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)
Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
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.
Which is, in itself, absolutely outrageous.
It seems this gentleman would have been a LOT better off if he had shot these idiots dead.
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.
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.
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."
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?
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?
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.
I'll ad my sig too...
There's a case pending here in my little town, involving a good friend of the wife's. The daughter of my wife's friend, has an abusive boyfriend, she packs up kid, goes home to mom and dad. Boyfriend places gerry can in garage with lit rag. House is near burned to the ground.
He's charged with 4 counts attempted murder, 4 counts of arson, 4 counts of assault with a weapon, 4 counts uttering...
Ian Thomson, would have been able to skate on a justifiable homicide verdict.
I couldn't agree more.
There's a case pending here in my little town, involving a good friend of the wife's. The daughter of my wife's friend, has an abusive boyfriend, she packs up kid, goes home to mom and dad. Boyfriend places gerry can in garage with lit rag. House is near burned to the ground.
He's charged with 4 counts attempted murder, 4 counts of arson, 4 counts of assault with a weapon, 4 counts uttering...
Ian Thomson, would have been able to skate on a justifiable homicide verdict.
I can appreciate the mental note Karrie, but if someone is willing to kill you, and burn down your house over it. Putting them down, is an option.
Actually, maybe not for sh!ts and giggles, but the Police will charge you with what they "believe" to be the appropriate charge, even if the arresting Officer thinks you were righteous. They are their to maintain law and order, not try cases, curb side.
Water pistol?
As I see it he made three mistakes.
1 registering his firearms. Just lets the criminals (government)know what you got and where.
2 Not killing the bastards and dumping the bodies. Cops would have just chalked it up to gangland turf war. Case closed.
3 Showing the police the video. We all know they don't like anyone doing their job for them. Also we all know that in Canada criminals have more rights than law abiding taxpayers.
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
Add my signature too.
A guy would have to be stupid, to go outside unarmed and run the risk of getting gasoline thrown at him, and if you are going to use a gun, be prepared to shoot to kill.
When I moved to where I live now, there was a house across the "square" (playground) from me, where people were selling dope...which I didn't know about.
A few weeks after I had settled in, in the middle of the night some teenagers who I found out later had been at that house were throwing rocks at the houses around the square, including mine woke me up.
While I had a gun handy, in case the attack escalated, I wasn't too worried and used a pen launcher, to fire a couple of bear bangers in the middle of the square, just before the police arrived.
Since the "shots" seemed to come from their direction, the cops were searching them and were about to search the storm sewers when one of them who knew me, and my gun collection came to ask me a few questions (off the record) and when I showed him what I had used, he called off the search, and I never heard anymore about it.
But they had enough for a search warrant on that house because the dopers put their house up for sale the next week and were gone:lol:
Never had any trouble on this street since then....Wonder why???;-)
And when that happens the gun grabbers seize the opportunity to advocate for the disarmament of law abiding citizens. The Chief of Police along with many members of the force were members of the same Masonic lodge as the perpetrator of the Dunblane shooting, and that led to the near total disarmament of the UK. A friend of mine was one of the investigators and so disgusted with the end result he moved here and is now a Canadian citizen. The shooting in Tazmania led to the near disarmament of Australia, and the Montreal shooting has done nearly the same here. Just look what the political pundits are saying about the latest one in Arizona. What needs to happen is for an armed citizen to take charge and end a rampage, but when it does it is nearly always neatly buried somewhere on page 8.
Police fire their weapons, does that mean they break the law? They have to abide by the same laws as us you know. The people were masked, how can you be sure he knew them, they could have been hired goons for all you know.
Let's see, one guy chasing two or three masked assailants intent on harm, and you only armed with a phone yet. You kid yourself. You wouldn't end up sleeping, that is if you didn't wake up dead.
I saw nothing morally wrong on the property owners' part in the video. As for the law, I don't know. But as far as I'm concerned, one should have the right to defend himself with lethal force, whether via use of a weapon or his hands, against attempted arson. And I don't generally consider myself a Conservative. Though granted I don't consider myself a Liberal either.
