Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack


Colpy
#211
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Looks like you won the bet?????



Gun charges dropped against self defender

Thanks for that........although the two most serious charges have been dropped, two charges of unsafe storage remain, and are being carried forward.

This is a clear case of persecution by prosecution.......the firearm can not be unsafely stored if it is in use. Use can be anything, from cleaning, to upkeep, to simply looking at it....there is precedent for that in previous charges. The Crown has just allowed that Mr. Thompson did nothing wrong by defending himself with a firearm.....so keeping his firearms out in a clear case of defensive need can not be unsafe storage.

But, of course, the poor bugger has to defend himself against these charges.......and is thus punished, even when found not guilty. And who knows? Perhaps some idiot of a judge incapable of linear thought will convict him....thus creating precedent for the police state.....

Wait and see.
 
petros
#212
Quote:

Thanks for that........although the two most serious charges have been dropped, two charges of unsafe storage remain, and are being carried forward.

And that means he will lose his priveledge (not right) to possess firearms for potentially life.
 
Colpy
#213
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

And that means he will lose his priveledge (not right) to possess firearms for potentially life.

Yes, having decided to persecute him through prosecution, I suspect the police state will attempt to violate his right to keep arms as well.............

But I do believe they will lose. He has a very good lawyer, and is backed by tons of precedent on the safe storage charge....

What it comes down to is that a firearm can not be used and stored at the same time, so if it is in use, the owner can not be charged with unsafe storage.........

Use can be anything, including simply handling the firearm.

It will be a fight, but Mr. Thompson is on VERY solid ground.
 
petros
#214
You gotta admit he made huge mistakes that will lead to his loss of privilege.

There is one Crown tool that could forever end his privileges. A psych analysis. If assessment shows he has anger issues or stability issues, his days of being a firearm enthusiast are over.

I really really would like to hear the reasoning behind the dispute that lead to him being fire bombed. With one in 10 people being unstable odds of two crazies being neighbours is extremely high.

It might be worth the $20 for FOIA to get the disclosure of the entire situation.
 
ironsides
#215
Get the gun registry law rescinded. Use the NRA if possible, I am sure the majority of Canadians are not in favor of it, they just didn't think it was important enough to vote against at the time. (lazy American, Lazy Canadian syndrome)
 
Colpy
#216
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

You gotta admit he made huge mistakes that will lead to his loss of privilege.

There is one Crown tool that could forever end his privileges. A psych analysis. If assessment shows he has anger issues or stability issues, his days of being a firearm enthusiast are over.

I really really would like to hear the reasoning behind the dispute that lead to him being fire bombed. With one in 10 people being unstable odds of two crazies being neighbours is extremely high.

It might be worth the $20 for FOIA to get the disclosure of the entire situation.

You already lost the argument over self-defense....the Crown dropped the charges, admitting they could not win.

Anything beyond that is simply more harassment..........
 
petros
#217
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

You already lost the argument over self-defense....the Crown dropped the charges, admitting they could not win.

Anything beyond that is simply more harassment..........

The Crown hasn't lost anything. The Crown knows they got it in the bag when it comes to this man's mental stability. It's obvious they feel he is a public danger and they will take away his priveleges. A shrink has far more power than the Crown and they will use that.

If they didn't feel he was a danger they still wouldn't be persuing charges of any kind.
 
Colpy
#218
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

The Crown hasn't lost anything. The Crown knows they got it in the bag when it comes to this man's mental stability. It's obvious they feel he is a public danger and they will take away his priveleges. A shrink has far more power than the Crown and they will use that.

If they didn't feel he was a danger they still wouldn't be persuing charges of any kind.

You know, you just make a fool of yourself when you pull this unsupported crap out of your ***.

It is a right to keep arms, I know you are completely unfamiliar with English Common Law, you obviously come from a statist environment, and lack any understanding of the subject.

Oh, the state feels he is a danger all right.....a danger to the Nanny state itself, to their vision of complacent, compliant subjects quietly bearing all kinds of injustice........

As for being a danger to anyone else, they have to prove he has done something wrong IN COURT, they have to convince a judge that he is a danger............neither of which they can do, IMHO.

You lose again.
 
petros
#219
A shrink can forever incarcerate a person without that person ever seeing a court room for life. No judge can do that and they will use that angle I guaranteee it.

It's not a right. It's a privelege. As a nutjob his privelege can and will be revoked.

Watch it all unfold and then we'll discuss how you yourself and best learn to protect yourself from losing your priveleges.
 
Colpy
#220
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

A shrink can forever incarcerate a person without that person ever seeing a court room for life. No judge can do that and they will use that angle I guaranteee it.

It's not a right. It's a privelege. As a nutjob his privelege can and will be revoked.

