Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
I said no such thing.
I said one should be able to defend their property.
Life is full of judgement calls, and in a free society, we get to make them.
People should be able to defend their life and those about them, but property? I don't know about that.
Anything beyond get off my lawn has some difficult issues associated with it.
I don't have a problem with someone taking out a video camera and recording what has happened, making a citizen's arrest, or following the person to identify them. But theft and vandalism is best left to the authorities who are authorized and trained to make an investigation and arrest.
Someone bumping into you with their car doesn't give you the right to defend your life just because you consider a fender bender an attempt on your life.
I don't know where you get the idea that I said you should be able to shoot someone that ran into your car by accident.
Making a citizen's arrest is what we are talking about.........and that can require force.
As for defense of property, I certainly do believe you have every right to defend your property within reason.....and to me that means no retreat, inserting yourself into the situation to prevent the crime, and using whatever force is necessary to do so, up to and including lethal force, depending entirely on the level of force used against you.
Currently, there is a Use of Force Model in place that the courts consider in cases where there is confrontation, and the major consideration is the amount of force used against you as the deciding factor of the force you can use...........this requires no alteration, it just needs to be applied in situations where people insert themselves into a situation where they are defending property....instead of the current situation, where we are supposed to flee in the face of malicious intent.
As the police do, as armoured car guards do, as private security does, and as your average minimum wage mall cop does every day.
That does NOT mean you get to shoot someone for trespassing on your lawn.........or running away with your lawn ornaments.
Why oh why can I not get images to appear????
Anyway, here is the Use of Force model as taught to the Police, as I taught it to armed security, and as I now teach it to unarmed security......
http://www.braidwoodinquiry.ca/presentations/clive_milligan.pdf
Last edited:
O
Defending my body from harm is generally acceptable, even if the guy just wants to give you a black eye.
Yet, if someone tries ti get away with my car, i am just suposed to sit back and let it happen? sorry, i can't and won't accept that. My car gets me to and from my job which puts food on my family's table. It repressents thousands of hours of my life working to earn enough money to pay my creditors and the tax man.
To imply that this is somehow trivial yet a black eye isn't? Well that is just plain assinine.
You say i dont have the right to defend my car?
Well. I say your perspective is grossly distorted. It is not just a worldly possession. It cost me a year of my time to buy it, and it represents a means to get to work and provide for family.
Defending my body from harm is generally acceptable, even if the guy just wants to give you a black eye.
Yet, if someone tries ti get away with my car, i am just suposed to sit back and let it happen? sorry, i can't and won't accept that. My car gets me to and from my job which puts food on my family's table. It repressents thousands of hours of my life working to earn enough money to pay my creditors and the tax man.
To imply that this is somehow trivial yet a black eye isn't? Well that is just plain assinine.
You say i dont have the right to defend my car?
Well. I say your perspective is grossly distorted. It is not just a worldly possession. It cost me a year of my time to buy it, and it represents a means to get to work and provide for family.
Yea I bet you're insane enough to think it's justifiable to kill someone over material objects.
if that material object represents a year of hard labour to earn, then I think it is my absolute right to defend my property.
as far as killing in defense, that all depends on the actions of the criminal.
he can turn his back to me and run away empty handed anytime he chooses to. I won't go after him. and I have no desire to see him needlessly dead.
but if he chooses to stay and fight me, then you and I both know that this has now become more than just a petty crook trying to take my property away from me.
Right now, it is not legal to kill someone in defense of property, one is required to retreat.
As I said, I disagree with that ruling, as it leaves the innocent helpless when robbed or burgled. It is a surrender to lawlessness that is expected of the individual, a surrender of the individual's right to property.
That is simply not good for society.
Now, I don't believe one should be allowed to kill trespassers, nor do I believe one should be allowed to use lethal force on someone escaping with property......
I do believe one should be allowed to interfere with robbery and burglary and use whatever force is necessary to defend himself while making a citizen's arrest. As Cranky said, the amount of force used depends solely on the criminal.........up to and including the use of lethal force as defined in the Use of Force model.
There must be consequences for criminal acts, and the responsibility for any escalation of force in a criminal activity lies only with the criminal.
So yes, Ian Thompson, in my view, would have been ethically (if not legally) fully correct to confront the gentlemen fire-bombing his house even if he had an avenue of escape.....and he would have been fully justified to have shot anyone with a molotov cocktail .........as the Crown has acknowledged, having dropped all assault charges.
I suppose you are insane enough to believe the onus was on Thompson to flee in the face of attack, allow his life savings to go up in smoke, allow his animals to be burned alive, and allow those involved in serious criminal attack complete freedom to complete their activities.
