Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack

[Unforgiven]

He fired a gun. Was it against the law or not?

Well Colpy old bean, did you think that it's you that gets to decide that? Maybe the home owner? Is it perhaps the assholes who were throwing the fire bombs? Maybe the police get to decide if it was against the law.

Or does it go to court, both sides argued before a judge and then the one person who is qualified to be the judge of this, decides.

Now I can see that you are upset, and I get why.
But the thing is he is charged not convicted. Now if you feel that he shouldn't be charged or even questioned, because the people trying to burn down his house and I assume kill him, were caught on video doing it then you are nuts.
He did fire the gun as he has said he did. The judge can say whether it was right that he did so, or not. If it was right, then he gets his guns back, his license and a precedent is set that can then travel the length of the judicial system if need be.

So don't get your man panties in a knot because the police have to charge him with an offence he admits to.
Of course you know, there is firing your guns and then there is firing your guns. One thing you can't just up and do, the other you of course can.

Now don't be a little bitch and just let it go through the courts and then we can see what the deal is.

As far as I am concerned I think that you can't shoot someone for burning your car, but you can shoot someone for trying to kill you.

 

[Colpy]

He fired a gun. Was it against the law or not?

Well Colpy old bean, did you think that it's you that gets to decide that? Maybe the home owner? Is it perhaps the assholes who were throwing the fire bombs? Maybe the police get to decide if it was against the law.

Or does it go to court, both sides argued before a judge and then the one person who is qualified to be the judge of this, decides.

Now I can see that you are upset, and I get why.
But the thing is he is charged not convicted. Now if you feel that he shouldn't be charged or even questioned, because the people trying to burn down his house and I assume kill him, were caught on video doing it then you are nuts.
He did fire the gun as he has said he did. The judge can say whether it was right that he did so, or not. If it was right, then he gets his guns back, his license and a precedent is set that can then travel the length of the judicial system if need be.

So don't get your man panties in a knot because the police have to charge him with an offence he admits to.
Of course you know, there is firing your guns and then there is firing your guns. One thing you can't just up and do, the other you of course can.

Now don't be a little bitch and just let it go through the courts and then we can see what the deal is.

As far as I am concerned I think that you can't shoot someone for burning your car, but you can shoot someone for trying to kill you.

It seems obvious the man had no choice. True, I was not there, and know only what was in the media, and God knows they are often wrong............but, assuming they have it right.....

The police do not HAVE to press charges, and when they do, the man is twice victimized, as this will undoubtedly cost him thousands of dollars..........IMHO, the police often assume it is only them that are allowed to defend themselves.........

There already are precedents, going back hundreds of years, that self-defense is one of our most basic rights....you do have a right to "security of the person" listed in the Charter. Therefore, he has admitted nothing, as firing a weapon in defense is NOT an offense. If it were, police and guards would not be permitted to carry them. And the POLICE should have made that determination in an investigation.........and not charged him, according to what we know. There could be other, unknown circumstances.

They seized his weapons, leaving him defenseless, unless, of course, he didn't register all of his guns.

Want a real good look at how well you are protected by the police in McGuinty's Liberal Ontario?

Read Helpless, by Christie Blatchford.

Or start with this.............the nanny state society is the antithesis of liberty.

Death of Personal Responsibility: Helmet required

 

[bobnoorduyn]

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.......

Well, I may have been a bit misunderstood, you don't have to wait until someone takes the wheels off your vehicle before you can arrest them, the fact of whether they have committed an offense or in the process of committing one might be up for debate, but you can arrest them if the intent is obvious to a reasonable person, though you might have to convince a judge. Someone trespassing on your property during daylight may or may not be committing a criminal act, there is a bit of grey so caution must be excercised. People do get lost, or are chasing a lost dog, reading the meter, whatever. Nightime changes the rules, trespass is nearly always indictable.

When placing a person under arrest they have three choices; submit, or; take flight whereby you do have the authority to give chase and apprehend them,(we have the right under the CC to take back that which was ours and taken from us unlawfully); or engage, whereby you can use whatever force necessary up to and including deadly force. You are not only defending yourself but attempting to apprehend someone who is resisting arrest.