Watch it all unfold and then we'll discuss how you yourself and best learn to protect yourself from losing your priveleges.

Troll.

No, excuse me....ignorant troll.
You've already lost this argument.

You're just too obtuse to recognize the fact.
 
petros
#221
Would you like to make a wager?

"Queen Street Outreach Society: A Voice for people who have experienced the mental health system"> <title>Ontario Mental Health Act - QSOS (external - login to view)

Expanded "Old" Criteria

Sometimes people are brought to doctors or psychiatric facilities for examination. For example, anyone can bring sworn evidence before a justice of the peace to have someone else "examined" in a psychiatric facility [Sec. 16(1)]. A justice of the peace can do this by signing a Form 2 if they find the person:
  • "apparently" has a mental disorder "of a nature or quality" that will likely result in: a) serious bodily harm to self, or b) to others; or c) serious physical impairment of the person, and the person:
  • threatens or has threatened to cause bodily harm to self
  • attempts or has attempted to cause bodily harm to self
  • behaves or has behaved violently towards someone else
  • causes or has caused someone to fear bodily harm,
  • shows or has shown a lack of competence to care for self. (Before "Brian's Law" (2000), the person had to be at "imminent" risk of serious bodily harm due to incompetence, meaning 'within several weeks'.)
New Criteria (2000): Treatment Issues [Sec. 16.(2)]
If the criteria above don't apply, a justice of the peace can also order an examination based on evidence that the person:
  • is "apparently incapable" to make treatment decisions (as defined by the Health Care Consent Act),
  • has been treated for a disorder of an "ongoing and recurring" nature before which if not treated will likely result in a) "substantial mental or physical deterioration", b) serious physical impairment, c) violence or d) harm to self.
  • "apparently" suffers from the same (or a similar) disorder as before,
  • has shown "clinical improvement" when treated in the past.
Under Section 17 of the Act, a police officer can bring someone to a facility for an examination if the officer has "reasonable and probable grounds" to believe a person has acted in a "disorderly manner" (meaning irrational but not necessarily illegal) as long as the person "apparently" has a mental disorder and has threatened or attempted to harm themselves, or has behaved violently or caused someone to fear bodily harm, or has shown a lack of competence to care for themselves. Note that police cannot use the new criteria involving treatment issues. Police must stay with the person until the facility decides whether to admit them.

Under Section 21, a judge (not a justice of the peace) can order an examination for someone who appears in court and is charged with or convicted of an offense, but seems to have a mental disorder (Form 6). Or a judge can remand such a person for admission to a psychiatric facility for up to 2 months (Form .
 
Colpy
#222
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Would you like to make a wager?

Make a wager on EXACTLY what? For EXACTLY what?

Perhaps you should read this first:


Quote:

Ignorance is likely an issue. Mr. Burlew has dealt with hundreds of similar cases, and believes that many police officers have been trained incorrectly, causing them to lay charges against citizens whose weapons are in fact disabled to the law’s satisfaction while in storage. For example, hunting rifles and shotguns can be rendered completely inert by removing a few mechanical components. Even so, many Canadians who have so disabled their guns are charged for not locking them in a safe, which is not actually required by law.
Whether ignorance or intent is to blame, the situation cannot continue. Police should improve training to avoid laying unfounded charges. Crown attorneys in every province should be reminded that armed self-defence is a right enjoyed by all Canadians – and that a firearm used to defend one’s life or home is by definition in use, not in storage, and is governed by different norms.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ul-gun-owners/
 
petros
#223
Insane people aren't included.

The Crown will railroad him using the Mental Health Act. Once you are deemed a lunatic the Charter doesn't cover your *** in the same way.
 
Colpy
#224
There once was a time when the idea that a man being attacked at night inside his own home could be charged for shooting warning shots would have been considered absurd. It should still be considered absurd. We have the right to self defence in this country, it is an ancient right that has not faded away with time nor the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That Thomson was ever charged is ridiculous. That he is still facing charges is a travesty. The Crown should do the right thing and withdraw the remaining charges while they still have a shred of credibility intact. (Columnist Brian Lilley, Toronto Sun March 4, 2011)
 
petros
#225
So when they submit the psych assessment and he loses his privileges then what?
 
DaSleeper
+1
#226
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Insane people aren't included.

The Crown will railroad him using the Mental Health Act. Once you are deemed a lunatic the Charter doesn't cover your *** in the same way.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

So when they submit the psych assessment and he loses his privileges then what?

 
petros
#227
Yup...one track....crazy people with guns are dangerous and the Crown is fully aware of this. Are you?
 
DaSleeper
+1
#228
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Yup...one track....crazy people with guns are dangerous and the Crown is fully aware of this. Are you?

Probably why you don't have guns and I do...
You probably don't realise all you have to go through to own and carry handguns....but you do have a one track mind.
 
