# Man faces jail after protecting home from masked attackers



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Only in Canada...



> ...one Sunday morning last August when the 53-year-old former mobile-crane operator woke up to the sound of three masked men firebombing his Port Colborne, Ont., home.
> 
> “I was horrified,” he said. “I couldn’t believe it. I didn’t know what was happening. I had no idea what was going on.”
> 
> ...


Man faces jail after protecting home from masked attackers


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I was just going to post this.

I have major issues here, the two biggest being:
1) He could easily have put a bullet into the perps and chose not to. All he wanted to do was scare them away;
2) What is a property owner expected to do? Call 911 and wait 5, 20, 60 minutes for a cop to show up? By then the perps could be in another county or country! Maybe open the door, step aside & invite the fire bombers in for a clearer shot at the living room?

For all of you who agree with the charges against the landowner, I'd be very interested in hearing what you would have done.

We've had issues with vandalism in the past. I've told the cops point blank that if I ever catch the little buggers I will take great satisfaction in personally dealing with the problem.

I've had two different officers just look at me & turn away. On the third occasion the cop agreed with me. Interestingly he was a younger native gentleman & said that's how things were typically dealt with on the reserve where he grew up. You got caught, you got your butt kicked. Then, when you got home you faced your parents...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

"Better to be tried by twelve, than carried by six,"

The biggest kick in the n*ts is that the crown is asking for jail time. The only thing they could drum up was the careless use and storage charges, none of which they can realistically prove. 

No crime was committed as far as I'm concerned...none, zero, zilch. Clearly the laws have to change.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

OK Here I Go.

You have a right to protect your home, that is not the issue here.

If you know anything about firearms and how you have to store them then you can figure out that in no way did this guy have them stored properly, he just wouldn't have time to go get the keys to the gun safe, the ammo safe, and the gun trigger lock itself and then unlock all three, and then load the gun and then go outside. No way not enough time, police would have been there already, instead he choose not to call the police. So he was not storing the guns properly. 

Don't you think the time he seen these criminals outside they would have thrown the cocktails by the time he went and unlocked the gun and loaded it? You think criminals want to hang around the scene of the crime? Come on, common sense must prevail here. He could have called the police at least fire at the criminal, not warning shots.

So how far can he chase them down the street? Hmm, I do not want to live in a gang area if this is the way people want to act. I choose not to live at Jane and Finch thank you.

So how did he see someone outside with cocktails and by the time he goes and gets the gun the criminals did not throw the cocktails yet?????? Please there is more to this story.

Second, anyone who has taken the firearm course knows the first rule, know what you are shooting at. He shot into the air, *he could have killed someone else an innocent bystander. *


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

I'm on the fence about this - specifically because I'd like to know what the owner did prior to firing his weapon. Firing your weapon should be a last resort. Did he yell at the culprits? Did he warn them? Did he confront them or did he just blindly walk out side, raise his weapon and without a word open fire? If so, I agree with the charge of careless use of a firearm against him. I understand he's trying to protect his property, but that isn't a reason to fire on a human being - property is not valued the same way a life is, and can be replaced unlike a life.

Using a weapon should be your last resort, and only if your life is in immediate jeopardy from a third party, which I don't think was the case here. Just my opinion, of course. I agree that it's a ****-off, but I also don't support the idea of shooting someone who is damaging your property.

I understand that being caught off guard by the culprits, and being in fear can force you into making quick choices in how to react to the situation unfolding, but I think that more thought should have gone into how to deal with it before firing a weapon.


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

First of all, I didn't think private citizens were allowed to own handguns. I know there have been exceptions for sharp shooters and collectors, but it's Canada people not the US, we can't just have handguns for protection. I think that the crown is right on this one and needs to set a precedent that it is not okay to arm ourselves for protection. I have no problem with people having firearms for hunting, but if a firearm is used as a weapon against another person (even as a warning shot), this definitely constitutes careless use of a firearm.

Maybe I am the minority on this one, but I see absolutely no use for guns as private citizens


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Anyone caught firebombing a house should be publicly flogged and then executed -it's an inexcusable act of terror.

The homeowner, while I think he should have been allowed by law to shoot them, was reckless when he fired into the air. A slap on the wrist is all that's needed, no jail time.


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

I'm in no way saying that he deserved this firebombing, but for someone to go to such serious lengths to scare, intimidate him, there must be something else going on. I doubt this was a random act, it certainly sounds targeted. As usual we won't get the whole story and are forced to draw our own conclusions from limited information.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Joker Eh said:


> OK Here I Go.
> 
> You have a right to protect your home, that is not the issue here.
> 
> If you know anything about firearms and how you have to store them then you can figure out that in no way did this guy have them stored properly, he just wouldn't have time to go get the keys to the gun safe, the ammo safe, and the gun trigger lock itself and then unlock all three, and then load the gun and then go outside. No way not enough time, police would have been there already, instead he choose not to call the police. So he was not storing the guns properly.


We don't know the actual time between the point he first knew what was going on and the first shot...and neither does the crown.

Also, you do not need a trigger lock if your firearm is in a safe. There is no reason the whole process of opening the safe, retrieving a firearm, loading it and be on your way to the door take more than 2 minutes.



> Don't you think the time he seen these criminals outside they would have thrown the cocktails by the time he went and unlocked the gun and loaded it? You think criminals want to hang around the scene of the crime? Come on, common sense must prevail here. He could have called the police at least fire at the criminal, not warning shots.


Looking at the security video, they seemed to be pretty nonchalant about it.

His mistake number one was not calling 911 after he grabbed his revolver, but in all fairness, if my house was being firebombed, I'd consider that an attempt to kill me and I'd act accordingly and possibly with deadly force. These perps should be charged not only with arson but with attempted murder.


----------



## johnnyspade (Aug 24, 2007)

FeXL said:


> He could easily have put a bullet into the perps


... or his neighbour. I'm all for this guy protecting himself, and his home, and don't think he should go to jail. But firing a gun into the air in the heat of the moment is pretty stupid. No?


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

Joker Eh said:


> OK Here I Go.
> 
> You have a right to protect your home, that is not the issue here.
> 
> ...


i agree except one important factor - where the weapons were stored. For myself, it would be near impossible for me to get to where they are, but if they were in the guy's closet in his bedroom, there'd be enough time.