With defense of self and/or those under your care you have to be in immediate threat of death or greivous bodily harm; if assailants resist your attempt at arrest that makes them more liable, and you less so. It is an added protection to you as it will aid your defense if you have to use force to defend or retrieve your property. However, forceably entering a dwelling house is always indictable, and if you fire three or more shots while you're saying "you are under arrest", whatever.

As a citizen you do not have to advise an arrested suspect of any charges or rights, that is the duty of the authorities, only say that they are under arrest, and that is to protect yourself. Citizens apprehend convenience store robbers and such plenty of times and don't even tell them they are under arrest.

 

[Tonington]

So don't get your man panties in a knot because the police have to charge him with an offence he admits to.

He admitted to firing his gun. He didn't admit to an offence.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

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.

Like I mentioned to Colpy, while you can arrest the person shoplifting, if they turn out to be aggressive, for whatever reason, a resisting arrest defense may be your only option if things go South and you have to use deadly force. Police have had to use such force arresting suspects on far less serious offenses.

He admitted to firing his gun. He didn't admit to an offence.

If there is one lesson to be learned here it is this, you have the right to remain silent, USE IT, I have seen too many good folks convict themselves by trying to be the good guy and setting the record straight. It just does not work that way, your own words will convict you faster than the best prosecutor ever will.

 

[Colpy]

Now we're talking! Lorne Gunter has it exactly right.......

When Canada became independent at Confederation in 1867, Canadians retained the rights they had at the time as British subjects. These included three “absolute rights”: the right to personal liberty, the right to private property and the right to self-defence, up to and including the right to kill an attacker or burglar.
William Blackstone, Britain’s famous constitutional expert, argued the right to self-defence included the right to kill even an agent of the king found on one’s property after dark, uninvited. He also traced the right to armed self-defence back to the time of King Canute (995–1035) when subjects could be fined for failing to keep weapons for their own protection.
Even in Upper Canada for much of the 19th Century it was the law that all adult males be armed, at their own expense. In part, this was so a militia could be formed quickly for defence of the colony and in part so individuals were prepared to defend themselves and their property.
These rights have not been extinguished just because Canada has become modernized and urbanized, or because our officials would rather pretend they don’t exist and never have.

Read more: Lorne Gunter: Canadians have a right to self-defence, even if our officials deny it | Full Comment | National Post
​

 

[petros]

When Canada became independent at Confederation in 1867, Canadians retained the rights they had at the time as British subjects. These included three “absolute rights”: the right to personal liberty, the right to private property and the right to self-defence, up to and including the right to kill an attacker or burglar.

Nope. Unless retained under the Charter those B'rithish laws have been overwritten. There is no grandfathering.

If you are so hopped up about the lifestyle of being able to pack side arm and shoot people move to the SW US or Montana.

It's just not part of our mythos or folklore.

Sorry Charlie

 

[Unforgiven]

It seems obvious the man had no choice. True, I was not there, and know only what was in the media, and God knows they are often wrong............but, assuming they have it right.....

Assumption is perfectly alright for here and our discussion, but when it comes to the technical points of the law and justice, assumption has no place.

The police do not HAVE to press charges, and when they do, the man is twice victimized, as this will undoubtedly cost him thousands of dollars..........IMHO, the police often assume it is only them that are allowed to defend themselves.........

While there is some play as to judgement calls where the police are concerned, in matters as complex and important as this must go before a judge. The police are there to gather evidence and the facts involved in the case. If evidence of indictable offence are present, police are obliged by the standard of their profession to make the charge.

There already are precedents, going back hundreds of years, that self-defense is one of our most basic rights....you do have a right to "security of the person" listed in the Charter. Therefore, he has admitted nothing, as firing a weapon in defense is NOT an offense. If it were, police and guards would not be permitted to carry them. And the POLICE should have made that determination in an investigation.........and not charged him, according to what we know. There could be other, unknown circumstances.

