Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack

[Colpy]

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

The problem with Chen was that you can only arrest someone you "find committing" an offense, only immediately, or after an uninterupted pursuit, or if you witness a pursuit by someone authorized to arrest..

Chen saw the theft committed early in the day on the surveillance camera, and attempted to arrest the man when he returned hours later.

The arrest was simply not legal.....section 494 is very clear. And somebody called the police when they saw Chen et al struggling with the man, and reported an assault.....in fact, a false arrest.

But who in hell reads the Criminal Code for jollies? I teach this stuff to security guards, so it is my business......

The shock was that the police and prosecutors went forward with the charges.........therein lies the rub. The law could have been explained to Mr. Chem, the crack-head thief arrested by the police on the evidence of the tape, and all would have progressed with a benefit to peace, order, and good government.

With Mr. Thompson, it is worse. If he was in danger of death or grievous bodily harm, he committed no offense in shooting at his attackers.

Read that again.....he committed NO OFFENSE.

If shooting at attackers was illegal, neither the police nor anyone else would be permitted to carry guns.

I could list half a dozen cases off the top of my head where guards or police opened fire in circumstances A LOT more dubious than this, but no charges were laid.

 

[petros]

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

Both security and property are financial terms and there are several legal types of property and 9 times out of 10 when govt is talking about property protection they are talking financial rights and not about using firearms in an illegal manner.

 

[DaSleeper]

The problem with Chen was that you can only arrest someone you "find committing" an offense, only immediately, or after an uninterupted pursuit, or if you witness a pursuit by someone authorized to arrest..

Chen saw the theft committed early in the day on the surveillance camera, and attempted to arrest the man when he returned hours later.

The arrest was simply not legal.....section 494 is very clear. And somebody called the police when they saw Chen et al struggling with the man, and reported an assault.....in fact, a false arrest.

But who in hell reads the Criminal Code for jollies? I teach this stuff to security guards, so it is my business......

The shock was that the police and prosecutors went forward with the charges.........therein lies the rub. The law could have been explained to Mr. Chem, the crack-head thief arrested by the police on the evidence of the tape, and all would have progressed with a benefit to peace, order, and good government.

With Mr. Thompson, it is worse. If he was in danger of death or grievous bodily harm, he committed no offense in shooting at his attackers.

Read that again.....he committed NO OFFENSE.

If shooting at attackers was illegal, neither the police nor anyone else would be permitted to carry guns.

I could list half a dozen cases off the top of my head where guards or police opened fire in circumstances A LOT more dubious than this, but no charges were laid.

I agree with most of what you say....the mistake that mister Thompson made was volunteering information to the police.
What he should have done, since he had not aimed at anybody was police the brass if he had used an automatic, before calling the police and lawyer up if they start asking to many pointed question...
But of course...in the excitement, having to wake up to such a thing as people putting your house on fire, one cannot be expected to think of that.....

 

[Trotz]

Unfortunately, it seems the correct behaviour here (according to the government) would have been for the man to watch his own house burn into the ground and collect insurance on it, even though in the process he would have lost all his possessions...

 

[petros]

Unfortunately, it seems the correct behaviour here (according to the government) would have been for the man to watch his own house burn into the ground and collect insurance on it, even though in the process he would have lost all his possessions...

It helps if you phone the fire dept.

 

[Colpy]

It helps if you phone the fire dept.

Yeah. Sure.

Ask any fireman how long you should hang out in a house on fire.

While people are throwing gasoline on it.

Their advice is "Get out, call from the neighbour's house"

Mr. Thompson got out.....

 

[Colpy]

Another editorial:

Changing the criminal citizen's arrest law | Editorial | Comment | Ottawa Sun

 

[bobnoorduyn]

It helps if you phone the fire dept.

You are obviously well citified, I live close to a city but am served by a volunteer FD, any house here will be well invloved or compeletly destroyed by the time they arrive. So it goes for police, unless they are are the Tim's down the highway, their response time will be no less than ten minutes. BTW, I can shoot 50 rounds, using a single standard 7 round mag and using loose rounds in my pocket in two minutes and 27 seconds, and I can hit the target 80% of the time. An assailant shooting and unarmed victim doesn't need to miss that often, and like myself, I didn't have anyone else shooting back at me. I only like the popularity of the 9mm because it is the least lethal of all non prohibited (this country's classification) center fire handguns, you are more likely to survive a 9mm wound than one from my biga$$ .45. Though I have slugs, SSG's, and 000 Buck for my 12 ga., I find it a rather unweildy defense weapon with it's 32" barrel and full choke.

