Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack

[Unforgiven]

Was he in a situation where he was in a real threat of IMMEDIATE death? Not really. He had time to get his guns. Even if the fire got out of control, he can always save himself by running out the back door. Calling 911 accomplishes 2 things, it brings the cops and it brings the firemen. I can also load a handgun faster than calling 911, but I have the advantage of being able to call 911 WHILE I'm out getting the key to unlock the trigger lock and load the ammunition.



I agree with most of what you said above. But the problem is determining the amount of force that would be "proportional to the resistance offered" without getting yourself into trouble with the law. In the case of this thread, what would be the appropriate measure of force?

Yep firing a warning shot would have scared the attackers off. Someone running away from you isn't an immediate threat anymore.

I'm guessing by the comments that Colpy has made in this thread that if he were in the same situation the outcome would be drastically different. Anyone hazard a guess of what that would be?

You know I honestly think Colpy believes that there would be a parade in his honour if he shot someone like this.
Reality shows that he would be arrested, charged and after the search of his home more charges and likely a very expensive trial after which keeping guns legally wouldn't be an option for him.

 

[Colpy]

Unforgiven;1376756]His lawyer gave an interview on the Daily Split that is on youtube. I found the link within one of your links though damned if I can remember which now.

Thanks. I'll see if I can find it.

You know or should know that it's reasonable force. Always has been always will be. Threats are against the law but have to have a criteria met before they are credible. So no if someone threatens you, you can't blow them away with your 12 gauge riot gun no matter how much you want to.

Go look it up. You have to actually fear for your life, you have to be under imminent attack by a credible threat. Someone acting aggressive toward you with a gun in their hand, I would say you probably have cause. Someone standing around with a stick calling you names, not so much. Again you can go look this up. It's available on the Internet and stated quite clearly.

Absolutely! And having to exit my house which is having bottles of gasoline thrown at it, and go outside where the people throwing the gasoline are situated............that is imminent attack and a credible threat. Unless you happen to be fire proof.

Now....to legally use force to defend yourself, you have to consider that your opponent has three things: (1) Intent (he was already throwing gasoline on the house!) (2) a weapon (can even be fists or feet, depending on the circumstance.....bottles of gasoline are a LETHAL weapon) and (3) a delivery system......yep, they were throwing them.

When I say THREATEN, I mean show intent.....and YES if you have a pointy stick within 21 feet of me, and I have no escape route, and you say you intend to hurt me with it, I can disintegrate you with my ray gun, if I have one handy, or call in an airstrike, or whatever else is necessary to stop your attack. If you are in possesion of a weapon, and you voice a threat, you have already commited assault.

Sorry, Unforgiven, but I don't need to look it up...... I teach this stuff (now to unarmed guards) and you do not understand the law. Simple as that.

As well, I can use force on anyone to remove them from trespassing on my property..........the force must be proportional. Pistol versus molotov cocktail is obviously proprtional.

There is a huge difference between having a loaded weapon on you or near you, and having six loaded weapons stashed around the house. While I would agree that he had the right to have a loaded weapon on his person after the attack, there is no way that he has the right to leave loaded weapons laying around.

Yeah well, minor point.....as he was the only guy that lived there.....I guess the .357 and my trusty 12 ga would have been enough, but frightened people do fightened things....who is to blame him? He was the only one there, he was in possession of them....he was in fear....no foul.

Oh hell you don't mess with the money. Screw around with the money and you can be hunted down for three weeks and shot in the bath tub. But we're talking money here not some dime a dozen life. Of course firing into a a crowd should not only get your license revoked for good but you should be charged with reckless endangerment. You don't ever shoot into a crowd. I know that and you should too. Today any guard who shot his weapon chasing after criminals would be tossed to the lions and rightly so. Money is insured and should it get stolen, it can be replaced. Shooting some bystander in the head and killing them or ruining their life for a few grand isn't worth it. If it happened to you, you might understand that.

What part of "I used them as examples of what NOT to do", with emphasis on the NOT, do you find difficult to understand?????

And it was not that long ago. Within 10 years, for one example.

And you watch too much US TV. "Reckless endangerment" is a crime in the USA, not Canada............

There is an amount of judgement police officers are allowed, but when it's a case like this, there is no wiggle room. It has to go before the courts where a judge can make a ruling

Ah baloney. Obviously, this guy was defending his life, preventing a criminal act, being perpetrated by trespassers who meant him serious harm.

The charges are a slap in the face to the individual, to justice in general, and to all our rights in particular.

 

[petros]

I'm baffled how a grown man can believe a vote for a specific political party will ever reverse gun laws.