He shouldn't go to jail though imho. just a severe slap as a message, but not jail. sends the wrong message to me.

regardless, it's crazy to think we can't defend our own homes without fearing for the side of that law who is supposed to protect us. wow.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

jwootton said:


> First of all, I didn't think private citizens were allowed to own handguns. I know there have been exceptions for sharp shooters and collectors, but it's Canada people not the US, we can't just have handguns for protection. I think that the crown is right on this one and needs to set a precedent that it is not okay to arm ourselves for protection. I have no problem with people having firearms for hunting, but if a firearm is used as a weapon against another person (even as a warning shot), this definitely constitutes careless use of a firearm.
> 
> Maybe I am the minority on this one, but I see absolutely no use for guns as private citizens


Perhaps you missed the part of the article which says he was a target shooter and a firearms and hunting safety instructor?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

The fire bombers, suspects if found should charged should be prosecuted to full extent of the law.

Yahoo should be charged and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Two wrongs don't it right but if you think this way you could be a red neck. 

Property is property. People are always more important than property. 

Yahoo with a gun or Hobo with a shotgun are not heros, they are always a danger to others if not themselves.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

kps said:


> Also, you do not need a trigger lock if your firearm is in a safe. There is no reason the whole process of opening the safe, retrieving a firearm, loading it and be on your way to the door take more than 2 minutes.


I would review the code again if I were you. Even the ammo must be in a seperate safe locked away.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> The fire bombers, suspects if found should charged should be prosecuted to full extent of the law.
> 
> Yahoo should be charged and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Two wrongs don't it right but if you think this way you could be a red neck.
> 
> ...


Nice that things are so black and white in your world BigDL.  

What if the "Yahoo" was black and the fire bombers were wearing white clan hoods? I wonder if your black and white world would take on a different perspective then.

*Property is property. People are always more important than property. * Who's to say the home-owner's life wasn't in danger, he probably thought it was, you probably would too... I think your comment is completely ignoring the context and circumstances of the situation.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

kps said:


> Perhaps you missed the part of the article which says he was a target shooter and a firearms and hunting safety instructor?


Exactly the point he should know better than to shoot at something he does not know where his shot will land.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Joker Eh said:


> Exactly the point he should know better than to shoot at something *he does not know where his shot will land*.


Who says he didn't? Presumably he knows his property and where his neighbour is in relation to where he was shooting. Based on the surveillance cameras it looks like he lives in the country and has a sizeable property. You are making a lot of presumptions.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> The fire bombers, suspects if found should charged should be prosecuted to full extent of the law.
> 
> Yahoo should be charged and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Two wrongs don't it right but if you think this way you could be a red neck.
> 
> ...


Another one that didn't read the article. The perps were caught and charged.

Rather you thought of me as a red neck than a victim.

I also think people are more important...especially when they are inside a burning house with three criminals outside trying to kill me.

He's not a hero, he's a citizen protecting his life and property.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jwootton said:


> I'm in no way saying that he deserved this firebombing, but for someone to go to such serious lengths to scare, intimidate him, there must be something else going on. I doubt this was a random act, it certainly sounds targeted. As usual we won't get the whole story and are forced to draw our own conclusions from limited information.


What difference would it being "targeted" make"?... None.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

screature said:


> Who says he didn't? Presumably he knows his property and where his neighbour is in relation to where he was shooting. Based on the surveillance cameras it looks like he lives in the country and has a sizeable property. You are making a lot of presumptions.


Because he had no target he fired warning shots.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

kps said:


> Another one that didn't read the article. The perps were caught and charged.
> 
> Rather you thought of me as a red neck than a victim.
> 
> ...


See there you go, you have the perpetrators of an incident, not as the persons suspected of the incident but the guilty individual because charges were laid.

So I am, as a reasonable person, to take your view that a yahoo acted reasonably and the police and the crown acted unreasonably? 

You may think of yourself as you will, and I shall have an open mind until the facts are all in thank-you very much.


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

kps said:


> Perhaps you missed the part of the article which says he was a target shooter and a firearms and hunting safety instructor?


Yeah, sorry I did miss that, re-read it, but my point was that the guns were for target shooting and not for defence and should not be allowed to be used in defence.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

My spidey sense tells me that there is more to this than meets the eye. You have to admit that using cocktails is an unusual form of vandalism....it is usually used to send a message.....I also noted, as a prior posted, the casual nature of the firebombers.....me thinks there are other issues here.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> See there you go, you have the perpetrators of an incident, not as the persons suspected of the incident but the guilty individual because charges were laid.
> 
> So I am, as a reasonable person, to take your view that a yahoo acted reasonably and the police and the crown acted unreasonably?
> 
> You may think of yourself as you will, and I shall have an open mind until the facts are all in thank-you very much.


Well that's all mighty high of you considering you were posting without even reading the article in the first place.

You may feel free to read the word "perps" as suspects if the distinction must be made to make you happy.

The issue at hand is not that he had a gun, or that he loaded it and went outside with intent to protect himself and his property, the issue is whether it was reasonable that he discharged it. That is the only thing to consider....and I too will wait for more details....and actually read them.

I too think I'm reasonable in giving this individual the benefit of the doubt under such stressful and difficult circumstances and I'll also refrain from calling him a yahoo and convicting him until all the facts are in.

....and to be sure, overzealous cops and crown attorneys have on many occasions laid unwarranted charges.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

kps said:


> Well that's all mighty high of you considering you were posting without even reading the article in the first place.
> 
> You may feel free to read the word "perps" as suspects if the distinction must be made to make you happy.
> 
> ...


And see we can agree. I agree with you 100%.



> the issue is whether it was reasonable that he discharged it.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I never disagreed with you on that point. 

But, under such duress, what is reasonable and what is not? 

IMHO, asking for jail time is unreasonable, but we shall see after more details come out.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Joker Eh said:


> Because he had no target he fired warning shots.


The point is he may very well have been aware that the bullets would not be going anywhere where they may endanger someone contrary to your presumption.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> See there you go, you have the perpetrators of an incident, not as the persons suspected of the incident but the guilty individual because charges were laid.
> 
> *So I am, as a reasonable person*, to take your view that a yahoo acted reasonably and the police and the crown acted unreasonably?
> 
> You may think of yourself as you will, and I shall have an open mind until the facts are all in thank-you very much.


*Reasonable?* and yet you refer to the victim of a fire bombing as a "Yahoo" ya , real reasonable that is...