Hundreds of years ago people owned people and women were also a man's property in some respects. Times change Colpy. So does the ways and means of the law. Much to the disappointment of some who wish to remain living in the past.

They seized his weapons, leaving him defenseless, unless, of course, he didn't register all of his guns.

If he didn't register all of his guns then he is a criminal and shouldn't be allowed to have any guns at all.
Many people are and should be unarmed. Hardly defenceless but certainly not armed with a gun.

Want a real good look at how well you are protected by the police in McGuinty's Liberal Ontario?

Read Helpless, by Christie Blatchford.

Oh Colpy, you are so short sighted friend and I dare say a bit naive. Everyone has plenty of guns and so it's not going to be a good brandishing of the weapon that sorts things out. Even a shot into the ground isn't going to make all those Mohawk warriors flinch and run away. The only way to remove a well armed group that is organized and ready to make a stand, is start killing them until you get to the people who don't want to die more than they want to be right. All well and good if you aren't a politician. But that's what the name of the game is son.

Or start with this.............the nanny state society is the antithesis of liberty.

Christ this is so dumb. You fail to grasp that in a society where fools are allowed to live and breed, the onus on all others is to make things fool proof. This does mean that any thing can be made damn fool proof.

Now if everyone has to have a gun, then instead of just arming a few kooks like yourself who feel there is an imminent danger about to befall them, we have to arm every kook in the land. Not just that, but all the children have to be armed, which is even more crazy than arming all the nuts, and of course those who can't manage to do anything with a gun other than fire it.

The thousands dead seem no consequence to you. This is much more dangerous than all the Caledonia's in the world.

In the case of self defence, it must go before a judge in a court with due process. That it makes you mad is inconsequently a matter of fact.

He admitted to firing his gun. He didn't admit to an offence.

I would say that if he was charged with it, it was an offence to discharge a firearm within the town. So admitting he fired his gun is admission to that offence even if he doesn't choose to see it that way.

 

[petros]

My turn.

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

It seems obvious the man had no choice. True, I was not there, and know only what was in the media, and God knows they are often wrong............but, assuming they have it right.....​

He had no choice? Choice between reality and not wearing pants? First of all he had an obligation to call the cops and PD instead of running out in his gonch firing shots into who knows whose roof while they lay in bed as the arsonists drove away.. It happens....LOTS. Look it up.

If people in North Central Regina had the opportunity to open fire everytime someone came in their yards it would turn into a race war.

This is why we have laws.

Quote:

The police do not HAVE to press charges, and when they do, the man is twice victimized, as this will undoubtedly cost him thousands of dollars..........IMHO, the police often assume it is only them that are allowed to defend themselves.........​

Where do you come up with this crap? It's 100% up to the Crown on a weapon's charge. Especially if he discharged while running after people in his gonch firing as they drove away.

What was his BAC?

Quote:

Want a real good look at how well you are protected by the police in McGuinty's Liberal Ontario?

Read Helpless, by Christie Blatchford.​

You're helpless and Hopeless by John Lichtenstein.

Quote:

Or start with this.............the nanny state society is the antithesis of liberty.
​

Welcome to Palestine where some occupying alien living on your land can carry an uzi or an AK as a fashion statement and take pot shots at you while you try to pick olives and you only have rocks to fight back with.

You do realize the world is going Socialist and there isn't a freakin' thing you can do about it?

Do you have any old Testes model engines laying around just in case too just in case? How about the right clay, a tube and some black powder,sugar and tire shavings?
​

 

[Colpy]

Nope. Unless retained under the Charter those B'rithish laws have been overwritten. There is no grandfathering.

Bull Shyte

From the Charter:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/charte/1.html#codese:26

26.The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/charte/1.html#codese:26http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/charte/1.html#codese:26http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/charte/1.html#codese:26

That aside from the fact that government cannot grant or remove what is one's right.......they can only recognize them, or refuse to recognize them.

 

[petros]

existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

We aren't British.

If you want real rights and not priveleges stop barking at the rose bushes and bark at the oaks but first you'll need to learn the difference between the rights of a person and those of a human.

 

[Colpy]

We aren't British.

