Man Faces Jail After Protecting Home From Masked Attackers (with video footage)

After watching the video, I was truly shocked and angered that the homeowner could face any kind of charges for his actions, ANYWHERE in the world. This mans life was clearly in immediate danger and he had every right to do what he did, and like a lot of the other posters said, I would have shot the punks. The guy showed tremendous amounts of restraint, and still gets charged? Unbelievable. Stories like this makes me pinch myself to make sure I haven't slipped into the Twilight Zone....

reply to post by DrumsRfun


i'm sorry did you say that pullin a gun out to stop more than one person from trying burn your house
down, and trying to kill your dog, was the wrong thing to do. what kinda of mamby pamby world do you live
in. i bet your dog dont even count on you to catch his back.

i dont care where your at and what kinda laws you got, somebody tries to burn down your house, and kill your dogs
and you have a gun, bust a cap in their asses.

do you have trails by jury up there in canada, i bet that no jury would convict if they see the tape. and if they did
you could still hold your head up high because you defended yourself and what is yours, weather its your family
dog or home

The biggest problem I see here is the reckless discharge, what goes up must come down and in a city the chances of hitting an innocent person or property is reasonable. If the situation is such that you need to fire a weapon, then you must fire to stop the threat. If you just want to make loud noises then use blanks or a starters gun. If you are faced with an immediate life threatening situation, which it appears he was, then he would have been better off with an injury or fatality as a result of his discharge instead of some innocent party with a hole in their roof.

reply to post by alaskan


bustin caps in their asses would be vermin control.

I would have killed them.

Judging from what I have read here, Canadian cops must REALLY BE STUPID.
What trash to arrest someone protecting their home!

Who the hell has that many camera's on their house? lol

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Yes he did say that.
He's a genuine Braniac.
This is the kind of STUPID that I feel no need to be "understanding" towards or tolerant of.

But hey... invading armies like the Chinese need easy targets.

Hope they go to Canada first!

Maybe they'll be tired or complacent by the time they get here!

Wow, had something like that happened to me, people throwing firebombs at my house would be swiss cheese. I live in canada, but I know people around here will not hand out a guilty verdict for protecting your own home....

It's amazing to me to see how the laws and peoples perception of laws are so skewered The police are the answer to any and all wrong doing Lets be real, the laws in any country are subject to selective enforcement. Just because you call the cops doesn't mean they will get there in time to protect you. In fact in the states they protect your public well being, not a individuals.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Canada really IS different.

1. There's a fear of vigilantism...

“I hear some people, some being police officers, some being Crown attorneys, some being ordinary people, say we don’t want vigilantism, to which I can only give an emphatic pardon me?” Mr. Burlew said. “When you’re under attack, it’s not a vigilante act. Vigilantism talks about vengeance and retribution. This is about saving your life and saving your property.

2. In Canada, you can defend yourself against a direct attack, but property is another matter...

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.

“If the public are wondering can you run out of your house and [fire a handgun at an intruder], the bottom line is, according to the laws of Canada, no, you can’t,” said Constable Nilan Dave of the Niagara Regional Police Service, which charged Mr. Thomson.

I hope this turns out to be a hoax.
It just doesn't seem right.

I live in Oregon. I don't know for 100% certainty what my own state's laws are regarding home defense, but I worked as a night security guard at an industrial facility a few years ago. When I was hired and briefed, I was instructed to chase away tresspassers and to apprehend metal thieves. My only weapon was a 16" long aluminum rod.
I was also instructed that if I were to catch someone in the process of committing arson, I was allowed to beat them to the point of death and beyond. Arson was the only circumstance at my industrial facility in which I had the authority to kill, and maim.

Derar Canada,

Guns were not invented for the purpose of hunting. This is a secondary bonus to their primary function.

Sincerely
dack

"I'll tell you what.........

( Go ahead, Guess where I live...)

I would not have shot in the air, nor shot the attackers, However, them there bottles would have made very nice target practice just after they got lit


"No Officer, I was not shooting at them, they walked into my target range, I have no Idea how they caught on fire like that, they must have been drinking something quite flammable"

reply to post by kwakakev

So shoot the attackers...yes if it needs to be done. And kill them. Or
fire into the sky and have 0 chance of killing anyone while sending
them home.running. I would have fired warning shots, took my video to
the police, and you would be discussing me. Meanwhile i would be
getting the business from the mounties for being so rude.

reply to post by SPYvsSPY



If i had it coming it would be one thing but if it were unprovoked I would do what I could to end the altercation peacefully but I would do what I could to end the altercation. If I had a child in the house it would go most diligently and swiftly.

Unless they threw or were preparing to throw a firebomb at you at close range then you could not justify shooting the arsonists (even tho it could cause a fatality if one was caught inside a burning building; ergo, no deadly force justified - especially outside the premises)...but that being said, this man was charged for "recklessly discharging a firearm" while shooting to drive away the perps. I saw this several hours ago but still cant believe it. Incroiable. The Crazy Canuks still act like they are under the direct authority of the british crown. Worse yet - french govt and british crown.

the homeowner broke the golden rule. don't dial 911. don't talk to police. it's that simple.

there are way too many stories every week of unarmed civilians being shot, senior citizens & soccer moms being tazered, young people being brutalized. all at the hands of law enforcement.

police who deliver someone a horrible beating or shoot and kill a person are rewarded with a few weeks paid vacation. time and time again those specially organized blue ribbon panels declare these bullies & murderers innocent and allow them to return to duty. it is a crime against the taxpayer.

"to protect and serve" whom?

reply to post by DrumsRfun


I understand I think. Sometimes "justice" or even what is the "right" thing to do does not line up with what is the law. The law is the "rules". It falters when it does not realize valid exceptions.

I think I realize what you say there is what is right, there is what is wrong and there is what is the law. Sadly, what is the law often forgets about the first two. It certainly happens here in the states, and all over the world I'm sure.

To put it another way....

This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Justice is incidental to law and order. ~John Edgar Hoover

Although the legal and ethical definitions of right are the antithesis of each other, most writers use them as synonyms. They confuse power with goodness, and mistake law for justice. ~Charles T. Sprading, Freedom and its Fundamentals

Law never made men a whit more just. ~Henry David Thoreau

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Man someone would really have to do some bad s@@t
to get me to fire bomb their home. And if it was that bad
i would have called the mounties.

Canada eh? sure am glad i don't live there. personally, i think the charges against the homeowner are unreasonable but unfortunately, in line with their laws.
imho, tis a classic case depicting the need for a protective clause like the Castle Doctrine.

I find it sad and unbalanced that the homeowner's loss involves both property and freedom.

In this wonderfully capitalist country of America, after shooting the idiots, we could donate the clothing, shoes, accessories ... convert the remainder into energy and sell it back to the grid.