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

screature said:


> *Reasonable?* and yet you refer to the victim of a fire bombing as a "Yahoo" ya , real reasonable that is...


Did you miss the first paragraph? 


> Ian Thomson moved to a rural homestead in Southwestern Ontario to lead a quiet life investing in a little fixer-upper. Then his neighbour’s chickens began showing up on his property. He warned his neighbour, then killed one of the birds.


Don't think that is extreme? He might fit the profile. 

Anyways, Canada allows people to claim self-defence for using force, including guns, to protect their life as long as the force is reasonable and they believe they have no other options. So he may get off with just a slap on the wrist.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Joker Eh said:


> Did you miss the first paragraph?
> 
> 
> Don't think that is extreme? He might fit the profile.


Uhh no. 

Profile??? I didn't think reasonable people were supposed to do that. I thought his reaction in killing one of the birds was a little extreme, but I don't know the overall circumstances of that situation and I am certainly not going to be his judge and jury based on the small amount of information provided and call him a Yahoo. 

It just isn't something, someone who refers to them self as a "reasonable" person would do IMO. BigDL seems willing to extend the "benefit" of the doubt to the perps of the fire bombing but unwilling to do so for a "chicken killer" or someone who fires warning shots at masked men fire bombing their house. A the very least it shows a double standard and at worst a bias against someone who uses a gun to scare off those who are at the very least trying to burn down your house and possibly kill you.

Unbelievable that some people are so willing to "demonize" the victim of an extreme situation that they have never had to endure and have the arrogance to presume that they would have handled it "better". 

Is it reasonable to judge the victim in this situation based on your own biases without full knowledge of the circumstances?



Joker Eh said:


> Anyways, Canada allows people to claim self-defence for using force, including guns, to protect their life as long as the force is reasonable and they believe they have no other options. So he may get off with just a slap on the wrist.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> My spidey sense tells me that there is more to this than meets the eye. You have to admit that using cocktails is an unusual form of vandalism....it is usually used to send a message.....I also noted, as a prior posted, the casual nature of the firebombers.....*me thinks there are other issues here.*


Does it matter????? Whatever "the other issues" may be (if there are any) does it justify firebombing someone's house and potentially killing them?


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

screature said:


> Uhh no.
> 
> Profile??? I didn't think reasonable people were supposed to do that. I thought his reaction in killing one of the birds was a little extreme, but I don't know the overall circumstances of that situation and I am certainly not going to be his judge and jury based on the small amount of information provided and call him a Yahoo.
> 
> ...


We can only judge by the information given. He is the victim here no doubt, does he deserve to have his property fire bomb for killing a chicken? NO thats for sure. But some long standing fued is fuelling this fire.

Apparently this fued between neighbours has been going on for a long time, so I doubt we will know all the facts anyways. So I will go with you on this one.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

kps said:


> Well that's all mighty high of you considering you were posting without even reading the article in the first place.
> 
> You may feel free to read the word "perps" as suspects if the distinction must be made to make you happy.
> 
> ...


I read perps as cop talk for perpetrators and not suspects. I agree that the use of yahoo is discriminatory on my part but the initial tone of posts indicating that the individual at the centre of the story is an innocent victim.

I did read the story and my description of the arrested to cast doubt without commenting those weren't the people was you mention in your post not the first time the cops got it wrong in this case I have no idea. If the cops got the right guys hope the courts are not lenient on them.

The other thing that struct me suspicious and as I haven't any idea if it is normal in rural Southern Ontario to have security camera on your *"modest* house. Why the guy firing off a hand gun has security cameras, in my mind a) is the individual paranoid or b) is the person involved a long term dispute, or c) is the person involved in something nefarious?

As Rps suggests there's more than meet the eye, as opposed to robots in the sky. 

The news story suggest that we should go like some in the Excited States and value property more than people and the right to use guns to solve all matters and ask questions later. 

Something doesn't pass my personal smell test with this case


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kps said:


> ....and to be sure, overzealous cops and crown attorneys have on many occasions laid unwarranted charges.


+1 happens all the time... an indictment/charge is miles apart from a conviction.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> The news story suggest that we should go like some in the Excited States *and value property more than people* and the right to use guns to solve all matters and ask questions later.
> 
> Something doesn't pass my personal smell test with this case


Who is suggesting that property is of more value than people? He, not only his home was under attack. Had the fire bombs been more effective, his life was at stake. I think it would even be "reasonable" for the perps/accused (to use your preferred term) to face attempted murder charges if they knew there were occupants inside the home.



> The other thing that struct me suspicious and as I haven't any idea if it is normal in rural Southern Ontario to have security camera on your *"modest* house. Why the guy firing off a hand gun has security cameras, in my mind a) is the individual paranoid or b) is the person involved a long term dispute, or c) is the person involved in something nefarious?


Who are you to decide what is "normal" in his circumstances and where he lives. If he is remote enough he may not have the option of a security system like ADT and this is his form of a deterrent. Again your post presents an ignorant "bias" against the victim... like "there must be something wrong with him" to have security cameras around his home. Maybe he had been broken into numerous times in the past, etc... you don't know. You just seem to have a "hate on" for the guy simply because he chose to use a legally owned firearm to defend himself and drive away his attackers.

If anything the attack showed good reason for why he would have the security cameras and guns on the premises.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

screature said:


> Does it matter????? Whatever "the other issues" may be (if there are any) does it justify firebombing someone's house and potentially killing them?


Screature probably not unless the "other issues" could only be resolved by fire bombing the guys home.....but this is just speculation....or even fiction, but I did think it was curious....the issue to me is the amount of "force" the guy used and was it appropriate. 

There will always be a discussion on "excessive force" in these cases. I, too, think that if I were the man and had a gun, I, too, would have used it. I think the common person would understand the actions.... so I an in agreement with those that the charges are excessive.

I think the government has been "gun shy" lately and this was one of the guys who had his "head up" at the wrong time. I called this being "Martha Stewarted"..... I think the actions by the crown are dumb in this case.