If you want real rights and not priveleges stop barking at the rose bushes and bark at the oaks but first you'll need to learn the difference between the rights of a person and those of a human.

OMG! You were dropped on your head, weren't you?

Our constitution was an Act of the British Parliament up until 1982.........and all the rights we had then, we still have.

 

[petros]

colpy;
Our constitution was an Act of the British Parliament up until 1982

Putz, It's 2011 and you aren't British.

 

[Colpy]

Putz, It's 2011 and you aren't British.

Written in 1982:

26.The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

At that time, our constitution was an Act of the British Parliament.

Last thing I've to say on the subject of the Constitutional rights of the subject of the British crown...........be they English or Canadian:

Who is the Head of State?

Why is our system of Jurisprudence called English Common Law?


Why is William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England taught as the basis of Canadian law to our lawyers?

 

[wulfie68]

I'd sign Colpy's private member's bill too.

A couple things do bug me about this discussion though, just little details that seem off to me.

- I thought it was the Crown Prosecutor that presses charges, not the cops or anyone else. Some may think I'm being a little anal on the hair splitting but I don't want to give the cops a black eye for something that is out of their hands: punish them for what they do wrong, not the mistakes of others.

- the point was brought up that being charged isn't the same as being convicted, which is true. On the other hand, if he is charged, guilty of the charges or not, he still has to pay for a defense lawyer and other related expenses, for shooting at some guys that could have killed him? Thats a pretty major insult added to injury and shows poor judgement by the Crown, especially when the complaints are almost non-stop about how over-burdened our courts are.

 

[#juan]

On this topic I have to agree one hundred percent with Colpy. If some dork is throwing Molotov CCocktails at your house, you should be within your rights to stop him with whatever means are available.......including shooting holes in him.

 

[Colpy]

Another comment that is completely correct:

The right of Canadians to safeguard themselves, their families and their property is rooted in our common-law tradition, and clearly laid out in the Criminal Code. This includes the right to use force when “under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm.” The Code also specifies that “Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority.”
Instead of being hit with a flurry of charges, victims who defeat their attackers should get a citation for bravery. We need more Ian Thomsons, David Morrows, Lawrence Manzers and David Chens. Only by letting individual citizens protect themselves with reasonable force without fear of legal consequence can the law be put back on the side of the lawful citizen.

​

Read more: Matt Gurney: Protecting the lawful citizen | Full Comment | National Post

This column interesting for its coverage of situations where the police were unable....or unwilling......to respond in a timely fashion......
​

 

[DaSleeper]

Another comment that is completely correct:

[/COLOR]
Read more: Matt Gurney: Protecting the lawful citizen | Full Comment | National Post

This column interesting for its coverage of situations where the police were unable....or unwilling......to respond in a timely fashion......
[/LEFT]

Last week, the federal Conservatives announced that they would introduce legislation to change the rules for citizens’ arrests, to ensure other well-meaning individuals do not face a repeat of the Chen fiasco.

Maybe we will finally revert from the "Nanny State" we have become to one where one is allowed to defend himself/herself and his/her property...........

 

[TenPenny]

Maybe we will finally revert from the "Nanny State" we have become to one where one is allowed to defend himself/herself and his/her property...........

Subtle difference: in the article Colpy quoted, the reference is to 'protecting themselves', not property.

 

[DaSleeper]

Subtle difference: in the article Colpy quoted, the reference is to 'protecting themselves', not property.

Not quite subtle....David Chen was protecting his property.....non?

And of course, there is the case of Toronto store-owner David Chen. After suffering daily harassment by shoplifters and manifest indifference by the police, in May 2009 Chen finally made a citizens’ arrest of one of the most notorious repeat offenders. Instead of thanking him for doing their job, police charged Chen with assault and forcible confinement. Acquitted of both counts last October, his actions may prove a tipping point. Last week, the federal Conservatives announced that they would introduce legislation to change the rules for citizens’ arrests, to ensure other well-meaning individuals do not face a repeat of the Chen fiasco.



Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...-protecting-the-lawful-citizen/#ixzz1C4hATD37