That is idiotic.
Of course there is no such thing as road rage. People are prone to being calm and making the right decision under pressure. Having some imagined right to shoot someone and then worry about whether it's justified it ridiculous.
I don't want some shop keeper off his meds for the day to have to legal justification for blowing my head off by simply slipping a candy bar inside my pocket.
When it comes to having to shoot somebody, I want the person doing the shooting trained and seasoned in making those choices. Not some overzealous gun nut given a loophole to shoot people because they happen to be looking at him.
Again you contradict yourself. You don't think someone should be shot escaping yet you would fire a warning shot center mass. Property is only things. Things can be replaced and we have insurance to cover the cost of something happening to property. You should know more than anyone that once you shoot and kill someone, there is no going back. It's permanent and thus restricted to the last course rather than the first choice.
STOP putting words in my mouth. I never said you had a right to shoot anyone........I said you have a right to defend yourself...........
And learn to read. A store owner would have no right to shoot you for shoplifting, he would (and does) have a right to arrest you if he sees you shop lifting. At that point, the level of violence is completely up to the person being arrested. Only reasonable force can (or should) be used......as indicated in the Use of Force model......
There are reasons one never fires warning shots........listed a couple of times earlier in the thread.
Obviously, the Crown does not believe they can get a conviction on Thompson, so they dropped all the charges. They are simply persecuting him by prosecution on safe storage charges, as a weapon in use in defense of oneself is NOT in storage. Ludicrous,. but the police in brain-dead Liberal Ontario are under instruction to push firearms charges as hard as possible.
Try collecting insurance after your house is fire-bombed.
Good luck.
And a house is more than a "thing" It is the culmination and the investment of a lifetime's work.......and "Your home is your castle" is more than a saying, it is a basic principle of English common law.
And his dogs burned alive.
And I have an ethical problem with retreat in the face of criminal attack. In a sane society, it simply is not done, if there is any choice.........much less mandated by the government.
Everyone is reasonable. Not so much in my experience. Sentimental value and 5 bucks will get you a cup of coffee.
A house is a thing as opposed to a person. Understand? If your house burns down, you can get a new house. If a person is shot and killed, there is no way to replace that person.
People sometimes act unreasonable. There in lays the problem with self defense. You say one thing and then have to preface it with all sorts as I point it out here. There are plenty of things you can legally do to bring a criminal, especially a petty thief to justice. Shooting them for shoplifting isn't reasonable. It's only a candy bar.
You obviously haven't spent the last 25 years paying a mortgage.
The choice of whether to get hurt or not lies with the criminal, do you understand?
And you had best give up the dope, I've told you over and over and over and over we are NOT talking about shooting shoplifters over a candy bar.
Do you get it now? Or should I repeat myself again.
And if you did move to arrest a shoplifter, and he tried to seriously harm you with a weapon, you have the RIGHT to defend yourself.
Do YOU understand????
Geezus Man, if you want to debate, snuff out the joint....it ain't helping.
If anyone should smoke some Cannabis it's you. I swear the stick up your butt has a steel rod up it's butt. Maybe put down the cheap beer wouldn't hurt you either. You have a distinct inability to see the difference between people and property.
While you are positive that you just have to say "I am arresting you" and whom ever it is you are addressing will put their own handcuffs on and lay down to receive the knee is a fantasy. One that comes from thinking a security guard is sort of like a cop. Fact is you lay your hands on someone, you're asking for it. You don't have the right to force someone to the ground because you think they have broken some law, and you don't have the right to use a weapon on them when they bash your head in after you grab them.
Like Ian Thompson, thinking you know the law, doesn't mean you know the law.
Using reasonable force to repel an attack is one thing, using it on someone because you think they are a criminal without benefit of a trial nor authority is abusive and itself criminal.
Now I don't expect you can understand that, but you should take it under advisement that your brand of six gun justice isn't going to wash here, there or anywhere.
I just wanted to mention that the insurance angle is a weak one.
My neighbors fence fell on my car, he wanted me to use my insurance so he could pay the deductable rather than the full cost. However, he didn't want to pay additional payments to compensate me for the increase in premiums that I would receive.
He tried to feed me a line about that he was somehow less responsible for the damages if I didn't have insurance or would not use my insurance to assist him in compensating me. like wtf,eh?
A trip to small claim court straightened him out, he agreed to pay for full damages at the manditory mediation session, which in the end was cheaper than the insurance route.