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

I certainly agree that attempted murder could be argued in this case. I would guess they will move forward with a lesser charge however so as to make sure there is a conviction. Was he in imminent danger? in the video it didn't really sound like he was scared, but who knows we can't really make judgements on that. Was using his gun safe? maybe, again, we don't know the surrounding area, whether an innocent bystander injury was possible. Was he justified in using his gun as a warning? The article states that canadians can use force in self defence, including guns (unclear if this includes handguns, I am not that familiar with the criminal code). I may be arguing semantics, but a warning shot does not really constitute force. If he had shot one of them, he would have had to have shown that his life was in imminent danger and that it is reasonable to say that he had no other options. In this case, he certainly had other options than firing warning shots.

But I say this from the comfort of my chair without masked me hurling incendiaries at me.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> Screature probably not unless the *"other issues" could only be resolved by fire bombing the guys home.*....but this is just speculation....or even fiction, but I did think it was curious....the issue to me is the amount of "force" the guy used and was it appropriate.
> 
> There will always be a discussion on "excessive force" in these cases. I, too, think that if I were the man and had a gun, I, too, would have used it. I think the common person would understand the actions.... so I an in agreement with those that the charges are excessive.
> 
> I think the government has been "gun shy" lately and this was one of the guys who had his "head up" at the wrong time. I called this being "Martha Stewarted"..... I think the actions by the crown are dumb in this case.


Sorry Rps but what could the "other issues" be that "could only be resolved by fire bombing the guys home". Presumably if the "other issues" were serious enough they could go to the police. Are you advocating vigilantism as a means of settling a dispute?  

No matter what the other issues may be, what could the justifiable moral/ethical grounds be for the fire bombing?


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

screature;1053454No matter what the other issues may be said:


> Screature, there aren't any....that's sort of the point. It is obvious we are dealing with people who do not think the same way we do. They believed the firebombing was justified .... If anyone stood the moral ground it was the home owner who restrained himself from actually shooting his would be attackers.
> 
> One of the problems with security video is it skews your frame of reference, that said, his house was fire bombed and he reacted .... did he use excessive force is the question. His actions do not count as vigilantism ....timing is the key there.
> 
> This is also one of the reasons I do not like guns ....


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> Who is suggesting that property is of more value than people? He, not only his home was under attack. Had the fire bombs been more effective, his life was at stake. I think it would even be "reasonable" for the perps/accused (to use your preferred term) to face attempted murder charges if they knew there were occupants inside the home.





National Post said:


> Mr. Thomson’s is the latest in a series of high-profile cases in which people have been charged after defending their homes and businesses against criminals. Central Alberta farmer Brian Knight became a local hero after shooting a thief who was trying to steal his ATV. He pleaded guilty to criminal negligence earlier this month. In October, Toronto shopkeeper David Chen was acquitted of forcible confinement charges after he tied up a repeat shoplifter and demanded he stop raiding his grocery store.
> 
> Their cases are renewing calls for Canada to introduce a version of the “Castle Doctrine” found in many U.S. states, which allows citizens to defend their property with force.
> 
> ...


The story itself mentions the proposition that property is more valuable than people so I guess it the editorial view point of the story as it is in the above quote from the news story so it raises in my mind the tone of the story and slant on reporting.





screature said:


> Who are you to decide what is "normal" in his circumstances and where he lives. If he is remote enough he may not have the option of a security system like ADT and this is his form of a deterrent. Again your post presents an ignorant "bias" against the victim... like "there must be something wrong with him" to have security cameras around his home. Maybe he had been broken into numerous times in the past, etc... you don't know. You just seem to have a "hate on" for the guy simply because he chose to use a legally owned firearm to defend himself and drive away his attackers.
> 
> If anything the attack showed good reason for why he would have the security cameras and guns on the premises.


I said I had no idea if this is a normal event that is Security Cameras in Southern Ontario, around New Brunswick it isn't usual but might happen when a long standing disputes or other activities by people know to each other.

Fire bombing isn't the usual way to address a neighbourhood grievance around here, but again, I don't know how Ontarians usually handle disputes being so close to the strains and pressures of the centre of the universe. Might be an everyday event.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> Screature, there aren't any....that's sort of the point. It is obvious we are dealing with people who do not think the same way we do. They believed the firebombing was justified .... *If anyone stood the moral ground it was the home owner who restrained himself from actually shooting his would be attackers.*
> 
> *One of the problems with security video is it skews your frame of reference*, that said, his house was fire bombed and he reacted .... did he use excessive force is the question. His actions do not count as vigilantism ....timing is the key there.
> 
> This is also one of the reasons I do not like guns ....


On this we can most certainly agree.

They can, most certainly. However, they can be used as a way to collect evidence... maybe he was receiving threats and that is why he installed them. Maybe he installed them to collect evidence against his neighbour's "marauding" chickens... Who knows? But we sure don't know... 

The problem that I have is with those posts that have expressed the fact that he had security cameras as being some sort of sign of something "suspicious" on the part of the victim.

Maybe he had been victimized in the past or as I already said was subject to threats. Why is the desire to defend/protect oneself "suspicious". I quite simply don't understand the doubt being cast on the victim simply because he had means to protect himself and gather evidence if he was victimized.

It is the implied assumption of some sort of "guilt"or suspicion based on the victim of the attack having a security system that I fundamentally have a problem with.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

screature said:


> The point is he may very well have been aware that the bullets would not be going anywhere where they may endanger someone contrary to your presumption.


Sorry - irrelevant. Firing warning shots is illegal in Canada, and constitutes a charge under careless use of a firearm, regardless of how well you know your property. No matter how well you know your land or the land around you, you can NEVER assume a stray round will never hit something it shouldn't - including a person. When you fire a gun, you are required to know where that round is going - that's the bottom line. Sorry screature, I don't buy your viewpoint in the slightest, nor did the individual in the article obey the law - be broke it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lars said:


> Sorry - irrelevant. Firing warning shots is illegal in Canada, and constitutes a charge under careless use of a firearm, regardless of how well you know your property. No matter how well you know your land or the land around you, you can NEVER assume a stray round will never hit something it shouldn't - including a person. *When you fire a gun, you are required to know where that round is going* - that's the bottom line. Sorry screature, I don't buy your viewpoint in the slightest, *nor did the individual in the article obey the law - be broke it.*


Not in the least bit irrelevant... have you ever lived in the country? Warning shots are LEGALLY used all the time in this country look at the recent case in Kelowna if you are in doubt.

So when you fire a round to shoot a deer and miss you are guilty of a crime... I don't buy your argument in the least. Legal reference please. 

And this is exactly the point I made... maybe he knew EXACTLY where the round was going. Based on his known experience, he probably even knew the possible range of the round...