CDNBear
#229
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Probably why you don't have guns and I do...




TOUCHE!
 
petros
#230
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Probably why you don't have guns and I do...
You probably don't realise all you have to go through to own and carry handguns....but you do have a one track mind.

Oh I have guns and love shooting but not at my neighbours. Yup. I'm extremlely confident this guy is going to be made an example of.
 
CDNBear
#231
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Oh I have guns and love shooting but not at my neighbours. Yup. I'm extremlely confident this guy is going to be made an example of.

He didn't shoot at his neighbours.
 
petros
#232
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

He didn't shoot at his neighbours.

Where did I say that? In what you just quoted? Nope.
 
CDNBear
#233
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Where did I say that? In what you just quoted? Nope.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Oh I have guns and love shooting but not at my neighbours.

You've implied he did.

But if that wasn't your intent, then I humbly apologize.
 
petros
+1
#234
Should have written "I don't go discharging a firearm within municple limits"?

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Should have written "I don't go discharging a firearm within municple limits"?

Big picture says these neighbours have been fighting for years. What do you have to do to piss someone off to the point they will firebomb you? Do you really believe there is sanity involved here?
 
Colpy
#235
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

So when they submit the psych assessment and he loses his privileges then what?

So, having been completely destroyed in the original argument, you have now reverted to idiotic trolling.

I don't know what it was like in the eastern European hellhole you came from, but in this country, judges do not require a psychiatric assessment unless there is some shred of evidence that the man may be a danger to himself or others, outside of the purely normal (and legal) requirements of self-preservation.

The Crown has already admitted that they can not get a conviction on any of the actual defense charges (which totally sank your original argument).....and they have therefore regressed to pushing what are merely harassment charges.

Perhaps you were happier with the statist commies????

Tell you what, if they send this guy for a psyche assessment, I will send you $20 and wear my underwear backwards for a week.

If, of course, you just STFU and quit wasting everyone's time with your moronic attempts at covering the fact you have NO idea what you are talking about, and have been completely incorrect since your first post on this thread.

At least Unforgiven has the brains to recoognise when he is beaten, and withdraw from the field.

With you it is like smacking a slightly demented child.......it is easy enough, but it achieves nothing except more incoherent whining.

What a waste of time!
Last edited by Colpy; Mar 6th, 2011 at 12:32 PM..
 
petros
#236
Watch what happens and learn Colpy.....

Watch him fry!
 
CDNBear
#237
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Should have written "I don't go discharging a firearm within municple limits"?

Big picture says these neighbours have been fighting for years. What do you have to do to piss someone off to the point they will firebomb you?

Hmmm, the first and last time it happened here, it was simply because my sons wouldn't let one of the little rodents from down the way ride his dirt bike.

Mind you, that was a paper bag filled with a rag with lighter fluid on it.

Quote:

Do you really believe there is sanity involved here?

Petros, you're asking someone that would actually have placed the sights on the center of mass.

But I use a bow, very quiet, I have a big freezer, access to a wood chipper and a friend with a pig farm.

So nobody would be having this discussion about me.
 
DaSleeper
#238
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

You've implied he did.

But if that wasn't your intent, then I humbly apologize.

Bear...I have to admire your patience with trolls
 
petros
#239
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Hmmm, the first and last time it happened here, it was simply because my sons wouldn't let one of the little rodents from down the way ride his dirt bike.

Mind you, that was a paper bag filled with a rag with lighter fluid on it.

Petros, you're asking someone that would actually have placed the sights on the center of mass.

But I use a bow, very quiet, I have a big freezer, access to a wood chipper and a friend with a pig farm.

So nobody would be having this discussion about me.

It doesn't matter what you would do but what he did and what his neighbours did and what has been problematic for the community (they don't live alone on the planet) for several years.

As a cop or an average resident would you feel safe doing your job or living in that community?
 
CDNBear
#240
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Bear...I have to admire your patience with trolls

It comes from having two boys that are very much like myself. Working with troubled youth now, has only served to strengthen the skill.

Thanx for noticing bud.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

It doesn't matter what you would do but what he did and what his neighbours did and what has been problematic for the community (they don't live alone on the planet) for several years.

You asked me, what it would take to cause someone to firebomb someones home. I gave you an answer.

People do stupid shyte when they're angry.

The body releases an endorphin that actually makes you dumber for upto 72 hours, when you get angry.

In todays world, it doesn't seem to take much to provoke violent acts.

I was swarmed a few years ago, by a group of punks, because I made eye contact with one. Sadly, they didn't realise, until it was too late, that they had bitten off more then they could chew. It took SCB screaming at and kicking at me to stop.

Quote:

As a cop or an average resident would you feel safe doing your job or living in that community?

Yes, because I can rationalize the need for his actions.
 
no new posts