It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 6
67
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


I agree we should be allowed to defend ourselves as well and I see frogs great points as well.
But in the end we have STRICT gun laws so I am just pointing out how by breaking those his priveledges have been lost.
As a poster just made my point for me above,this ISN'T Texas.


Actually you are wrong even Canadian law allows for reasonable force in self defense using firearms even, you should study your own laws. It has nothing to do with your gun laws. Firing warning shots to scare off multiple attackers fire bombing your house and property is certainly reasonable force. Killing them would have been reasonable force since his life was in immediate danger. It has everything to do with anti-gun weenies at the crown using any excuse trying to disarm the populace caring nothing for the people. They could care less if this guy burned to death they saw an opportunity to confiscate his guns and they did. He should consider moving to Texas. Or at least Vermont.

And no if he had insurance and they burned his place down he would not have his firearms they would have burned in the fire too.




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
There is quite a bit of hyperbole in this thread, but not a whole lot about the actual laws of Canada.

Before I get to that, let me remark that just because a person is charged with a criminal offence does not mean he is guilty of that offence...or will later be found guilty of the charges in a court of law. Police in Canada, and elsewhere, will often improperly charge citizens. They are merely Police Officers, not lawyers or judges...so please do not so quickly equate the charges that have been laid with the actual laws of the Country.


In Canada, the key provision in the criminal code is that no one may use "more force than is necessary" and then only when "he believes on reasonable grounds that he can not otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm." In section 35, the code goes on to require that one must show that, "he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it (the assault) as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself ... arose." Moreover, the right to use physical force to defend non­family members is more limited than it is in many states, as are a Canadians' rights to repulse trespassers on one's own property, or to use force to stop the commission of serious or violent crimes (Sections 24, 40, and 41)


homepage.usask.ca...

I would hazard to say that shooting at a group of masked attackers who are in the act of throwing firebombs at a home occupied by the gun owner, whilst exclaiming that he is going to die (ie. murdered shortly by his attackers) would constitute "reasonable grounds that he (could) not otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm" without himself using deadly force.

Furthermore, to be trapped within a burning building (set fire to by his attackers, who had not relented in their attack) would not have rendered it feasible for him to attempt to retreat from the conflict.

"Any reasonable man" which is the legal standard, would have considered it necessary to respond to his attackers with strong...even deadly...force.


...Canadians already have the right to use force -- even deadly force -- to protect themselves. We need simply to return to our legal roots....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...In truth, it is an individual right that existed before government and, so, cannot be extinguished by government.


Read more: www.edmontonjournal.com...

So, despite some of the comments from my fellow Canadians, we do in fact have the right to defend ourselves...using force proportional to the threat.

This guy, if he is ever brought to trial on these bogus charges, will be acquitted.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   
It kinda sucks but you should try living in the U.K our laws are terrible when it comes to protecting your home theres lots of cases were people get robbed and the attackers get a good beating from the owner but then you the owner will be arrested and maybe even sent to prison this has happened alot recently and whats even worse is sometimes the criminals can sue you for damages if you injure them in the incident.
In our area a pensioner in his 80's was being robbed in his home by a guy with a knife the pensioner fought back giving the youth a good hiding but he got charged for excessive force haha what a joke some one attacks you in your own home with a knife!!.
You give them a hiding then you get done haha brilliant!!!!!.
The police advise here in the U.K for when you are being robbed, is to just lock your self in room and wait until they have gone then contact the police staright away. Or if you are confronted by the said attacker/robber is to let them do what they want and contact the police at the first available chance what a joke.....................



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
_________________

“I don’t have enemies,” said Ian Thomson

Oh really ? I have a hard time believing that .
The thing with disputes between two parties is they tend
to escalate and it takes more than one.
Why all the security cameras ? . . . that tells that he did
indeed have enemies.
Face it, those kids weren't there for a b.n.e , obviously they were
there for some kind of retaliation. (neither acceptable)
Instead of killing the chicken as a warning, he should have
gotten a police report, restraining order, or a cease and desist, it
would have been the smart way to handle things.
When there are such disputes here in Canada including domestic
situations, the police usually charge both parties no matter what.
That way it discourages such ongoing tit for tats.

Someone has to defend the free-range-chickens.


__________________




edit on 25/1/11 by ToneDeaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   
This issue bothers me a lot. I am not Canadian, and I am glad for it right now.

If someone is literally trying to BBQ me inside of my home while I'm just starting to wake up in the morning, I am going to be very pissy. I don't like to be woken up that early to begin with, PLUS you are trying to turn me, my family, and my animals into charcoal! No, I do not think that is going to make me think with a "cool and collected mind" and I think the ones trying to burn me are going to breathing through a few extra holes.

This is one of the reason I feel homeowners should have silenced personal protection weapons. That way, when someone tried to burn you in your sleep, you can kill them quietly so the rest of the neighbors don't get woken by your shooting. Then, you hide the bodies till night time, then bury them and then plant a tree as a grave marker.