Awwh geesh and it is statements like this that are irrelevant when pointing to the illegality of Wickileaks....


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

Lars may not have worded that well, but since there was no target of the bullets, I believe it is right to say this is careless use of a firearm ceteris paribis


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

screature said:


> So when you fire a round to shoot a deer and miss you are guilty of a crime...


Except you know you're firing at a deer. What is this man going to claim, that he fired at the clouds?

I stand corrected if warning shots are in fact legal (link?), but I'm hard-pressed to believe he used his weapon appropriately and safely in this case. I also doubt he knew where his round was going or thought about his actions before committing them - it sounds to me like he grabbed his gun and fired it out of panic, which would suggest to me he hadn't at all thought about what his actions might end in, or where his rounds might end up going.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jwootton said:


> Lars may not have worded that well, but since there was no target of the bullets, I believe it is right to say this is careless use of a firearm *ceteris paribis*


So if you your are in an area that is known to you and there is no known threat in the direction you point the gun upon discharge it is illegal to fire a gun? Reference please.... thank god we don't live in Gaza where they fire automatic rifles into the air on "celebratory" occasions... Please....

Who cares if there is a target... let's say there is a target and say you miss and you kill someone from your stray round this makes you less guilty of committing an offence? Craziness!

Also who says he didn't have a "target" with his warning shots? Maybe he was "targeting" an area of no threat for his shots... You people's arguments are so full of assumptions and holes....

*ceteris paribis*..? Please explain the logic in your use of this term within the context of which you use it.



> Ceteris paribus or caeteris paribus is a Latin phrase, literally translated as "with other things the same," or "all other things being equal or held constant." It is an example of an ablative absolute and is commonly rendered in English as "all other things being equal." A prediction, or a statement about causal or logical connections between two states of affairs, is qualified by ceteris paribus in order to acknowledge, and to rule out, the possibility of other factors that could override the relationship between the antecedent and the consequent.[1]


What are "all things being equal" when you wake up to your house being fire bombed??? Please explain.



Lars said:


> I also doubt he knew where his round was going or thought about his actions before committing them - it sounds to me like he grabbed his gun and fired it out of panic, which would suggest to me he hadn't at all thought about what his actions might end in, or where his rounds might end up going.


Another judge and jury and purely speculative post... thanks... we need more of them.  

But go right on ahead and keep them coming and demonizing the victim by all means... it speaks volumes.


----------



## Optimize (May 7, 2005)

Trouble with your neighbours can come from simply speaking up.

Try being afraid of dogs and asking dog owner to please put their dog on a leash or otherwise keep it away from you - while walking the sidewalk of a park with signs that say dogs must be on a leash.

Try it and see how you will be condescended to, ignored, or verbally abused. I can assure you this is an example where the person breaking the law demonizes and happily terrorizes their neighbour. All for speaking up...

By the way, there is a leash free park within a 5-minute walk.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

John Clay said:


> Anyone caught firebombing a house should be publicly flogged and then executed -it's an inexcusable act of terror.


I agree...

Publicly flogging someone and executing them is an inexcusable act of terror.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

ehMax said:


> I agree...
> 
> Publicly flogging someone and executing them is an inexcusable act of terror.


Hardly comparable - firebombing could result in the death or injury of an unintended target - innocents like children. This is far less likely to happen with flogging/execution.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

You and I can argue back and forth all night and in the end, we both have opinions we like that differ from one another.

*Another judge and jury and purely speculative post... thanks... we need more of them. 

But go right on ahead and keep them coming and demonizing the victim by all means... it speaks volumes.*

He should have called the police. He didn't, or at least not before trying to contain the situation himself. He'll get his fair day in court.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

I, along with several others in this thread, suspect that there is more to this story than the NP included...



> Ian Thomson moved to a rural homestead in Southern Ontario to lead a quiet life investing in a little fixer-upper. Then his neighbour's chickens began showing up on his property. He warned his neighbour, then killed one of the birds.
> 
> The incident began six years of trouble for Mr. Thomson that culminated early one Sunday morning last August when the 53-year-old former mobile-crane operator woke up to the sound of three masked men firebombing his Port Colborne home.
> 
> Read more: Man faces jail for protecting his home from masked attackers


What exact did the writer mean by "six years of trouble"?? 

All that aside, I'd be surprised if Thomson gets more than a slap on the wrist - unless of course there is background to this story that led the police to lay the charges. 

Criminal Code

How far can you go to defend your castle?

I don't like guns and don't believe that citizens need to own them for anything other than hunting. Cases like this are extremely rare. It's hard to say what I would have done in the same situation - probably called 911 and then run in the opposite direction. It's not worth finding out the hard way that the perpetrators are completely bonkers or may have guns too...

BTW - having now watched that video, I'd have to say that it appears from all the rather angry yelling/cursing by one of the perpetrators, that he had some rather strong personal feelings about his intended target. It certainly did NOT look like a random act - but one motivated by something. I'm not saying that this in ANY way justifies anything, but there has got to be a little more backstory here than the NP is reporting.


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

screature said:


> *ceteris paribis*..? Please explain the logic in your use of this term within the context of which you use it.
> 
> 
> What are "all things being equal" when you wake up to your house being fire bombed??? Please explain.


I was being lazy in my explanation, I meant to take out the context of the firebombing, to say that firing a warning shot is not legal. So extrapolating from that, does the fact that he was under attack warrant the shots, I was not really drawing a conclusion and I apologize for the ambiguity.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

It may be way off topic, but... I prefer how the South Koreans deal with criminals,

South Korean navy recaptures pirated tanker | Homeland Security News Wire


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Video of the attack:

LiveLeak.com - Surveillance Video Released Of Firebomb Attack





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Paddy said:


> I, along with several others in this thread, suspect that there is more to this story than the NP included...
> 
> *
> What exact did the writer mean by "six years of trouble"?? *


It sounded to me like there is a long standing feud going on... 

I suspect we will find out more in the coming days and weeks. I don't think it was a random attack either, but I fail to see the relevance to the extreme actions on the part of the attackers. I have friends with long time feuds with their neighbours and they certainly don't fire bomb each others houses...

At any rate I think we have pretty much run the gamut points of view on the this subject until we know more.... to be continued....


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Unfortunately Canada's stupid laws do not allow appropriate defensive actions by victims.


