Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack

[petros]

What rights? He has a privilige and he will lose his privilige.

Call me what ever you want but when you are a pain in the ass to the cops and the Crown they don't give a flying **** about rights and they could give even less a flying **** about priviliges.

Watch and learn and what your Conservative government will do to this guy. If they will pass fly by night laws to lock down Toronto and arrest people walking dogs what the **** makes you think this dip**** is going to get off and not be made an example of?

 

[Colpy]

What rights? He has a privilige and he will lose his privilige.

Call me what ever you want but when you are a pain in the ass to the cops and the Crown they don't give a flying **** about rights and they could give even less a flying **** about priviliges.

Watch and learn and what your Conservative government will do to this guy. If they will pass fly by night laws to lock down Toronto and arrest people walking dogs what the **** makes you think this dip**** is going to get off and not be made an example of?

It is, was, and will remain his right!

I actually agree with you about the situation in Toronto over the G20........if you'd read my posts on that thread, you'd know that.

This has nothing to do with the Conservative gov't.....the law was passed by scumball Federal Liberals, and is being enforced by scumball provincial Liberals.....in fact the Conservatives have introduced a bill clarifying citizen's rights of arrest and self-defense.

Now, about that wager......how about a STFU bet? Like he who loses does not post on any subject for a month.............the exact bet to be agreed to publically, on the forum.

 

[DaSleeper]

It is, was, and will remain his right!


Now, about that wager......how about a STFU bet? Like he who loses does not post on any subject for a month.............the exact bet to be agreed to publically, on the forum.

Think we can all take a whole month without Petros???

HMmm........On second thought....make it two months

 

[Colpy]

Think we can all take a whole month without Petros???

HMmm........On second thought....make it two months

Oddly enough our friend seems to disappear every time I want to talk wager specifics.......

Perhaps he is smarter than one would think from his posts........

 

[Colpy]

Canadians clearly still have a long way to go to restore their ancient right to self-defence (even armed self-defence), when their lives and property are threatened. Before Parliament was dissolved for the May 2 election, the Tories were shepherding through legislation known as C-60, the Citizen’s Arrest and Self-Defence Act. It would have helped clarify just what a citizen’s rights are when confronted by a violent attacker or other criminal in his or her home or place of business.
The federal government needs to reintroduce Bill C-60, soon. Then it needs to begin the slow process of reacquainting Crown prosecutors with the real world and with their obligation to protect the innocent and punish the criminals, rather than the other way around.

Lorne Gunter: Finally, a small victory for self-defence | Full Comment | National Post

Yep. A essential part of the attempt to return this country to a state of sanity will be the re-introduction of this bill.....

And the dismissal of all charges against Ian Thompson.....the guy that inspired this entire thread. (see the first post)

 

[taxslave]

Lorne Gunter: Finally, a small victory for self-defence | Full Comment | National Post

Yep. A essential part of the attempt to return this country to a state of sanity will be the re-introduction of this bill.....

And the dismissal of all charges against Ian Thompson.....the guy that inspired this entire thread. (see the first post)

You mean defending your property isn't denying a felon his charter rights? Wait until the Canadian Human Rights thought police get ahold of this one. LOL

 

[DaSleeper]

Post #1372652 - Re: Now I'm Pissed! Self-defense....HA! Bad CUBert

 

[Unforgiven]

Lorne Gunter: Finally, a small victory for self-defence | Full Comment | National Post

Yep. A essential part of the attempt to return this country to a state of sanity will be the re-introduction of this bill.....

And the dismissal of all charges against Ian Thompson.....the guy that inspired this entire thread. (see the first post)

Define what a threat to property is.

 

[cranky]

hurt, damage, or steal

 

[Unforgiven]

hurt, damage, or steal

When you can make a whole sentence, let me know.

 

[Colpy]

Define what a threat to property is.

Stolen or destroyed is a threat.

Stealing your merchandise in a store.

Firebombing your home.

Ramming your car.

they all qualify.

Back when this nation was sane, the law was you could use whatever level of force was necessary to prevent a crime being committed, without any requirement to retreat or surrender. Personally, I think it best we return to that standard, although I do not have high hopes......

Thompson is the most distressing case, as his entire home, his animals, and his life were at risk. I'd have fired a warning shot too, right through the centre of the chest of the first man I saw with a molotov cocktail..........

Oddly, I believe that if Thompson had done that, he would NOT have been charged.......except perhaps on the safe storage (the only charges still standing), which is, of course, ludicrous. If a weapon is being used, it is not stored.........simple, isn't it?

 

[cranky]

When you can make a whole sentence, let me know.

ok np

 

[mentalfloss]

Oh ****, the smilies are back..

 

[Unforgiven]

Stolen or destroyed is a threat.

Stealing your merchandise in a store.

Firebombing your home.

Ramming your car.

they all qualify.

Back when this nation was sane, the law was you could use whatever level of force was necessary to prevent a crime being committed, without any requirement to retreat or surrender. Personally, I think it best we return to that standard, although I do not have high hopes......

Thompson is the most distressing case, as his entire home, his animals, and his life were at risk. I'd have fired a warning shot too, right through the centre of the chest of the first man I saw with a molotov cocktail..........