While I'm at it I may as well tell you there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Faerie.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Here you go

YouTube - Right Interviews - Lawyer Edward Burlew Discusses Gun Issues

What I love about Tuesday morning quarterbacks is that they have so much foresight on Monday night's football game. I would have bought BreEx too, but not the day after it cratered. I too often deal with those who claim they would have done this or that differently given the transcripts of how the actual events played out. The problem is that we aren't given those transcripts beforehand. It is too easy to say what we would have done and use that as a basis on which to judge someone. A fellow shows up with intent and a knife, you have a gun. Do you wait until he stabs you before you fire? The reason for the 7 meter (21') training is that an average person can close that gap in 1.5 seconds. I can fire off 7 rounds, reload the mag from loose ammunition and fire off another 7 in the time it takes to call 911. I have seen police videos that show dedicated agressors can do likewise, and they have no regard for collateral casualties. A negotiation can turn from a simple theft to a deadly encounter in a heartbeat. Giving the aggressor the benefit of the doubt invariably leads to the death or serious injury of the victim.

What I can't seem to wrap my head around is those who would willingly leave themselves open to be victims, but I would respect their decision. That they would also cede any duty they might have to defend those under their care, I would question their morals. That they would make myself or others do likewise I would damn their souls to hell forevermore.

 

[petros]

A fellow shows up with intent and a knife, you have a gun. Do you wait until he stabs you before you fire?

One guy has a rock. One guy has a stick. Who wins?

If everyone in Asian was disarmed of all knives guns sticks rocks or what have you, would I be illegal because I'm 30cm taller and 25kg more muscluar?

The only fair fight is the one that doesn't happen.

 

[Unforgiven]

Thanks. I'll see if I can find it.




Absolutely! And having to exit my house which is having bottles of gasoline thrown at it, and go outside where the people throwing the gasoline are situated............that is imminent attack and a credible threat. Unless you happen to be fire proof.

Without question.

Now....to legally use force to defend yourself, you have to consider that your opponent has three things: (1) Intent (he was already throwing gasoline on the house!) (2) a weapon (can even be fists or feet, depending on the circumstance.....bottles of gasoline are a LETHAL weapon) and (3) a delivery system......yep, they were throwing them.

Not quite. Any force you use must be reasonable. As always the devils in the details. According to your version, someone caught breaking into your house, has the right to shoot you if you start beating them to make the leave.

The problem with that is it's unreasonable. You have the right to use reasonable force to remove someone from your property like grabbing them by the scruff and walking them off your property after telling them clearly to leave and they persist in staying.

I've done this twice and never been charged. The trespasser was charged in both cases. If I beat him to death, I would be charged and most likely convicted.

When I say THREATEN, I mean show intent.....and YES if you have a pointy stick within 21 feet of me, and I have no escape route, and you say you intend to hurt me with it, I can disintegrate you with my ray gun, if I have one handy, or call in an airstrike, or whatever else is necessary to stop your attack. If you are in possesion of a weapon, and you voice a threat, you have already commited assault.

Not the case here though. Once he was outside, his life was no longer in danger from the burning house.
Not that it wasn't threatened by the attackers at that point, but he had an escape route, and he was armed with a weapon, which after he discharged it, the attackers fled.

I think it would be safe to assume that the fire was out and there was no longer a threat of or from the house burning as he took the time to load up a number of weapons. So while he may, and justifiably so, felt threatened at that point, he was not as they had fled. The attack was stopped. There was no actual threat to him at that point.

Sorry, Unforgiven, but I don't need to look it up...... I teach this stuff (now to unarmed guards) and you do not understand the law. Simple as that.

As well, I can use force on anyone to remove them from trespassing on my property..........the force must be proportional. Pistol versus molotov cocktail is obviously proprtional.

Believe what you want but a fleeing person is not a threat.

Yeah well, minor point.....as he was the only guy that lived there.....I guess the .357 and my trusty 12 ga would have been enough, but frightened people do fightened things....who is to blame him? He was the only one there, he was in possession of them....he was in fear....no foul.

I think there is a lot more to this than is presented just now. For one thing the guy said he has no enemies, yet the neighbour whose chickens he killed was convicted of uttering death threats. I don't for a moment think this was just some random attack. The guy in the video was yelling and clearly harboured some sort of hateful grudge toward the guy. So something doesn't add up.

What part of "I used them as examples of what NOT to do", with emphasis on the NOT, do you find difficult to understand?????

And it was not that long ago. Within 10 years, for one example.

Fair enough I misread what you posted there.

And you watch too much US TV. "Reckless endangerment" is a crime in the USA, not Canada............

Oh come on. Criminal Negligence if you must.

Ah baloney. Obviously, this guy was defending his life, preventing a criminal act, being perpetrated by trespassers who meant him serious harm.

The charges are a slap in the face to the individual, to justice in general, and to all our rights in particular.

Was he? If someone can disagree then it's questionable. There was a number of cops there, assuming they are not idiots and applied the law as they felt they should, he was charged. I have to say that trumps Internet guy every time on the should he have been scale.