There are so many reasons that the Canadian law makes sense:
- the Canadian law allows for lethal force if you believe you or your family's life is in danger
- unless there's a history, the thief is more likely out for your TV, not your life, unless he thinks his life is in danger. If you have a gun, and the intruder has a gun, the intruder is more likely to shoot right away if he thinks you have a gun. How do you know you'll be able to shoot him before he shoots you or a member of your family?
- how many people have shot at friends and family members thinking they were intruders?
- possessions can be replaced. Lives can not
- does an intruder deserve to die because he's trying to take your TV? Really? His life for your TV? Doesn't seem just to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for punishing him - fairly.

The law in Canada exists to protect its citizens. Simply owning a gun doesn't make you an expert at defending your house. I think the law works.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> There are so many reasons that the Canadian law makes sense:
> - the Canadian law allows for lethal force if you believe you or your family's life is in danger
> - unless there's a history, the thief is more likely out for your TV, not your life, unless he thinks his life is in danger. If you have a gun, and the intruder has a gun, the intruder is more likely to shoot right away if he thinks you have a gun. How do you know you'll be able to shoot him before he shoots you or a member of your family?
> - how many people have shot at friends and family members thinking they were intruders?
> ...


If they break into my house, then they need to face the risk that they may die--regardless of whether they "just want to rob me blind."


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

hayesk said:


> - does an intruder deserve to die because he's trying to take your TV? Really? His life for your TV? Doesn't seem just to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for punishing him - fairly.


If a thief continues in the act of stealing, when you have given warning you will shoot if he does so, then _he_ is deciding that his life is worth the equivalent of the television. Deadly force, should the victim of a burglary so choose to mete it out, in this case would be justified.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The second a thief breeches the sanctity of your home, his life _should_ be on the line.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Unfortunately Canada's stupid laws do not allow appropriate defensive actions by victims.
> 
> We shall see to see what stories come to the surface over time on this one.


In Canada, there is nothing to prevent you if you use reasonable force, to repel an intruder into your home, as in this recent story from the Moncton area

Story from CBC with explanation from police

National Post's take on the story

So you can use reasonable force, not all the force you might desire, but reasonable force to chase away the intruder, not to capture and punish the evil dooer, but enough to make you safe.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> In Canada, there is nothing to prevent you if you use reasonable force, to repel an intruder into your home, as in this recent story from the Moncton area
> 
> Story from CBC with explanation from police
> 
> ...


^ Isn't that precisely what he did?

The problem with "reasonable" is that it can be widely interpreted. What may be considered reasonable in Alberta may not be considered reasonable in Ontario or New Brunswick...or vice versa. It may also be interpreted differently by each jurisdiction and more specifically by the individuals with the authority to lay charges.

Funny thing is that many of you who are vilifying the defender would probably be saying he should have fought back had he died in the fire. I can just hear it...oh what a tragedy...what's this world coming to...I would have charged them with a pitch fork...yada, yada, blah, blah.

Since there's so much speculation going on here, let me speculate. What if he ran out of the burning house unarmed and the three fire bombers beat him senseless or murdered him? If someone is fire bombing your house...with you in it...would you not conclude they're trying to kill you? Would you run into their open arms?

Some of you are over analysing this. It's irrelevant if there was a running feud or not, this was an act of terrorism plain and simple and as far as I'm concerned he acted with reasonable force to defend his life and property.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

I agree with kps in that there's a lot of speculation and what-ifs. I'll add another: what if when he shot his gun into the air, the stray bullet killed a neighbour or someone else not involved in this conflict.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

kps said:


> ^ Isn't that precisely what he did?


No!

The police and the crown do not agree with you.

Many people that come to to this thread *Think Different™*


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> No!
> 
> The police and the crown do not agree with you.


Actually they do, that's why the charges he's facing are fairly easily beaten in court. They can not prove unsafe storage and the unsafe discharge will be easily beaten in a jury trial.

He was charged for pure optics, as a discouragement to others and for the law to assert their authority...nothing more, it's par for the course, except it'll cost him big money for lawyers. 



> Many people that come to to this thread *Think Different™*


Awww, isn't that precious. I'm sure if someone firebombed Frank Sinatra's house, his mob buddies would make a quick job of the perps.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I guess I'm somewhat stunned by many of the responses on this thread.

I just hope that none of you ever have to hide in the basement in terror with your spouse/children, waiting for the cops to come deal with the threat walking around your house or your yard...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> I guess I'm somewhat stunned by many of the responses on this thread.
> 
> I just hope that none of you ever have to hide in the basement in terror with your spouse/children, waiting for the cops to come deal with the threat walking around your house or your yard...


This is the face of modern "liberalism."


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

I'm not against what the homeowner did in this case, I am however against him being allowed to own handguns. I would prefer that no one has access to personal handguns, but that will likely never happen. So, for the ones that do have handguns, I think they need to understand the consequences of using them. Whether or not his was justified or not should not be decided without much thought, so I like the action of the crown for bringing charges to determine whether this was appropriate. I do not want everyone who uses a firerarm for protection to be whitewashed with "oh it's ok, it was in self defense"


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

jwootton said:


> I do not want everyone who uses a firerarm for protection to be whitewashed with "oh it's ok, it was in self defense"


But at the same time why should any law abiding citizen (registered firearms, gun safe, etc.) be charged for non-lethally protecting his property?

The story notes he lives in a rural area. I don't know how far away from the police that is but it generally doesn't mean the police station is just down the road.

I ask the question again: what recourse does a property owner have? Are we supposed to just roll over & let the criminals win? 

Not on my watch, they ain't...

I'm tired of criminal's rights trumping victim's rights. I seriously believe that if a few more of these guys got their butts handed to them on a platter there would be far less issues with crime.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> I guess I'm somewhat stunned by many of the responses on this thread.
> 
> I just hope that none of you ever have to hide in the basement in terror with your spouse/children, waiting for the cops to come deal with the threat walking around your house or your yard...


+1 We have had many home invasions across the border in Ottawa where seniors were targeted... I say string 'em up and let 'em swing the gutless bastards... that's probably too extreme but it is how I feel having 90+ year old parents in-law still living in their own home... 

Why do we want to protect these people? They made their choices and dug their own graves let them lie in them... Ooohh, but they probably had bad childhoods etc... :-( Bulls**t. You can have a bad childhood, mine wasn't especially great with an alcoholic father and mentally ill mother, but I am not about to blame them for the choices *I* make... and they are choices, make no mistake.