I agree with most of what you say....the mistake that mister Thompson made was volunteering information to the police.
What he should have done, since he had not aimed at anybody was police the brass if he had used an automatic, before calling the police and lawyer up if they start asking to many pointed question...
But of course...in the excitement, having to wake up to such a thing as people putting your house on fire, one cannot be expected to think of that.....

What I advise everyone I advocate for above all is; Say nothing, absolutely nothing; every word or utterance will be used against you.

 

[Colpy]

This isn't an argument for guns, it's more basic than that: it's the difference between a citizen and a nanny-state baby. In Lee Harris's forthcoming book Civilization And Its Enemies, he talks about the threat of societal forgetfulness: "Forgetfulness occurs when those who have been long inured to civilized order can no longer remember a time in which they had to wonder whether their crops would grow to maturity without being stolen or their children sold into slavery by a victorious foe."
..................................

But, of course, no one will ever hijack an American plane ever again - not because of idiotic confiscations of tweezers, but because of the brave passengers on the fourth flight. That's why the great British shoebomber had barely got the match to his sock before half the cabin pounded the crap out of him. Even the French. To expect the government to save you is to be a bystander in your own fate.

SteynOnline - BYSTANDERS IN THEIR OWN FATE

Mark Steyn is a fricking genius.

I love that last line....

Time for us to refuse to be "bystanders to our own fate"......no matter how much the state would like us to be........

 

[ironsides]

He fired shots for **** sakes.​

The only thing he did wrong was miss those 3 men, and should have been punished for that only.

 

[CDNBear]

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?

Facts make them change tactics, instead of just concede, learn and grow Colpy.

Stop wasting your time, lol.

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

When you're in your property, what do you do?

 

[TenPenny]

A discussion about fires and guns seems like a good place to post this:

 

[CDNBear]

Are you trying to equate mental illness to legitimate self defense?

 

[Colpy]

(Vaughan ON – February 1, 2011) The Canadian Shooting Sports Association/Canadian Institute for Legislative Action (CSSA/CILA) support the historic, fundamental right of an individual to defend themselves when under attack.

Ian Thomson of Welland was recently charged with numerous firearms offences when he defended himself again three masked men throwing Molotov cocktails at his home and dog house. While Mr. Thomson was not injured, one of his dogs suffered burns. Firearms lawyer Edward L. Burlew LL.B., is defending Thomson by demonstrating that Canadians must be allowed to protect their own safety and property without being forced to defend themselves against criminal charges. Thomson, who is a qualified firearms instructor, shot a firearm outside his home to dissuade the attackers.

"The courts have stated police do not have an official mandate to protect the safety of individual Canadians," explains CILA executive director Tony Bernardo. "Who among us would stand still if someone was trying to burn down our house with us inside? In the literal heat of the moment, it is surely instinctual to use reasonable force to end this kind of attack. If a qualified individual has a firearm in a home that is being fire-bombed, can anyone expect the endangered victim not to use it?"

Bernardo says he wishes Burlew well in what may develop into a landmark case.

"While we do not know the details of this case before the evidence is presented, the videos of people hurling gasoline bombs and death threats at people and pets is pretty compelling," adds Bernardo. "Our legal system appears to have evolved to a point where Canadians who try to defend themselves are somehow confused with criminals. Our forefathers would no doubt roll in their graves if they witnessed how the laws are being torqued to fit the mold of political correctness. We wish Mr. Burlew and Mr. Thomson well in trying to bring the legal community and police back in line by reminding them of the real difference between right and wrong."

Mr. Burlew has organized a peaceful day of protest on March 2nd at 9:00 a.m. to attract attention and support to the case. The rally will be held at the Welland Court House, 102 East Main Street, Welland, Ontario L3B 3W6 and all caring citizens are encouraged to participate.

The CSSA/CILA has contributed funding to Mr. Thomson's defence and hopes Canadians across the country will show their support by making a donation.

http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/2011/02/CSSA-CILA_endorses_self-defence.html

 

[Unforgiven]

A few things about this bother me.

First, after he fired the first shot, the guys who were trying to kill him ran. Once they run off they are no longer a threat and so, the second and third shot he fired was not in self defense.

