Canadian man charged for firing on firebombers

[FNMatt]

Hello folks,

Hope I'm not rehashing this story, but here goes:​

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/20/man-faces-jail-after-protecting-home-from-masked-attackers/

Basically, this Canadian, Ian Thomson, is being charged after he fired his S&W at three men who were attacking his home with fire bombs. No shots hit assailants, but video shows man's property being struck several times. Mr. Thomson's house is clearly damaged in video and he claims one of his dogs was singed by flames. Canadian authorities charged the man with several offenses after he volunteered his security footage. Authorities stated they want to discourage "vigilantism." According to the man, flames left him but no choice to flee the house, in his underwear with his S&W, directly into his still armed assailants. What kind of country gives masked arsonists more consideration than a apparently innocent man? Hope this hasnt been posted here already...

 

[Hardtarget]

If there was no reconsideration from the "legal" idiots ...I'd be packing up and leaving. Couldn't stay in that place and pay taxes to fund that kind of action against me. If they don't know the difference between defense and vigilantism...well there are just no words for that.

Mark

 

[Joe in fla]

Well what do you expect! It is CANADA after all. I was born there but there's a reason that I don't live there!

 

[Shadow 7D]

Wow. Wait thats right, there is no 'self defense' in canada...
Don't mind me, I'm still bitter that they took my issued Benchmade...They were VERY polite about it, but I'm still out my knife.

 

[cleardiddion]

If I remember right, in many states arson along with the likes of murder/kidnapping/and other grave offenses is something that is by law more than permissable by lethal force. After I read the article, I was afraid to facepalm because if I did I would rocketed myself to the moon.

 

[noylj]

In California, it is (or was) legal to shoot someone committing arson. The trick to the law was that if the object was already on fire, your couldn't shoot because the arson had already been committed.
Thus you have the tiny window between the lighter being struck and fire being set.

 

[FNMatt]

I'm not seeing anywhere that authorities are denying that arson on an occupied home is a dangerous/deadly force, but rather that it isn't legal to respond to lethal force in self-defense (self-defence for my northern friends). Watching the video, the men are carrying the flammable containers throughout, and their is little doubt in my mind that were still armed when he fired. To my understanding, Canada does not have any Castle doctrine, but this would seem to not apply as he was directly facing serious injury or death.

 

[1911Tuner]

As goes Great Britain, so goes Canada. Watch and see.

 

[sidibear]

@1911 Tuner, you must have read my thoughts. But here in the UK, if he had shouted at them he may well have been arrested for causing them trauma and distress !

 

[merlinfire]

When you no longer even have the right to defend yourself, I think its time to move. A sad state of affairs.

 

[xcgates]

My good Lord, I do hope Canada passes a Castle Doctrine law as mentioned in the article. This is as obvious as self-defense gets.

As in, they still had lit bottles in their hands when they were subject to Mr. S&W?

The one part I don't like is the lawyer saying the homeowner missed on purpose. I don't see that as a good defense (of course I'm not in that legal jurisdiction), but I hardly think missing a couple shots is unusual in that situation. Look at the hit ratio of cops.

 

[Mp7]

...holy...

anyone who has ever had a "Moli" explode close to him
knows this is deadly force.

This charge will be thrown out. But not dropping it before hand
shows little common sense ..... nasty stuff.

 

[Ben86]

Now that is some bass akward thinking. "Your honor, all the victims were doing was trying to burn the man's house down with him in it, they didn't deserve to get shot at." Really? Wow.

 

[Colonel]

Around here that would have been two dead firebombers.

 

[FNMatt]

...holy...

anyone who has ever had a "Moli" explode close to him
knows this is deadly force.

This charge will be thrown out. But not dropping it before hand
shows little common sense ..... nasty stuff.