Anyway, my point is simple: the insurance on my house or car doesn't somehow make the crime less than it is, nor does it decrease my rights to defend my property.
Saying that firebombing an insured house is somehow less of a crime than firebombing an uninsured house, is much like saying that raping a woman that is not a virgin is somehow less of a crime than raping a woman that is a virgin.
the crime doesn't change
My neighbors fence fell on my car, he wanted me to use my insurance so he could pay the deductable rather than the full cost. However, he didn't want to pay additional payments to compensate me for the increase in premiums that I would receive.
He tried to feed me a line about that he was somehow less responsible for the damages if I didn't have insurance or would not use my insurance to assist him in compensating me. like wtf,eh?
A trip to small claim court straightened him out, he agreed to pay for full damages at the manditory mediation session, which in the end was cheaper than the insurance route.
Anyway, my point is simple: the insurance on my house or car doesn't somehow make the crime less than it is, nor does it decrease my rights to defend my property.
Saying that firebombing an insured house is somehow less of a crime than firebombing an uninsured house, is much like saying that raping a woman that is not a virgin is somehow less of a crime than raping a woman that is a virgin.
the crime doesn't change
Everybody who owns or wants to own a weapon should be trained in its use. With that said, If you shoot someone while they are committing a crime endangering yourself or others, that is all the justification you need. Most civilians with a interest in firearms train more than most police in their use.
sort of a side note that I learned as an active member of my rod and gun club....
- the code for 'self defense' is mostly additional language that disqualifies you from being able to claim self defense.
- whereas, the code for citizens arrest is simple, ie it states that everyone has the right to conduct a citizens arrest.....it doesn't talk about self defense, but referrs to the existing code that details the rights of a police officer
As far as, lethal self defense, it is much easier to qualify by claiming the right to self defense because you have reached that point in the code without having to jump through the above mentioned language that is designed to disqualify.
my advice, if you are ever faced with a situation this extreme, if the criminal has you scared, shoot him.....if he only has you mad, don't shoot him.....and, absolutely no talking to the police until you talk to a lawyer..give your lawyer his best chance at defending you. He knows about strategies like 'citizens arrest' and if you went ahead and blabbed your mouth off, then i may ruin your chances of benefiting from that defence.
Thanks for proving my point.
First of all, try and focus........ we were talking about two things: the way the law is now, and the law as I hope it is after the Conservatives re-introduce and pass Bill C-60.
Secondly, you forget I teach this stuff: I do have some idea what I'm talking about. I already referenced the Use of Force model taught to all Canadian police and armed security, and all private security in BC, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and soon expanding to all provinces. If you don't understand it, I'll be happy to answer questions.
Third: If you directly observe a crime...oh Hell, here is the Canadian Criminal Code: Argue with THAT.
Section 494. (Criminal Code)
(1) ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT BY ANY PERSON
Anyone may arrest without warrant(s)
(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or
(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes
- (i) has committed a criminal offence, and
- (ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person
Anyone who is
(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or
(b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property
may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.
(3) DELIVERY TO PEACE OFFICER
Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.
(Too big for quotation)
Yes Virginia, you have the power to arrest, under certain conditions.......and to use FORCE, as shown in section 25.......
My emphasis.........
No, you don't "have the right to force someone to the ground because you think they have broken some law, and you don't have the right to use a weapon on them when they bash your head in after you grab them." I never said you did.
Unless in doing so you are merely responding to the resistance THEY OFFER. Which is what you can't seem to get through your addled brain....the use of force is led by the person being apprehended, and the arresting person has every right to respond in kind, up to and including the use of lethal force.
Fourth, Thompson is not a lawyer.........but he obviously understood the law better than the idiots that tried to prosecute him, as all assault charges have been dropped because "there was no reasonable chance of conviction". All that remains are unsafe storage charges because he had loaded guns when the police arrived. Those WILL be thrown out, this is simply an attack by the unprincipled nanny-state drooling morons you so obviously voted for.
Once again, the Criminal Code of Canada....
DEFENCE OF HOUSE OR REAL PROPERTY
41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.
42. (1) Every one is justified in peaceably entering a dwelling-house or real property by day to take possession of it if he, or a person under whose authority he acts, is lawfully entitled to possession of it.ASSERTION OF RIGHT TO HOUSE OR REAL PROPERTY
(2) Where a person
(a) not having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or(b) not acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,assaults a person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be without justification or provocation.(3) Where a person
(a) having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or(b) acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,assaults any person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shalled be deemed to be provoked by the person who is entering.
So...ARGUE WITH THE CRIMINAL CODE..
Last edited: