Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack


Colpy
+2
#1
YouTube - Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack (external - login to view)

Quote:

So Mr. Thomson, a former firearms instructor, grabbed one of his Smith & Wesson revolvers from his safe, loaded it and headed outside dressed in only his underwear.
“He exited his house and fired his revolver two, maybe three times, we’re not sure. Then these firebombing culprits, they ran off,” said his lawyer, Edward Burlew.
His surveillance cameras caught the attackers lobbing at least six Molotov cocktails at his house and bombing his doghouse, singeing one of his Siberian Huskies. But when Mr. Thomson handed the video footage to Niagara Regional Police, he found himself charged with careless use of a firearm.
The local Crown attorney’s office later laid a charge of pointing a firearm, along with two counts of careless storage of a firearm. The Crown has recommended Mr. Thomson go to jail, his lawyer said.
His collection of seven guns, five pistols and two rifles was seized, along with his firearms licence. Mr. Thomson said he lives in fear that his attackers will return and has taken to arming himself with a fire extinguisher.

Quote has been trimmed


This....is lunacy.

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

This is what you've brought us to..

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

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

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

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

This could give me a heart attack.

This country has gone to the dogs.

Literally.
 
lone wolf
#2
Dogs sort things out faster....
 
petros
#3
What is the rest of the story moring glory? He had them on video. He didn't need to freeze his nards off and risk injury did he? So who did this nut job piss off in the first to be fire bombed?
Quote:

Mr. Thomson said he lives in fear that his attackers will return and has taken to arming himself with a fire extinguisher.

That's priceless. If I'm going to shoot a fire out, I'd want something bigger than a pistol.
 
Colpy
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

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

Sorry, don't have the patience to giggle at your inanities today.

I take it you are one of the ****ing stupids that think he was supposed to stay inside and get burned alive.

Can't say I'm surprised.
 
karrie
#5
mental note.... don't kill the neighbours' animals. They don't take kindly to it, even when it's something so threatening and horrific as a chicken.
 
In Between Man
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

This....is lunacy.
I just hope he gets a rural jury........

This is lunacy. What are you suppose to do, hide in the bathroom and hope your house doesn't burn down? That he doesn't kill your dogs? What really bites for that poor fellow is that they seized his license and firearms. I hope he gets a rural jury as well and has his property returned.

We really do need reformed gun laws here. In America 37 states have "shall issue" legislation, meaning if you aren't a convicted felon, pass the test, fill out the red tape they WILL issue you a concealed weapons permit. A few states have "may issue" where they determine on a case by case basis if your a noble enough person to carry a concealed weapon. And 3 states, God bless 'em, have "unrestricted" laws meaning you can buy a handgun and conceal it(laws do however prohibit carrying into certain places like a courthouse or police station).

Society is getting worse and its just a matter of time before some lunatic here in Canada opens fire on a crowd of people, and innocent lives(like 9 year old girls) will be needlessly lost because their was no responsible, armed citizen there to kill the bad guy.
Last edited by In Between Man; Jan 21st, 2011 at 01:42 AM..Reason: ads
 
DaSleeper
#7
I hope he belongs to one of those associations like the OFAH or the ontario handgun association....A membership usualy comes with an insurance that will help with the cost of the lawyer, and I would ask for a jury trial.
 
petros
#8
Quote:

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

What really bites for that poor fellow is that they seized his license and firearms.

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


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

Stupidity isn't legal excuse.
 
Colpy
+2
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

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


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

Stupidity isn't legal excuse.

He broke no laws.

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

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

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

Admittedly, I would have done things differently.

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

Shoot centre mass. Never fire "warning" shots. If the situation calls for shooting, you must shoot with the intention of stopping your assailant.
 
petros
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

He broke no laws.

Quote:

The local Crown attorney’s office later laid a charge of pointing a firearm, along with two counts of careless storage of a firearm. The Crown has recommended Mr. Thomson go to jail, his lawyer said

He fired shots for **** sakes.

Quote:

Police said no one was injured in the shooting and the attackers got into a car and sped off. They charged Randy Weaver, 48, of Port Colborne, and Justin Lee, 19, of Welland, with arson in December, alleging the men and a third suspect “intentionally set the home on fire while the homeowner was inside.”