I agree that this guy will probably be ok, but given that there is video and audio of this obvious self defense scenario, there shouldn't even be charges. I can't imagine what this would be like if the details weren't as clear (i.e. no video camera, man attacked in street, not home). Seems like someone could easily get jailed in canada for self defense unless they have huge pile of evidence to PROVE they were only acting in self defense, and even then you get charged...

 

[Ben86]

Seems like someone could easily get jailed in canada for self defense unless they have huge pile of evidence to PROVE they were only acting in self defense, and even then you get charged...

Funny, even though the state has the burden of proof for the supposed offense. He shouldn't have to prove self defense, they should have to prove that he willfully attempted to murder the firebombers without just cause. I doubt they have that so they should drop it.

 

[brickeyee]

Funny, even though the state has the burden of proof for the supposed offense. He shouldn't have to prove self defense, they should have to prove that he willfully attempted to murder the firebombers without just cause.

Self defense is an affirmative defense.

The shooter admits to willfully shooting someone (at least assault and possibly homicide) and THEN must show they acted within the law.

You MUST prove you acted within the law.


The state only needs to prove you fired the gun at someone.

 

[Ben86]

Maybe I've got it backwards, but I thought that the burden of proved rested with the accuser.

 

[Legionnaire]

I read about this elsewhere. We can hope that the rediculousness of the situation will result in changed laws. This seems like the kind of "poster" case that could provide the necessary leverage.

 

[pikid89]

good god...if thats not a clean cut case of self defense in canada...what is???

 

[razorback2003]

Those folks had the ability and motive and were trying to maim/kill with FIREBOMBS! That is NUTS that this guy is being treated as a criminal for defending himself from death/bodily harm from FIREBOMBS. I would assume the charges will be dropped or he will be aquitted at trial if this goes to a jury trial but that is nuts for a prosecutor to even prosecute. What a LOSER of a prosecutor to waste time. The little firebombers should be prosecuted and be front page news, not this man who was protecting himself. What a backward place with screwed up prosecutors. At least this man is alive and that is what matters most. In many places in the States these firebombers could have been killed and a prosecutor wouldn't have wasted time with the shooter, just said justifiable homicide, case closed, no charges.

 

[Ben86]

Those folks had the ability and motive and were trying to maim/kill with FIREBOMBS!

I know right, if threat of being maimed/killed by burning to death do to forced application of ignited flammable liquid isn't cause for lethal force, what is?

 

[Evergreen]

In Canada, if you are caught carrying a gun with you and use it in self-defense in an urban environment, I am told you can be put in prison for murder. Basically, the government of Canada supports criminals as they help keep the peasantry scared and helpless. A weak and helpless population entitles the leaders to more power and authority over the masses. The setup works very well. Only the crooked autocratic politicians and the deviant criminal population will be able to carry firearms and use them in defense or to perpetrate crimes.

 

[9mm+]

In Canada, if you are caught carrying a gun with you and use it in self-defense in an urban environment, I am told you can be put in prison for murder. Basically, the government of Canada supports criminals as they help keep the peasantry scared and helpless. A weak and helpless population entitles the leaders to more power and authority over the masses. The setup works very well. Only the crooked autocratic politicians and the deviant criminal population will be able to carry firearms and use them in defense or to perpetrate crimes.

Yet, the Canadians look at Americans as barbaric for using guns in self defense. As 1911Tuner said, they can join the Brits in their anti-gun "enlightenment".

 

[Colonel]

Basically, the government of Canada supports criminals as they help keep the peasantry scared and helpless. A weak and helpless population entitles the leaders to more power and authority over the masses. The setup works very well. Only the crooked autocratic politicians and the deviant criminal population will be able to carry firearms and use them in defense or to perpetrate crimes.

It's a pretty good scam.

Kinda like in Egypt, where the authorities busted open the prisons and set all those criminals loose on the population ... and then all the cops disappeared.

"Hey, the government might be corrupt and tyrannical ... but at least when they were in power we didn't have all these criminals tearing us to pieces ... gimme back Mubarak!"