I have thought about it many times and if someone broke into my home I would be doing *everything* I could to drive them out or take them out. Period. I'm not hiding under the bed calling 911 while they beat or rape my wife.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, have to agree, Those kind of creeps are the biggest cowards going and they deserve their asses kicked. I would fight them any way possible, to the end if necessary to protect my home and family. Including deadly force.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

There was a thread posted a while back about modern men failing as a gender. There were a lot of jokes made but I fear there was far more truth in the accusation than tale.

What real man doesn't take care of business with whatever he has on hand when life, limb, family, neighbor, property, helpless old lady on the bus, whatever gets threatened?

I read newspaper stories of people who were attacked in broad daylight, surrounded by people and nobody, but -nobody-, lent a hand.

I just can't wrap my head around the kind of mentality it takes to stand by & studiously ignore bull **** like that happening within earshot or eyesight.

It's got nothing to do with heroism, either. It's about helping out your fellow human being. It's just what you do.

The pussification continues...


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

many years ago, while discussing the rise in crime, home invasion etc with an off duty mountie, he told me this... much to my surprise.
If you are ever faced with a situation where you feel you or your family is seriously in danger and you decide deadly force is called for,
make very sure the perp is *in your house, is armed, and most of all is dead*.
Now there is only one side to the story, *yours*.
Just wounding him might solve your immediate problem, but down the road you'll be the loser.
These A** holes he told me, are very good at excuses such as I had too many drinks and was just at the wrong house etc, etc, and this guys shoots me.

Fortunately I've never been in a position to have to consider such action, the only time even close was once when we had a prowler in the house, helping himself to my goodies,
my wife woke up and saw him walking out, but by the time I figured out she wasn't dreaming he was long gone.
The police in this instance said we were lucky, he said it can get ugly real fast when you wake up and confront, even worse yet, block their exit out.
But I do have to say, it makes you really feel violated.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

FeXL said:


> I read newspaper stories of people who were attacked in broad daylight, surrounded by people and nobody, but -nobody-, lent a hand.
> 
> I just can't wrap my head around the kind of mentality it takes to stand by & studiously ignore bull **** like that happening within earshot or eyesight.
> 
> It's got nothing to do with heroism, either. It's about helping out your fellow human being. It's just what you do.


Fortunately there are still some out there who do jump in to help.
As in this Victoria BC incident.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

FeXL said:


> The pussification continues...


:lmao:

Truth!


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## yoyo (Aug 3, 2003)

I would have shot all 3.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Lawyers and judges buy lots of coke because they can afford to. It's fairly simple. And before anyone flips out, let me add that there are plenty of lawyers and judges who are not dope fiends - and that most of them don't bother with illicit drugs at all.

But those professions can also be fairly stressful - depends on the nature of the crime procedural and how high-profile it is; if the media is involved, chances are it's a stressful gig. Is it any wonder some of these individuals might develop problems with booze or coke?

__________________________________

You can say you'd act this way and that if you were made judge, but the simple fact is that taking that power changes you and changes your perspective. You also lay yourself open to the tantalizing temptation of raw power and what being a conduit of such power can do to your ego.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why would becoming a judge make me less likely to rule in the favour of victims? Maybe it would make me more likely to do so. Why do all of these cautionary tales imagine that the person involved inevitably changes the perspective of the judge so that he becomes a soft touch--instead of Roy Bean?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

While I can't speak to the "Rights" portion of the argument, there is an interesting blurb here from Gunter in the Post.


> How out-of-touch are police and prosecutors when you are not even allowed to defend yourself and your property from thugs attempting to incinerate you? Their attitude seems to be that it is better to die waiting for police to respond than to take matters into your own hands.


An historical bit from the same link:


> When Canada became independent at Confederation in 1867, Canadians retained the rights they had at the time as British subjects. These included three “absolute rights”: the right to personal liberty, the right to private property and the right to self-defence, up to and including the right to kill an attacker or burglar.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

FeXL said:


> While I can't speak to the "Rights" portion of the argument, there is an interesting blurb here from Gunter in the Post.
> 
> 
> An historical bit from the same link:


Canadians still have the right to kill. You just have to be a reasonable Canadian, killing reasonably. Why can't some people get this. Oh! Yeah! They're not the reasonable Canadians.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Canadians still have the right to kill. You just have to be a reasonable Canadian, killing reasonably. Why can't some people get this. Oh! Yeah! They're not the reasonable Canadians.


That's right. You have to begin by asking them to leave, then using physical restraint, then moving up through various levels of appropriate force while the attacker/invader decides whether or not to kill you on the spot.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> That's right. You have to begin by asking them to leave, then using physical restraint, then moving up through various levels of appropriate force while the attacker/invader decides whether or not to kill you on the spot.


I intended the use of reasonable force, not polite persuasion. 

If that causes confusion, perhaps this is the view of reasonable application of force, by many from the environs of the big smoke and to the westward....





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I have no desire to kill anyone.

I do, however, have a vested interest in protecting family, friends, property, whatever and if 6" of cold blue steel or an axe handle or my trained bare hands encourages a criminal to stop whatever wrong he is doing then I have succeeded.

If he calls me on it then I'll use whatever I've got to see it to the conclusion.

For those of you who would turn the other cheek, let your house get incinerated, listen to your wife getting raped, watch your children get kid-napped, let the little old lady on the sidewalk get mugged without intervention, I'm just damn glad you don't live anywhere near me.

Keep dialing 911. The cops will get there.

Sometime...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> I intended the use of *reasonable force*, not polite persuasion.


There is a fundamental flaw with the notion of reasonable force when driving an intruder out of your home and it is this; if the force is considered to be reasonable for the "law" it is also likely to be considered so for the assailant and therefore the attack is likely to continue. Thus an escalation of force on the part of the defender would then be required, meanwhile because the attacker didn't feel particularly threatened by the first use of force the victim is at serious risk of further injury or death because the first defence was "reasonable". 

This is how the real world works outside the "vested" halls of the judicial system.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*Coming to a sad realization*

Being reasonable is too onerous for some.

In this thread, I am hearing, if I can't plan and win at any cost the situation is broken.