 
Colpy
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

He fired shots for **** sakes.


And your point?

Would not you have done the same?

Are you saying it is not legal in this country to use firearms to defend yourself?

In that case, why do police and armed guards carry them?

Personally, I think the guy showed extreme restraint.......
 
petros
#12
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.

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

And your point?

Would not you have done the same?

Are you saying it is not legal in this country to use firearms to defend yourself?

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.
 
Colpy
+1
#13
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.

It is a little difficult to put out fires while they are throwing bottles of gasoline at the house........

Please read again....

Quote:

“He exited his house and fired his revolver two, maybe three times, we’re not sure. Then these firebombing culprits, they ran off,” said his lawyer, Edward Burlew.


Read more: Man faces jail after protecting home from masked attackers | Features | National Post

He did not fire at their vehicle.........it appears he only fired warning shots to drive them off (a tactical mistake, but the guy isn't trained....)

The odd thing about this is that he was charged with dangerous use of a firearm because he fired warning shots. He may well be convicted, as the prosecution may well say "If you felt your life was threatened, why did you just fire in the air?"

NEVER fire warning shots. If you fire in the air, you don't know where the rounds are going, you are firing away rounds you might need in the fight, and at night the muzzle flash is blinding.........leaving you at a disadvantage if things go really bad.

Don't shoot unless you have cause. If you have cause to shoot, shoot centre mass.

It is actually easier to defend in court.
 
petros
#14
He fired his weapon. He broke the law. He failed to call the cops and FD until after his stupid stupid illegal mistake. He had video with audio and knew the people.

I would have gotten the same result running after them with the phone and still would have been eating my own food, read my own books and slept in my own bed that night and still have my weapons and pride.
 
Colpy
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

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

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

Ridiculous. He may well have been burned to death in his own home..........

The rules for use of force are thus:

The aggressor must have INTENT (I think trying to burn your house down while you are in in shows intent, don't you?)
A WEAPON (molotov cocktails obviously qualify)
A DELIVERY SYSTEM (they were already demonstrating that by throwing them against the house)

Had you gone outside with just your phone, there is an excellent chance you would have had a molotov cocktail thrown at you, and you would either be in the morque......or in a burn unit at the hospital, in unbelievable agony.

That in itself gives him the legal right to apply lethal force......
 
DaSleeper
+3 / -1
#16
Let's just hope that he doesn't have 12 petros on the jury.

In the situation just described, I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.
 
Cannuck
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

He broke no laws.

I see. So the police charged him for ****s and giggles....gotcha. Must be some more of those ******* cops JLM keeps whining about.
 
Colpy
+2
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

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

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

I am expressing an opinion, and I probably know as much about self-defense law as the average cop, considering I have taught it to both armed and unarmed guards.

If you believe the police defend you, I would ask that you read Christie Blatchford's book Helpless.

Funny, how the cop that kicks a helpless guy in the face on video is "innocent until proven guilty', but a man who defends himself under obvious threat is not given that same consideration......

Is a little consistency too much to ask?
 
Cannuck
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post


Funny, how the cop that kicks a helpless guy in the face on video is "innocent until proven guilty', but a man who defends himself under obvious threat is not given that same consideration......

Did I say he was guilty? You said he committed no crime. Like JLM, you rush to judge. Personally, I see nothing to indicate that, at the moment he fired the gun, his life was in imminent danger. I'm sure the courts will sort it out. If you are an expert in self defense, I think that particular industry need a shakeup.
 
lone wolf
#20
So does twisty trolling 'cuz you are wa-aa-ay too obvious, Joey
 
Cannuck
#21
I've lost count of how many times over the last 20-30 years somebody has shot at a perpetrator during (or better yet, as a result of) the commission of a crime and has been charged. It just happened here in Alberta recently to a farmer who came home to a break in (I think). Once this guy exited the house and if the perpetrators were no longer an imminent threat (ie: they were leaving the scene), then the person was no longer in imminent danger and was not legally justified in firing. Morally justified is up for debate. Like the face kicking officer, I am not privy to all the evidence so I can't say for sure whether or not he "committed a crime" but, since the police did charge him, the obviously have reason to suspect he did. Full stop (as Colpy likes to say)
 
Tonington
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayzView Post

I hope he gets a rural jury as well and has his property returned.

