Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack

[damngrumpy]

While I believe you have a right to defend yourself, that is in a personal physical attack.
You have the right to defend property inside your home but only with reasonable force.
We are not Americans, our laws prevent one from firing guns in neighbourhoods and
that is the law.
I do believe you should be able to use a firearm inside the home to protect family and
that is allowed providing the intruder has a weapon, or there are more than one attacker.
I don't think we should be firing guns in the street especially when he had the buggers on
video.
I also don't believe in punitive gun control but this fellow appears to me to be someone
who should not possess a weapon. I do believe there has to be some restrictions but the
heavy handed gun control that was brought in years ago did not protect anyone, or keep
the population safe. I do believe, criminals, those charged with offences, those convicted
of domestic violence and mental unstable people should not be allowed to have weapons.
On the other hand we have laws and the ones we have usually do the job. If he fired the
gun in an urban setting he could have injured someone not involved.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Absolutely, they have to be stored that way...... but my point is that you have to take it out of the box to use it or clean it ect....or protect yourself with it like the gentleman did.
Pretty hard to replace the bolt in a bolt action after cleaning it with a triger lock in place.
I've alway stored my ammunition and reloading powder and primers in a locked mini fridge (with the compressor and freon removed:smile with a 25 watt light buld on all the time to throw just enough heat to keep everything nice and dry in the basement...also have a 25 watt bulb in the gun locker.

The Crown is arguing over one of the same things that has gotten many hunters and home owners into a world of hurt; i.e. What constitutes In use, Stored, In Transit. Another argument would be; how can the police carry or keep loaded firearms at the ready themselves? They are bound by the same laws as we are. It may be time we enlighten the lawmakers that the police serve at the pleasure of the people, and should remind them of Sir Robert Peel's 9 princilples of consentual policing, one of which is, "the police are paid to do only that which is incumbent upon the citizens". Ian Thompson's first mistake was that he didn't do what the police would do, shoot the buggars.

While I believe you have a right to defend yourself, that is in a personal physical attack.
You have the right to defend property inside your home but only with reasonable force.
We are not Americans, our laws prevent one from firing guns in neighbourhoods and
that is the law.

What defines "reasonable force"? You don't know what is reasonable until one of you is either dead or seriously injured, attacks happen really fast, I mean in milliseconds. Laws don't prevent folks from firing guns in neighbourhoods, holy f#cksh!t, take a trip to North Preston, they're shooting each other weekly, the law doesn't stop them. Oh wait, sorry, come to Halifax and enjoy the weather.

I do believe you should be able to use a firearm inside the home to protect family and
that is allowed providing the intruder has a weapon, or there are more than one attacker.
I don't think we should be firing guns in the street especially when he had the buggers on
video.

How would you know if an intruder has a weapon? I would rather find it after I shot him than after he shot me. But does he need a weapon? I consider myself rather spry, but I don't delude myself, I would be no match for an aggressive 20 year old, or two, or three. An intruder is not dropping by for a cup of tea, I would rather be judged by 12 than be carried by six. Videos are as good as cockpit voice and flight data recorders, they speak for those who no longer can.

I also don't believe in punitive gun control but this fellow appears to me to be someone
who should not possess a weapon. I do believe there has to be some restrictions but the
heavy handed gun control that was brought in years ago did not protect anyone, or keep
the population safe. I do believe, criminals, those charged with offences, those convicted
of domestic violence and mental unstable people should not be allowed to have weapons.
On the other hand we have laws and the ones we have usually do the job. If he fired the
gun in an urban setting he could have injured someone not involved.

I don't know how you can say Ian Thompson should not possess weapons, really. We cannot stop those who really shouldn't, even the criminals. Gun control only controls law abiding citizens, and really, that is only who the politicians want to control.

 

[Nuggler]

COLPY: "
'When I am cleaning them, fondling them,"

lol. good one...................definitely in use.

 

[Colpy]

While I believe you have a right to defend yourself, that is in a personal physical attack.
You have the right to defend property inside your home but only with reasonable force.
We are not Americans, our laws prevent one from firing guns in neighbourhoods and
that is the law.
I do believe you should be able to use a firearm inside the home to protect family and
that is allowed providing the intruder has a weapon, or there are more than one attacker.
I don't think we should be firing guns in the street especially when he had the buggers on
video.
I also don't believe in punitive gun control but this fellow appears to me to be someone
who should not possess a weapon. I do believe there has to be some restrictions but the
heavy handed gun control that was brought in years ago did not protect anyone, or keep
the population safe. I do believe, criminals, those charged with offences, those convicted
of domestic violence and mental unstable people should not be allowed to have weapons.
On the other hand we have laws and the ones we have usually do the job. If he fired the
gun in an urban setting he could have injured someone not involved.

I really don't get it.

These guys were throwing molotov cocktails INTO Thompson's house, and had successfully set it on fire, forcing Thompson to go outside and confront them.

Was he supposed to stay inside and burn?

Was he supposed to go out unarmed, to be set on fire with a gasoline bomb??

Your last line is correct, he should not have fired in the air. You are responsible for every shot fired, and where it goes, and you must exercise control and caution. He should have fired into the centre of his assailant's chest. That is the correct response.

 

[Colpy]

Just heard from Ian Thomson’s lawyer, Ed Burlew, that Ian got his guns back today. This means that there is no appeal from the crown.
For those unfamiliar with the story you can read more here. Ian still has legal bills and if you can help, there are details here.
Below is my interview with Ian from last month.

Ian Thomson got his guns back « Lilley

So, as I have said from the first, completely malicious prosecution.

 

[#juan]

And a third....