Oddly, I believe that if Thompson had done that, he would NOT have been charged.......except perhaps on the safe storage (the only charges still standing), which is, of course, ludicrous. If a weapon is being used, it is not stored.........simple, isn't it?

So in the event of someone colliding with the rear end of your car, you feel you can shoot them? I don't think that is at all reasonable. Shoplifting too is punishable by a bullet center mass? I don't think you really have a grasp of the situation at all Colpy. I am pretty sure that should you shoot someone for either offence, then you're one going to jail over it. That is how it should be. Self defense must always be reasonable.

 

[cranky]

"Give me your wallet, or else I will forceably take it from you"

"No"

criminal attempts to forceably take wallet

"stop, you are under arrest". criminal ignores the warning and now looks very violent, so violent that any rational person should fear for their life.

KABLAM!!!! ( criminal dies)

Officer: "What happened? Did you use a firearm in selfdefense?"

"I want a lawyer, I am not saying a word to you"

Lawyer " My client isn't claiming self defense. He is claiming the right to perform a citizen's arrest, and as such, once the criminal started to perfom a felony in a way to cause my client to become fearful of his life, my client receives the same rights and priviledges extended to officers of the law"

District Attorney " Good move. The self defense regulations are meant to discriminate, whereas the citizen's arrest are meant to qualify. We won't contest this in court, because it will be a waste of time"

 

[Colpy]

So in the event of someone colliding with the rear end of your car, you feel you can shoot them? I don't think that is at all reasonable. Shoplifting too is punishable by a bullet center mass? I don't think you really have a grasp of the situation at all Colpy. I am pretty sure that should you shoot someone for either offence, then you're one going to jail over it. That is how it should be. Self defense must always be reasonable.

I have every grasp of the situation.....ramming the back of your car is an ACCIDENT, not a criminal act............and the old law I would like to return to says whatever level of force is necessary, and I doubt shooting someone is necessary to prevent a shoplifting.

I'm afraid it is you that lacks a grasp of the situation.......I really don't remember people getting shot down in the street for shoplifting back in the 60s and 70s........

Of course self-defense should be necessary.....but it should also be acceptable for a person to insert himself between a thief or assailant and his property............and to defend himself in that position.

 

[cranky]

So in the event of someone colliding with the rear end of your car, you feel you can shoot them? I don't think that is at all reasonable. Shoplifting too is punishable by a bullet center mass? I don't think you really have a grasp of the situation at all Colpy. I am pretty sure that should you shoot someone for either offence, then you're one going to jail over it. That is how it should be. Self defense must always be reasonable.

colliding with the rear of a car is not a crime. I don't think that it is at all reasonable to strawman this debate with actions that are not crimes.

Shop lifting is not a violent felony. I don't think it is at all reasonable to strawman this debate with actions of petty shoplifting. What will be your next arguement, jay walking?

I have every grasp of the situation.....ramming the back of your car is an ACCIDENT, not a criminal act............and the old law I would like to return to says whatever level of force is necessary, and I doubt shooting someone is necessary to prevent a shoplifting.

I'm afraid it is you that lacks a grasp of the situation.......I really don't remember people getting shot down in the street for shoplifting back in the 60s and 70s........

Of course self-defense should be necessary.....but it should also be acceptable for a person to insert himself between a thief or assailant and his property............and to defend himself in that position.

True. If a shop lifter gets shot, it wont be from the act of shoplifting, it will be from his violent assault when you stop them at the door. Anyone that brings a violent assault to the scene of a crime is stacking their crimes, the shop lifter is no longer just a shop lifter.

 

[Unforgiven]

I have every grasp of the situation.....ramming the back of your car is an ACCIDENT, not a criminal act............and the old law I would like to return to says whatever level of force is necessary, and I doubt shooting someone is necessary to prevent a shoplifting.

I'm afraid it is you that lacks a grasp of the situation.......I really don't remember people getting shot down in the street for shoplifting back in the 60s and 70s........

Of course self-defense should be necessary.....but it should also be acceptable for a person to insert himself between a thief or assailant and his property............and to defend himself in that position.

But you contradict yourself. Do I make the judgement call on what is and isn't an accident? You just said if someone rams my car I can shoot them. In posting the scenario I did, shows that there are times when it is an accident. You're advocating for taking the law into your own hands. Someone walking away with your tin of beans isn't a threat to you. Certainly not one that you should be shooting people over. Same with a car accident.

That's the problem I've seen in many security guards. They get to thinking they are police and carry the same authority.

 

[petros]

The Feds are looking to change the citizen arrest laws in alleged benefit of the citizen.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[cranky]

But you contradict yourself. Do I make the judgement call on what is and isn't an accident? You just said if someone rams my car I can shoot them. In posting the scenario I did, shows that there are times when it is an accident. You're advocating for taking the law into your own hands. Someone walking away with your tin of beans isn't a threat to you. Certainly not one that you should be shooting people over. Same with a car accident.

That's the problem I've seen in many security guards. They get to thinking they are police and carry the same authority.

There is a big difference between protecting yourself and your property, and roaming the neighborhood looking to shoot shoplifters and reckless drivers. I don't think your comparisons are at all reasonable.