Pissed! Surveillance camera video of firebomb attack

[Colpy]

Imo, seld defense is a natural right. ANY regulations regarding self defense should be viewed with the greatest degree of contempt because it is all designed to protect the offender at the risk of the defender.

Yeah....I posted that for your benefit especially, Cranky..........to show exactly how desperate our situation has become.

I remember about thirty five years ago a guy in Bridgewater, NS used a .357 Magnum revolver to shoot to death an unarmed 16 year old in his kitchen....the kid broke into his house in the middle of the night.

No charges were laid. The English common law standard was no retreat in your home, and in the night one was fully justified to kill intruders.

This was, without any doubt, a tragedy.........God knows I can't imagine why he fired at the kid.......but it was NOT a miscarriage of justice.

Actions have consequences. B&E on an occupied house in the dark of night could (past tense) get you killed.

IMHO, that is the way it should be.

 

[cranky]

I agree that the death of a 16 year old is unfortunate, but stupid is stupid. That 16 year old could have died by any number of stupid choices that night.

The fact is I can never be sure of the mindset of someone that breaks into my house. Unlike getting into a fight on hockey skates or in a bar, i have absolutely no assurances that an intruder in my home is going to stop beating on me if he ever gets the upper hand.

Imo, to mere presence of an intruder makes it reasonable to fear for my life, i cant see how anyone not there, judge, da, police officer, or anyone else has the right to question my mindset.

 

[ironsides]

The only mistake I could see what the homeowner confronted three trespassers with a unloaded shotgun, theoretically putting his whole family at risk if they were armed. Canada has to change their laws and adapt a "castle doctrine".

 

[Colpy]

An interesting interview........the persecution by prosecution of Ian Thomas continues.......the prosecution, having dropped all charges except the "unsafe storage", now are refusing to disclose to the defense lawyer their basis for those charges.

That would, of course, be because the charges are baseless, and they know it.

Completely outrageous.

Why is this a crime? : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery

 

[petros]

Why is this a crime? : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery

Why? They want to make an example out of him.

Why do we bother with a Criminal Code?

86. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons.

86. (2) Every person commits an offence who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act respecting the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sales of firearms and restricted weapons.

(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment
(i) in the case of a first offence, for a term not exceeding two years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Legally the Crown can send him up river for a deuce less a day.

 

[Colpy]

Why is this a crime? : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery

Why? They want to make an example out of him.

Why do we bother with a Criminal Code?

86. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons.

86. (2) Every person commits an offence who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act respecting the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sales of firearms and restricted weapons.

(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment
(i) in the case of a first offence, for a term not exceeding two years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Legally the Crown can send him up river for a deuce less a day.

You can read can't you???

Here, let me help:
without lawful excuse,

self-defense is "lawful excuse", as they themselves have acknowledged by dropping all assault and dangerous use of a firearm charges.

They are upset at this guy for exercising his ancient and perfectly legal right to self-defense. Therefore they must punish him by prosecuting him, even although they don't have a leg to stand on.

Their refusal to complete the legal requirement of disclosure to the defense simply is the icing on the cake. This will not last ten seconds in front of any competent judge.

You really should stay away from things you don't understand. Self-defense law in Canada seems to be one of them.

 

[petros]

He doesn't have lawful excuse.

 

[Colpy]

He doesn't have lawful excuse.

Why did they drop assault charges then? And why did they drop the dangerous use of a weapon charges?

Let me quote... "There was no reasonable expectation of conviction".....in other words, he was not guilty, justified in doing what he confessed to doing.......which was self-defense.

I don't know where you came from originally, but you need to read up on your English Common Law.

William Blackstone would be a good place to start.......

http://www.ordainandestablish.com/2011/06/blackstone-on-right-of-self-defense-or.html

Self-defence, therefore, as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society. In the English law particularly it is held an excuse for breaches of the peace, nay even for homicide itself:

 

[petros]

What does the Criminal Code say about storage?

A deuce less first offence? Yes or no?

 

[DaSleeper]

What does the Criminal Code say about storage?

A deuce less first offence? Yes or no?

Good lord man....use your head.....the Crown attorney is obviously giving the guy a hard time and wasting tax dollars stretching it ....because he knows he can't win in court...
Your interpretation of the law would mean that when I go target shooting and leave my handgun on the shooting bench while I walk the 20 yards to go and change the target...and all the shooters who do it at the same time would be liable for prosecution...get real....

 

[petros]

I was only in the beerstore for a minute....

 

[DaSleeper]

I was only in the beerstore for a minute....

Yup... I can see you trolling in several threads at the same time:roll:

 

[petros]

Yup "trolling" reality. Give it a shot sometime instead of lurking and only posting BS. A lurker is a troll of renown.

 

[DaSleeper]

Yup "trolling" reality. Give it a shot sometime instead of lurking and only posting BS. A lurker is a troll of renown.

And of course you're just "Typealotofnonsense"...
And you have a fan...another stalker I suppose

 

[petros]

Where are your contributions? Where do I find threads started by you or do you just lurk like a pro troll?

 

[Colpy]

What does the Criminal Code say about storage?

A deuce less first offence? Yes or no?

irrelevant.

A firearm can not be in use and in storage at the same time.

 

[petros]

The Criminal Code is irrelevant?

 

[Colpy]

The Criminal Code is irrelevant?

No, the sentence for safe storage are irrelevant in this case.

AND the Criminal Code is irrelevant when it denies people constitutional rights.

I strongly suspect you come from a culture of Roman Law, where the state is supreme.....under English Common Law, the individual is supreme....

You should learn the difference, and knock off the silly posts that do not deal with the subject at hand.

 

[petros]

Now we're Romans? Holy **** man. It's 2011 and we don't live in the Roman Empire or the English one. We have Canadian Criminal Code and it's says a deuce less.

 

[Colpy]

Now we're Romans? Holy **** man. It's 2011 and we don't live in the Roman Empire or the English one. We have Canadian Criminal Code and it's says a deuce less.

You really do troll, don't you?

If you don't know what the Napoleonic Code (or Roman Law) is, look it up.

We are NOT dealing with storage issues here, that is the point. They have to convict him before sentencing, in our system. And they can't. And they know it. But they proceed simply to make him defend himself in court, costing him mucho grande dinero. And that is outrageous.

Yes, we are still the English Empire, as far as our law is concerned.........

This conversation is over, you stopped talking sense awhile ago......no sense talking to trolls.