He's not guaranteed a jury, let alone a rural jury...pointing a gun, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, and for two counts of careless storage it is also a maximum term not exceeding five years. You're only guaranteed the right to trial by jury if the maximum punishment exceeds five years. (external - login to view)
 
Colpy
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

He's not guaranteed a jury, let alone a rural jury...pointing a gun, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, and for two counts of careless storage it is also a maximum term not exceeding five years. You're only guaranteed the right to trial by jury if the maximum punishment exceeds five years. (external - login to view)

Which is, in itself, absolutely outrageous.

It seems this gentleman would have been a LOT better off if he had shot these idiots dead.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I've lost count of how many times over the last 20-30 years somebody has shot at a perpetrator during (or better yet, as a result of) the commission of a crime and has been charged. It just happened here in Alberta recently to a farmer who came home to a break in (I think). Once this guy exited the house and if the perpetrators were no longer an imminent threat (ie: they were leaving the scene), then the person was no longer in imminent danger and was not legally justified in firing. Morally justified is up for debate. Like the face kicking officer, I am not privy to all the evidence so I can't say for sure whether or not he "committed a crime" but, since the police did charge him, the obviously have reason to suspect he did. Full stop (as Colpy likes to say)

According to all the information we have, he did not shoot at the perpetrators at all, he fired warning shots, and ONLY THEN did they flee the scene.

Obviously, we can only form opinions on the info we have, which is certainly sketchy and perhaps even wrong...........

You are correct, you can not shoot at someone who is fleeing, quite rightly.

I believe the Alberta man chased down people that stole his ATV, and fired at them not only as they were fleeing, but after they had abandoned the ATV, which is way beyond the Pale.

Personally, I would like to see the law return to the way it was before, in which you could use any level of force necessary to prevent the commission of a crime. Seems much more sensible.
 
boats2010
#24
It makes you wonder who is the victim. Recently I heard on the cbc radio that it was recommended to protect yourself with wasp spray, in the tall cans that can shoot 20ft. Its not recognized as a weapon, yet it requires " a trip to the hospital for the anti dote " if sprayed in the eyes.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#25
If Canada only had a Stand Your Ground (external - login to view) law like Florida???
 
Cliffy
+3
#26
A friend lives in the remote community of Galena Bay. He was conversing with an RCMP officer one day who asked if he thought they should do drive through checks of the area. My friend said there was no need. They had a very good neighbourhood watch system in place and there were no repeat offenders. The officer asked how come there were no repeat offenders. My friend said, "because we have backhoes."
 
damngrumpy
+4
#27  Top Rated Post
Let me get this straight. The mans house is under attack, yet they are charging him for
going outside and firing a few rounds. What? He is supposed to remain inside and hope
against hope they don't set the house on fire. He is supposed to do nothing let along
fire the gun. I don't get all wound up and support the entire anti gun lobby but this is nuts.
If you don't defend your family and your home you are not much of a human being.
I would do exactly what this guy did if I had a gun, which I don't. I have an axe handle
that I call an education stick that I keep in a secured place. The axe handle also has an
axe head but I never get around to fixing it if you know what I mean.
What we need is to define the laws we have, not keep making new ones, and we need to
enforce those laws as well. The law as it is, is totally unreasonable.
Even when the law is applied it is not applied fairly, and we as citizens just keep watching
Entertainment Tonight without a concern in the world until it is our turn to face the injustice
of the justice system. When the hell are we going to wake up folks? We make more fuss
about banning the song Money For Nothing than we do about not being allowed to protect
our homes and families. Do ya think we have some problems in our society?
 
lone wolf
#28
Is there any proof he wasn't firing blanks? Find any spent projectiles maybe?
 
Tonington
+3
#29
So, maybe an MP should submit a private members bill to give people back their right to defend themselves. Write letters Colpy, I'll add my name to it if you do
 
Ron in Regina
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

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


Here's a second signature if you want to get the ball rolling.
 
no new posts