This explains much. ,


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Being reasonable is too onerous for some.
> 
> In this thread, I am hearing, if I can't plan and win at any cost the situation is broken.
> 
> This explains much. ,


No what you are hearing is that being "reasonable" is *relative* to the circumstances, something that those who see the world in terms of black and white do not seem to understand.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*Gun charges dropped against self defender*

More at the link.



> In a move that acknowledges the difficulty of prosecuting people who feel forced to act in self-defence, Crown attorneys have dropped two gun charges against an Ontario man who shot at masked intruders firebombing his home, saying they had no “reasonable prospect of conviction.”


Good. They were trumped up charges anyway.



> He hailed the Crown’s decision to drop the charges as a victory, but said he is still determined to fight two remaining charges of careless storage of a firearm, which carry a maximum penalty of jail time.


Fine. *If* the firearm was stored incorrectly, by all means..



> Mr. Thomson’s lawyer decried what he said was an “epidemic” of police targeting legal gun owners who use their firearms to defend themselves and their property, *cases he said are too often used to test the legal boundaries of self-defence when they shouldn’t have been laid at all.*


Agreed.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> More at the link....


Glad to hear the most serious charges were dropped, as I think most of us felt they should be. Thanks for the update FeXL.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

NP.

Now, we'll see what happens with the local guy in a couple of months. (more)

I don't think there's a jury in Alberta that would convict him but, who knows?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Time to bury the hatchet on this one as well.

(Someone had to say it)


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

This poor _basterd_...Ian Thompson is still fighting the Ontario Crown over the bogus charges resulting from his defence of his life and property. If he used a pitch fork, he'd be hailed a hero, but because Thompson is a firearms owner, they're criminalizing him.
Shame on the Ontario legal system, rumour has it the orders to prosecute Thompson came from way up the food chain. Possibly as high as Ontario's Attorney General. The bogus charge of improper storage being the only thing they could come up with. Shame, shame, shame.

Trial of today was postponed and continues May 02

Some media coverage of the story:

Ian Thomson gun trial: Court adjourns homeowner's self-defence case to clarify confusing gun control law | News | National Post

*
Ian Thomson: Proof that the state does not want its citizens defending themselves | Full Comment | National Post


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kps said:


> This poor _basterd_...Ian Thompson is still fighting the Ontario Crown over the bogus charges resulting from his defence of his life and property. If he used a pitch fork, he'd be hailed a hero, but because Thompson is a firearms owner, they're criminalizing him.
> Shame on the Ontario legal system, rumour has it the orders to prosecute Thompson came from way up the food chain. Possibly as high as Ontario's Attorney General. The bogus charge of improper storage being the only thing they could come up with. Shame, shame, shame.
> 
> Trial of today was postponed and continues May 02
> ...



Indeed, the poor bastard and that Crown attorney (Mr. Mahler) is an ignorant prick as well.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

ACQUITTAL! IAN THOMPSON IS ACQUITTED ON ALL CHARGES:  Ian Thomson was jolted awake at 6:37 a.m. by the sound of explosions; outside his secluded farmhouse, three masked men were hurling fire bombs at his house while one bellowed: “Are you ready to die?” Mr. Thomson was not.

A former firearms instructor, he called out a warning, took one of his pistols, marched outside in his underwear and fired one shot into the ground and two into the trees in the direction of the men, who scurried away. He then called 911 and waited more than 10 minutes for police while using a garden hose to douse flames lapping up his front veranda. The officers did not bring him either help nor salvation. Mr. Thomson was soon arrested and charged with four gun offenses.

Mr Thompson obtained the services of noted firearms attorney, Edward Burlew L.L.B and on January 3rd, Mr Thompson finished his time in court. Justice Colvin rendered his 45 minute decision with an acquittal on all charges.

Congratulations to Mr. Thompson and Ed Burlew L.L.B. This case is extremely significant and Mr. Thompson's victory is a victory for common sense and freedom for all Canadians.

Alleluia!!! Sanity prevails!
The above is from an email I got from the CSSA and allowed to pass on.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

About time. Common sense can prevail after all... Leads one to have some hope in the justice system.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

FeXL said:


> NP.
> 
> Now, we'll see what happens with the local guy in a couple of months. (more)
> 
> I don't think there's a jury in Alberta that would convict him but, who knows?


Might as well tie up this loose end as well. Story got zero local coverage back when it occurred.

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



> A small — very small — victory for common sense and the right to self-defence was won in Alberta yesterday. Crown prosecutors withdrew assault charges against Joe Singleton, an oilfield consultant from the town of Taber, about two hours south and east of Calgary.
> 
> Last May, Mr. Singleton and his wife returned home to their rural acreage to find a car idling in their driveway. Mr. Singleton parked his own vehicle across the driveway and went inside to find their home ransacked. Mr. Singleton then went back outside to discover the burglar using the previously idling vehicle to ram his in an attempt to escape. Knowing that police response times in rural areas are appalling, Mr. Singleton hastily grabbed a hatchet and, using the blunt end, struck the car-ramming burglar in the side of the face, knocking out some the perpetrator’s teeth and breaking “facial bones.”
> 
> ...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Great news for Mr. Singleton too. A great victory to self defence rights in Canada.

Here's what Ian Thomson's attackers got back in early December for what was arson and attempted murder:

Quoting from another site, this was posted in early December of 2013:


> The four would be assassins were sentenced today:
> Richard Coulthurst got 2 years.
> Justin Lee got 2 years.
> Michael Theberge got 3 years.
> ...


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

About time common sense kicked in..
I would of said to the judge, and you would do what?
Let him answer.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*For What It's Worth*

For What it's Worth!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5JCrSXkJY



Buffalo Springfield said:


> There's something happening here
> But what it is ain't exactly clear
> There's a man with a gun over there
> Telling me I got to beware
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> For What it's Worth!


Tell ya what, you can wishfully go back to 1967. We on the other hand will live with the realities of 2013.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> For What it's Worth!


Good song for its time and place in history but what the H E double hockey sticks does this song have to do with this case... I mean seriously.

I'm not sure you understand the history of this case or the historical context of the song that you are quoting.

It is a very thin connection/stretch of logic at best.

Really quite out of context and irrelevant IMO.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Great news & good for him.

I hadn't heard anything further about the gentleman in Taber, but after a quick intertoob search apparently the charges against him were dropped. I found one article that noted he had to do some community service first. What a crock...

I almost hope some miserable piece of slime tries the same thing at my house...


----------