 

[ironsides]

Was he in a situation where he was in a real threat of IMMEDIATE death? Not really. He had time to get his guns. Even if the fire got out of control, he can always save himself by running out the back door. Calling 911 accomplishes 2 things, it brings the cops and it brings the firemen. I can also load a handgun faster than calling 911, but I have the advantage of being able to call 911 WHILE I'm out getting the key to unlock the trigger lock and load the ammunition.



I agree with most of what you said above. But the problem is determining the amount of force that would be "proportional to the resistance offered" without getting yourself into trouble with the law. In the case of this thread, what would be the appropriate measure of force?

I'm guessing by the comments that Colpy has made in this thread that if he were in the same situation the outcome would be drastically different. Anyone hazard a guess of what that would be?

When I am under a threat where I have to shoot, I usually fire two shots rapid center body. While your calling 911 the robber if your lucky has clubbed you and not shot you.
If you are confronted with a armed person, just do everything they say to do, you may come out with just a big scare.

 

[petros]

If you manage to get into my home and I'm there and harm me or anyone in my family you will without any question be exiting my home through the basement floor drain.

No noise. No gun. No messy stains. No out of the ordinary purchases. Zero organic matter to find.

My lovely wife has been working with dark and criminal aspects of the mental health field in both Fed and Prov prison and jail for 18 years.

It doesn't matter if you have a gun, a knife or a pop tart, before you can blink you are on the floor, blinded, your balls in your throat with whatever was in your hand stuffed up your ass.

Amen.

 

[Unforgiven]

If you manage to get into my home and I'm there and harm me or anyone in my family you will without any question be exiting my home through the basement floor drain.

No noise. No gun. No messy stains. No out of the ordinary purchases. Zero organic matter to find.

My lovely wife has been working with dark and criminal aspects of the mental health field in both Fed and Prov prison and jail for 18 years.

It doesn't matter if you have a gun, a knife or a pop tart, before you can blink you are on the floor, blinded, your balls in your throat with whatever was in your hand stuffed up your ass.

Amen.

Now this is too much American TV! :lol:

 

[cdn_bc_ca]

When I am under a threat where I have to shoot, I usually fire two shots rapid center body. While your calling 911 the robber if your lucky has clubbed you and not shot you.
If you are confronted with a armed person, just do everything they say to do, you may come out with just a big scare.

The situation you came up with above is completely different from the OP. Your talking about an armed robbery within a household as opposed to arson.

 

[petros]

Now this is too much American TV! :lol:

I don't watch TV. I don't need a gun or John Wayne movies to protect my home because I'm not afraid. I'm not going to cower in my own home stroking a steel penis while life passes by the peephole in my window because I watch too much TV and it ****ed me up. Nooo thank you but I will do whatever it takes to protect myself and my gals just like men did long before guns, TV and John Wayne movies.

 

[cdn_bc_ca]

Now....to legally use force to defend yourself, you have to consider that your opponent has three things: (1) Intent (he was already throwing gasoline on the house!) (2) a weapon (can even be fists or feet, depending on the circumstance.....bottles of gasoline are a LETHAL weapon) and (3) a delivery system......yep, they were throwing them.

Based on your criteria above, here's probably what would've happened if it were a Colpy vs. Colpy scenario:

1. Colpy the Vandal tries to light a house on fire using molotov cocktails

2. Colpy the Resident notices an act of violence and quickly goes through "Colpy's 3 step method for self-defense"
a) there was intent - "he was already throwing gasoline on the house!"
b) there was a weapon - bottles of gasoline
c) delivery system - "yep, he was throwing them."

So he goes and grabs his gun and runs outside and fires 2-3 rounds to scare the vandal off.

3. Colpy the Vandal notices Colpy the Resident's act of violence quickly goes through "Colpy's 3 step method for self-defense"
a) there was intent - "he was already firing his gun in the air"
b) there was a weapon - a gun "duuuh"
c) deliver system - "yep, he was pulling the trigger"

So now Colpy the Vandal whips out his own gun, because Colpy's always have guns on hand.

We have a classic Mexican standoff here boys!

4. Then both Colpy's notices yet another act of violence and both quickly go through "Colpy's 3 step method for self-defense"
a) there was intent - "he was already throwing the newspaper at us"
b) there was a weapon - fists and feet
c) delivery system - "yep, he was throwing them"

Poor paper boy, all he wanted to do was save a little walking time.
;-)

 

[petros]

You missed the option where neighbour across the street calls cops, cops see Colpy armed with pistol and then the meat wagon comes for Colpy.

 

[cdn_bc_ca]

You missed the option where neighbour across the street calls cops, cops see Colpy armed with pistol and then the meat wagon comes for Colpy.

My bad...

 

[Unforgiven]

Colpy vs the Truffle Shuffle.