He didn't call 911 first, he said he went to get his gun from the safe and loaded it, then went out to confront his attackers and flee the burning house. He didn't run away, he went toward his attackers. Not something you do when in fear of your life.

There was some kind of big deal made about the Port Colborne Fire Dept. arriving some 20 minutes after he called them.
Yet his home didn't burn down as you would have expected it to if it was engulfed. Sounds to me, based on my own experience that the fuel burned off rather than igniting the house. I expect there was some substantial damage but not what would be seen if someone was actually trapped inside an engulfed home with their life endanger. A point about the Fire Dept, 20 minutes isn't a bad time when dealing with a rural home and a volunteer fire dept. They have to gather at the station and then head out to the fire. So I don't think you can really blame the Fire Dept of Port Colbourne for the time of the response as it's being alluded to.

He later re-entered the house and loaded some guns and placed them about the house, which is against the law. Even if he was in fear of his life, he isn't going to justify having loaded weapons laying around unattended.

In my opinion the police did the right thing in charging him and bringing this situation before a court and jury. If nothing else the laws that seem to be in dispute here can be tested and if need be a precedent set.

 

[Colpy]

A few things about this bother me.

First, after he fired the first shot, the guys who were trying to kill him ran. Once they run off they are no longer a threat and so, the second and third shot he fired was not in self defense.

He didn't call 911 first, he said he went to get his gun from the safe and loaded it, then went out to confront his attackers and flee the burning house. He didn't run away, he went toward his attackers. Not something you do when in fear of your life.

There was some kind of big deal made about the Port Colborne Fire Dept. arriving some 20 minutes after he called them.
Yet his home didn't burn down as you would have expected it to if it was engulfed. Sounds to me, based on my own experience that the fuel burned off rather than igniting the house. I expect there was some substantial damage but not what would be seen if someone was actually trapped inside an engulfed home with their life endanger. A point about the Fire Dept, 20 minutes isn't a bad time when dealing with a rural home and a volunteer fire dept. They have to gather at the station and then head out to the fire. So I don't think you can really blame the Fire Dept of Port Colbourne for the time of the response as it's being alluded to.

He later re-entered the house and loaded some guns and placed them about the house, which is against the law. Even if he was in fear of his life, he isn't going to justify having loaded weapons laying around unattended.

In my opinion the police did the right thing in charging him and bringing this situation before a court and jury. If nothing else the laws that seem to be in dispute here can be tested and if need be a precedent set.

Well, I wish I knew where you are getting your info.........I have read that he fired in the air, that he fired at the attackers, and that he fired at their fleeing car. I have NO idea which is accurate, and I would be very interested in any link you can provide......

Obviously, 20 minutes is not a bad response time for a rural fire dep't.......and I agree that usually gasoline will burn off without igniting anything even slightly fire resistant underneath. But that is totally irrelevant. If you are dumb-ass enough to threaten my life with a sharpened stick, (or a bottle of gasoline) and fail to leave me a convenient avenue of escape, then I am perfectly legally entitled to blow you out of your shoes with my super-dupper, 9 round semi-automatic, laser sighted 12 ga riot gun. The difference in offensive capability has no bearing on my right to defend myself.............same as the old saw about bringing a knife to a gun fight..........those that carry guns for a living are instructed to shoot an aggressive knife-weilding assailant at 21 feet, and to shoot centre mass, and to keep shooting until the threat has ended........ There is no question about that........the line is if you have reason to believe you are in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm. Certainly having your house fire-bombed qualifies.

The idea that keeping a loaded gun around immediately after you have been attacked is somehow questionable is SO far beyond the Pale..........ANYONE with the sense of a gnat does not disarm themselves in the face of what might be an ongoing attack.......in all sincerity, I have to ask: Are you serious????????

In the short time I was working training armed guards, there were two instances in Canada of guards pursuing and firing on robbers escaping in vehicles.........both on crowded streets in Toronto. I used them as examples of what NOT to do..........but in NEITHER case were charges laid. Nor should there have been.

Flexibility should be part of law enforcement.

 

[cdn_bc_ca]

The question is, was the person defending himself or defending his property?

I'm inclined to think that he was defending his property because he had other avenues of escape. Furthermore, the vandals were not directly inflicting bodily harm. Lastly, if he had time to go get his guns and load them, he should have used that time to call 911.

What he should have done is turn the situation from a defense of property to a defense of his own life. All he had to do is load up his weapon, go outside to negotiate and if the vandals tried to cause him bodily harm, he would then have the right to defend himself. The cops do this all the time.