That is just how I feel about people trying to kill me while I'm asleep. I like sleep, don't wake me by lighting my home on fire. Its a bad idea altogether. I've punched my mom (accidentally... I was still asleep) for poking me to wake me up [when I was 18 - I'm 25 now]. I would hate to see what I would do to some jerk I did not care about.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Damn...gun owners sure are bloodthirsty. You all sound like you would kill for the pleasure...nut the justice. Hey man up...we canadians do not need guns to feel like men up here...we usually settle things with our fists if need be. We do not run for a weapon when things get a little tense. Stay cowards and let us canadians deal with these guys the way we see fit...if you look on the net...you will find stories of us...beating intruders in our houses...they are a dime a dozen up here...sure we have gun violence..thats usually because some punk has watched a little too much american television...where they glorify gun violence. I will not reply back. I feel cowards do not deserve a reply....



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   
no ones safe these days its OK for criminals to arm them selves to the teeth but we do it and we got to prison where is the justice in that



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I don't need alot of words here....

You firebomb my house...you die

screw the consequences



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
The governments want to protect the criminals and harass the innocent.

This will justify their need for a N.W.O. to combat what it deems a necessary means to today's out of control society.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
This was done in Canada and we have different gun laws.
I have found someone in my home once and laid a whooping on him without charges.
I agree with the authorities on this one...take his guns away.
This was an ongoing dispute with his neighbor and regardless of the situation...pulling a gun was a bad call on his part.
There is warranted force and unwarranted force....pulling a gun was not the right decision in my opinion.
We aren't Americans...our laws are different for a reason...if the first thing this guy thought of was to pull a gun then I am glad they have been taken away.

No offence to our gun toting American friends.
edit on 24-1-2011 by DrumsRfun because: (no reason given)


When is use of a firearm warrented if not in self defense? u gunna wait until they start lobbing hand grenades?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SPYvsSPY
 




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.


There is not 0 chance of killing someone when you fire a gun in the air. Just because you cannot see where the bullet lands does not mean that it will not hit someone. There are lots of responsibilities with owning and firing a gun and that includes where the bullet lands. There are cases of people getting randomly hit from a gun fired miles away.

I would have tried to shot them as they where about to throw another molotov cocktail, have the cops clean up the mess, let them do their investigation and most likely keep my guns.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by DrumsRfun
 


having you house , your family , your dog , and your lively hood burned to the ground definitely warrants using a firearm. I'm sure if you had access to one you would have done the same , its easy to throw a stone when your not in the victims shoes.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


I am not even sure what to say. This is wrong on so many levels, its pathetic. This man didn't even shoot to kill. he shot to ward off attackers first. What the hell is the world coming to. I really don't understand, why extremely poor decision are made by those that are supposed to lead and protect us.

epic failure once again ... Kudos to the guy protecting his life and what is rightfully his



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
This is becoming a very typical scenario these days. This angers me to no end, why are victims being victimized by the police also? Those attackers would've gotten center mass, no less from me. And as far as those cops go? It would become one of the biggest legal battles.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by mobiusmale
 

IF the charged homeowner has a chance at a trial by jury (one of our 10 Bill of Rights along with the right to "keep and bear arms") then he would surely not be convicted by a jury of his peers. BUT the fact that he was charged at all would indicate that the Crown's priority is to (opportunistically) persue citizenship disarmament at the expense of citizen protection. They obviously felt that this guy had too many guns but fail to give him credit for using restraint while repulsing the attack. Since they were yelling that he would die it shows their intent to kill and one could even argue for the use of deadly force (police have a lot lower threshhold of "danger") altho I would argue that he did not have the right to take their life unless they were within throwing range and cocked to throw a firebomb directly at him. Something stinks in the country of Canada and it is coming from the top (crown) down.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Yes it was a bad call.
He could have just called the fire dept and police and let things play out themselves.
Grabbing a gun should be the last resort.
Remember...this happened in Canada and we aren't as forgiving of gunplay as other nations.
He took the law into his own hands when he had the option of calling authorities.


Glad I live in America where if someone is attempting to murder you ( molotov cocktails count as a deadly weapon ) I have the right to defend myself and my property with reasonable force. Call the fire dept., what after your home is burnt to ashes and call the police after you have suffered third degree burns from trying to save your home..... give me a break!



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Is very normal in the Netherlands.. If someone robs a store and the owner is taking matter in his own hands HE will be chargers by the state or by the roberer himself... Here it is illegal to take matters in own hands even with a robery ect..



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by pinkeltje
 

There is a reason that the Netherlands were invaded and occupied by the Nazis and the Swiss were not.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Damn...gun owners sure are bloodthirsty. You all sound like you would kill for the pleasure...nut the justice. Hey man up...we canadians do not need guns to feel like men up here...we usually settle things with our fists if need be. We do not run for a weapon when things get a little tense. Stay cowards and let us canadians deal with these guys the way we see fit...if you look on the net...you will find stories of us...beating intruders in our houses...they are a dime a dozen up here...sure we have gun violence..thats usually because some punk has watched a little too much american television...where they glorify gun violence. I will not reply back. I feel cowards do not deserve a reply....

sounds like you are one of those Canadians who drinks fire water and throws fire bombs (instead of using firearms).



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Thanks for the story. This is ludicrous to think that since your house is burning and an unknown amount of people are outside wanting blood it isn't self defense. I am sure this man will get acquitted of all the charges but the process is going to take a lot time to go through the courts.

And for those saying this wasn't reasonable force, it was justified and I would have aimed for the leg. If throughout the night and the morning I was sleeping while my house became under attack by firebombs, unknown amount of suspects seeking blood, and not knowing if they had more weapons I would have gotten my gun out of my safe and shot at them too.



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join