What he did to provoke his attackers to do this is irrelevant. Could they not have filed a complaint with the authorities against him? Morally, arson is a capital offense in my book, regardless of whether lives are lost.
Ok, now I can agree that we must all obey the law whether we agree with it or not. That said, I also agree that we ought to obay stupid laws only until they're changed. And we ought to strive to change them ASAP.
I won't judge whether or not he broke any law based on one video, but from that limited evidence, his actions seemed reasonable enough to me at least at first glance.
On the one hand, I do agree that he did the right thing to restrain himself. On ther other, I'd also say that had he shot at one of them while he was about to throw a Molotov coctail, he would have been morally totally justified in doing so to protect himself, his property, his animals, and his neighbours from spreading fire, though even then I'd probably still aim for the hand or throwing arm, the goal beying to protect my property, not kill him. That said, if he were moving quickly with that coctail in hand, and having already proven his willingness to actually throw it, and I wasn't confident about my aim, then maybe in his body mass to ensure the bullet doesn't hit others behind him.
I would place some restrictions on that: he should be allowed to use lethal force in defense of self, others and significant property (like a house for example), but not for any crime. What about shoplifting a candybar? But I do agree with you overall, just not quite to the extreme you propose.
They do do that sometimes. There are members who take a dim view of citizens taking the law into their own hands. The have forgotten Sir Robert Peel's 9 principles of consentual policing, namely that they are paid to do what is incumbent upon the citizens who employ them. The law is not the the dominion of the police or parliamentarians, nor are the courts the custodians of it, (as certain justices of the SCC so pompously believe), no, the law belongs to all of us, equally. The law is ours to take into our own hands, it is justice that is left to the courts. Some LEO's feel law enforcement is theirs and theirs alone, and will royally put you in a world of hurt for stepping on their turf. They would rather take pictures of the dead bodies of you and your kin than have you usurp their authority by defending yourself and yours with force. They're not all like that, but that atmosphere is quite pervasive.
You absolutely should be allowed to stand your ground.
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
I'll sign it too depending on how Colpie words it. I think as far as gun laws go, he and I agree for the msot part.
I don't have it handy, but yes, you can use reasonable force to deter an indictable offense. Shoplifting, though minor, is still such an offense. You have to inform the person they are under arrest and you can use reasonable force to hold them until authorities arrive. If you advise a person they are under arrest and they resist, they are now resisting arrest, which is not only also indictable, but a far more serious offense. Many defense councellors advise that you should inform a person that they are under arrest, and if they resist you have far more latitude in the force you can use than in self defense. In other words, yelling to the fire bombers that they are under arrest, and if they still throw fire bombs, you are more justified in using deadly force than you would be than only for defense of self. It's a strange world, but that's how it was explained to me.
Actually, that does make sense and seems reasonable enough. By announing an arrest, you're making it clear to them that what they are doing is illegal, that you are taking action, and that you have the law on your side. It avoids any accusations of no fair warning before lethal force is used.
I will agree though that while using lethal force against shiplifting would be way out of line, arresting a shoplifter, trying to stop him from escaping, and using lethal force should that shoplifter escalate the issue would be reasonable, since then would wouldn't be killing him for the shoplifting, but rather for putting your safety in danger as you try to arrest him. This would send a clear signal to a shoplifter that if he values his life, once arrested he'd better cooperated.
That would be incorrect.
You have right up to a point.........you can arrest someone if they are "found committing" an offense, but only immediately, or after a continuous pursuit, or if you see someone fleeing what you have reason to believe are people lawfully entitled to arrest them. You can only use reasonable and proportional force.
The only reason you are allowed to use lethal force is if you are in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm. There are no extenuating circumstances beyond that.........arrest or not........there is only one justification.
BTW, any person arrested, even by a civilian, has to be informed immediately that they are under arrest, and why, and informed of their right to counsel.
I do like a law that allows proportional force without retreat.....although I am VERY unsure that shooting a guy eight times that punched you is proportional...........as is the case in the Florida trial where the charges of murder were dismissed under the Stand Your Ground law.......