If there is a law that allows one to defend their own property, it could potentially cause a lot of headaches as people have different interpretations of what constitutes a "defense of property." For example, if a vandal sets your house on fire and runs away, are you going to chase him with gun in hand for 4 blocks trying to kill him? Or if one person crosses your lawn breaks an ornament or destroys your prize winning roses are you going to blow his brains out?

 

[Colpy]

The question is, was the person defending himself or defending his property?

I'm inclined to think that he was defending his property because he had other avenues of escape. Furthermore, the vandals were not directly inflicting bodily harm. Lastly, if he had time to go get his guns and load them, he should have used that time to call 911.

What he should have done is turn the situation from a defense of property to a defense of his own life. All he had to do is load up his weapon, go outside to negotiate and if the vandals tried to cause him bodily harm, he would then have the right to defend himself. The cops do this all the time.

If there is a law that allows one to defend their own property, it could potentially cause a lot of headaches as people have different interpretations of what constitutes a "defense of property." For example, if a vandal sets your house on fire and runs away, are you going to chase him with gun in hand for 4 blocks trying to kill him? Or if one person crosses your lawn breaks an ornament or destroys your prize winning roses are you going to blow his brains out?

I don't get this "if he had time to load his guns, he had time to call 911" Calling 911 does not instantaneously throw up a force field around you, making you safe. You can die after dialling 911, or even while dialling 911. And I can load a handgun a LOT quicker than I can dial 911 and explain the situation to the operator...........

Defense first, seek help second

Philisophically, I believe you should have every right to defend your property. I see no reason to give way to criminal behaviour, or to threats. And I think that creating a society where submission to unlawful activity is the norm is a huge mistake.

In Canada, you can use force to prevent a crime being committed, as long as that force is proportional to the resistance offered. You may NOT use lethal force simply to protect property...........

 

[Unforgiven]

Well, I wish I knew where you are getting your info.........I have read that he fired in the air, that he fired at the attackers, and that he fired at their fleeing car. I have NO idea which is accurate, and I would be very interested in any link you can provide......

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. His lawyer Mr. said he fired to miss the attackers. Three shots were fired and they started running after the first shot.

Obviously, 20 minutes is not a bad response time for a rural fire dep't.......and I agree that usually gasoline will burn off without igniting anything even slightly fire resistant underneath. But that is totally irrelevant.

I agree but his lawyer in the interview brought it up like it was some important point having something to do with police response time or something.

If you are dumb-ass enough to threaten my life with a sharpened stick, (or a bottle of gasoline) and fail to leave me a convenient avenue of escape, then I am perfectly legally entitled to blow you out of your shoes with my super-dupper, 9 round semi-automatic, laser sighted 12 ga riot gun.

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.

[/quote] The difference in offensive capability has no bearing on my right to defend myself.............same as the old saw about bringing a knife to a gun fight..........those that carry guns for a living are instructed to shoot an aggressive knife-weilding assailant at 21 feet, and to shoot centre mass, and to keep shooting until the threat has ended........ There is no question about that........the line is if you have reason to believe you are in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm. Certainly having your house fire-bombed qualifies.[/quote]

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.

[

The idea that keeping a loaded gun around immediately after you have been attacked is somehow questionable is SO far beyond the Pale..........ANYONE with the sense of a gnat does not disarm themselves in the face of what might be an ongoing attack.......in all sincerity, I have to ask: Are you serious????????

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.

In the short time I was working training armed guards, there were two instances in Canada of guards pursuing and firing on robbers escaping in vehicles.........both on crowded streets in Toronto. I used them as examples of what NOT to do..........but in NEITHER case were charges laid. Nor should there have been.

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.

Flexibility should be part of law enforcement.

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.

 

[cdn_bc_ca]

I don't get this "if he had time to load his guns, he had time to call 911" Calling 911 does not instantaneously throw up a force field around you, making you safe. You can die after dialling 911, or even while dialling 911. And I can load a handgun a LOT quicker than I can dial 911 and explain the situation to the operator...........

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.

Philisophically, I believe you should have every right to defend your property. I see no reason to give way to criminal behaviour, or to threats. And I think that creating a society where submission to unlawful activity is the norm is a huge mistake.

In Canada, you can use force to prevent a crime being committed, as long as that force is proportional to the resistance offered. You may NOT use lethal force simply to protect property...........

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?