 

[cdn_bc_ca]

Lol...

 

[Colpy]

Based on your criteria above, here's probably what would've happened if it were a Colpy vs. Colpy scenario:

1. Colpy the Vandal tries to light a house on fire using molotov cocktails

2. Colpy the Resident notices an act of violence and quickly goes through "Colpy's 3 step method for self-defense"
a) there was intent - "he was already throwing gasoline on the house!"
b) there was a weapon - bottles of gasoline
c) delivery system - "yep, he was throwing them."

So he goes and grabs his gun and runs outside and fires 2-3 rounds to scare the vandal off.

3. Colpy the Vandal notices Colpy the Resident's act of violence quickly goes through "Colpy's 3 step method for self-defense"
a) there was intent - "he was already firing his gun in the air"
b) there was a weapon - a gun "duuuh"
c) deliver system - "yep, he was pulling the trigger"

So now Colpy the Vandal whips out his own gun, because Colpy's always have guns on hand.

We have a classic Mexican standoff here boys!

4. Then both Colpy's notices yet another act of violence and both quickly go through "Colpy's 3 step method for self-defense"
a) there was intent - "he was already throwing the newspaper at us"
b) there was a weapon - fists and feet
c) delivery system - "yep, he was throwing them"

Poor paper boy, all he wanted to do was save a little walking time.
;-)

First of all, it wouldn't be Colpy vs Colpy, because Colpy is not in the habit of firebombing his neighbours.

Secondly, it is obvious you haven't read all the thread, as I have stated; Colpy doesn't fire warning shots. If there is reason to shoot, shoot to stop..........or don't shoot.....for reasons laid out in an earlier post. So, Colpy exits house, confronted with arsonist armed with molotov cocktail, Colpy fires centre mass.......thus stopping the arsonist's attack......end of story.

BTW, you should really pay attention to what I'm saying....I do know what I'm talking about, you don't have a clue. I have been trained in Canadian self-defense law and practice by some of the best professionals in the country.......and I have trained guards, both armed and not, in self-defense.........The Intent/Weapon/Delivery System is not my pattern, but is the standard taught to every police officer in the country.

And I don't have newspapers delivered to the house.

So there.

 

[cdn_bc_ca]

I have no doubts about your experience or the standards that are in place for every police officer. What I have doubts about is the fact that you think that an attack on your property is the same as an attack on your physical body. That is not the case and never will be. You've just lost all credibility there. Nowhere in your revised Colpy sequence of events states that the "arsonist armed with molotov cocktail" attempts to throw said cocktail at you so again, you cannot just go and shoot, shoot to stop or whatever.

Just based on the article, the guy fired shots in the air and got in trouble for it. Just imagine what would happen if he pulled a Colpy and shot centre mass seriously injuring or even killing the guy(s). Even a clueless person could figure the outcome.

> And I don't have newspapers delivered to the house.

Not even local newspapers?

 

[Colpy]

I have no doubts about your experience or the standards that are in place for every police officer. What I have doubts about is the fact that you think that an attack on your property is the same as an attack on your physical body. That is not the case and never will be. You've just lost all credibility there. Nowhere in your revised Colpy sequence of events states that the "arsonist armed with molotov cocktail" attempts to throw said cocktail at you so again, you cannot just go and shoot, shoot to stop or whatever.

Just based on the article, the guy fired shots in the air and got in trouble for it. Just imagine what would happen if he pulled a Colpy and shot centre mass seriously injuring or even killing the guy(s). Even a clueless person could figure the outcome.

> And I don't have newspapers delivered to the house.

Not even local newspapers?

Once again, you demonstrate your lack of understanding.

The use of force depends on my being in fear of death or grievous bodily harm.

Certainly having my house set on fire while I am in it satisfies that requirement.

My use of force against a specific individual (listen carefully now) depends on their expressed intent (yelling threats, throwing molotov cocktails at the house), their possession of a weapon (in this case the gasoline bottles) and their ability to deliver the attack (they obviously are quite capable of throwing the bottles) At that point, I do not have to warn them, and I do not have to wait until they "get the first shot" by having them throw a bottle at me and perhaps set me on fire.....the INTENT has been shown by their threats and their throwing trying to set my house on fire......once I have determined INTENT/WEAPON/DELIVERY I can respond....and use whatever force is required to stop my attacker.

This of course, dependent on my inability to retreat, and my reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm.

All of which are present here.

In addition, there is the old English Common Law principle that "a man's home is his castle"...............................

When someone tries to set my house on fire while I am in it, while yelling threats against me, that is not only an attack on my property, but on my person as well.

I wouldn't use the local paper to line the bottom of a bird cage.

 

[petros]

First of all, it wouldn't be Colpy vs Colpy, because Colpy is not in the habit of firebombing his neighbours.

Lots of people smoke cigars without it being habitual.