You can discharge a firearm at another person in self defense. Since these people were armed with firebombs, he should be able to claim self defense. But the police still have to charge him and let the courts decide. Let me know when the guy is convicted...

Meanwhile, this homeowner would face jail time if this incident happened in Canada:
Defense Depicts Japanese Boy as 'Scary' - NYTimes.com (external - login to view)

Which is what Canada's gun laws are trying to avoid. That and vigilantism.
 
mentalfloss
#170
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

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.

Okay.. now this is funny.

Let's go with Colpy math here:

9 out of 10 times, the display of a weapon deters criminal assault. That would mean that 10% of the time, a weapon is fired or criminal assault is not deterred.

10% of 20,000 is 2,000 people. In a country of 30 million people, 2,000 people are at risk every year.

If everyone went to Dollar-a-ma and bought a fakey for a few bucks, we would effectively be reducing our chances of serious risk to 2,000/30,000,000... or a 0.00006% chance of any injury (whether moderate or severe)

It's patently obvious - even by your own account - that gun proliferation would not be in the best interests of the country. It's a waste of time, in fact.
 
Colpy
#171
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Okay.. now this is funny.

Let's go with Colpy math here:

9 out of 10 times, the display of a weapon deters criminal assault. That would mean that 10% of the time, a weapon is fired or criminal assault is not deterred.

10% of 20,000 is 2,000 people. In a country of 30 million people, 2,000 people are at risk every year.

If everyone went to Dollar-a-ma and bought a fakey for a few bucks, we would effectively be reducing our chances of serious risk to 2,000/30,000,000... or a 0.00006% chance of any injury (whether moderate or severe)

It's patently obvious - even by your own account - that gun proliferation would not be in the best interests of the country. It's a waste of time, in fact.

OMG....you asre soooooo lefty!!!! lol

Here is the oh-so-obvious point......

Dead Bad Guys are a GOOD thing!

Relatively speaking.....better 100 dead guys killed while perpetrating criminal assault than one victim badly hurt.....

Now re-calculate...

(GEEZUS!!!!!)

lol

BTW, actually the number of incidents where a criminal is detered without a shot fired is higher than 90%, I believe it is 92% (from memory)

Then there are warning shots, which most people don't understand are a BAD idea.

Then there are harmless misses.

Then woundings.....about 3%.

Then finally, perpetrators killed by gunfire may be as high as 3,000 a year in the USA.

It's all good.
Last edited by Colpy; Feb 8th, 2011 at 01:33 PM..
 
Unforgiven
#172
I'm not so sure this Ian Thompson is as innocent as you make him out to be. If that was the neighbour doing the fire bombing, he was pretty pissed off at Thompson and I suspect he had some reason in his head to be that angry. Maybe all the chicken killing that was supposed to have been going on was a contributing factor. Some of these "rural folk" can be rather mean and crazy.
 
DaSleeper
#173
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

I'm not so sure this Ian Thompson is as innocent as you make him out to be. If that was the neighbour doing the fire bombing, he was pretty pissed off at Thompson and I suspect he had some reason in his head to be that angry. Maybe all the chicken killing that was supposed to have been going on was a contributing factor. Some of these "rural folk" can be rather mean and crazy.

There's all kinds of smelly shyte.....but....

Chicken shyte has to be the smelliest...I so would shoot a chicken shyting in my yard..

But goose has to be the messiest...
 
Unforgiven
#174
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

There's all kinds of smelly shyte.....but....

Chicken shyte has to be the smelliest...I so would shoot a chicken shyting in my yard..

But goose has to be the messiest...

Oh you gotta watch it with the geese. Cops will kick ya if you're shootin the geese man. It's true! heh heh
 
Colpy
#175
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

I'm not so sure this Ian Thompson is as innocent as you make him out to be. If that was the neighbour doing the fire bombing, he was pretty pissed off at Thompson and I suspect he had some reason in his head to be that angry. Maybe all the chicken killing that was supposed to have been going on was a contributing factor. Some of these "rural folk" can be rather mean and crazy.

I am not at all sure Mr. Thompson is "innocent". I have little doubt things were said and done on both sides of the on-going dispute that would set Miss Manners all a-flutter.

I am, however, pretty sure he is "not guilty". Of any of the charges against him.

There's a big difference.........
 
petros
#176
It's not a minor charge to discharge Colpy.

Don't you understand that firing a weapon in an unsafe manor in a resdential area is about the worst safety infraction you can face.

You talk about gun safety all the time. Was that safe?

Did he or did he not discharge his weapon in a region where it is illegal to do so?
 
cdn_bc_ca
#177
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Here is the oh-so-obvious point......

Dead Bad Guys are a GOOD thing!

I agree. But the important note to take away from this is how you go about producing the dead bad guys... because if you do it wrong, you end up being the bad guy.

This guy Ian Thompson, being a firearms instructor no less, had the right intentions but executed them poorly. he should know better.
 
Colpy
#178
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

It's not a minor charge to discharge Colpy.

Don't you understand that firing a weapon in an unsafe manor in a resdential area is about the worst safety infraction you can face.

You talk about gun safety all the time. Was that safe?

Did he or did he not discharge his weapon in a region where it is illegal to do so?

He did not.

There is no place in Canada where it is illegal to discharge a firearm in self-defense.
 
mentalfloss
#179
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

OMG....you asre soooooo lefty!!!! lol

Here is the oh-so-obvious point......

Dead Bad Guys are a GOOD thing!

Relatively speaking.....better 100 dead guys killed while perpetrating criminal assault than one victim badly hurt.....

Now re-calculate...

(GEEZUS!!!!!)

lol

BTW, actually the number of incidents where a criminal is detered without a shot fired is higher than 90%, I believe it is 92% (from memory)

Then there are warning shots, which most people don't understand are a BAD idea.

Then there are harmless misses.

Then woundings.....about 3%.

Then finally, perpetrators killed by gunfire may be as high as 3,000 a year in the USA.

It's all good.

Just buy a fake gun from Dollar-ama. The placebo effect more than substantiates the purchase as you've proven. It's a bit pointless going through your ethical conundrum on a case-by-case basis if it is only going to affect an insignificant portion of the population.

If you're out to save that small little puddle, then you better have an argument that ensures that everyone is safe and nobody 'good' dies.
Last edited by mentalfloss; Feb 8th, 2011 at 02:32 PM..
 
Colpy
#180
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Just buy a fake gun from Dollar-ama. The placebo effect more than substantiates the purchase as you've proven.

Try killing 3,000 bad guys with a water pistol....lol

good luck with that.

I'll watch from over here........
 
no new posts