Man charged for defending his home with a firearm In case there are some gun owners here, this should make you think twice before using you firearm to defend your family...as sad and ridiculous the story is. http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews...xmZfQ.like%22} "Protecting home and family with force is a risky move in Canada, the good guys are just as likely to be charged as the thugs. Ian Thomson was finally acquitted this week, after the judge ruled the former firearms instructor had no choice but to defend himself when attackers firebombed his rural Ontario home. Thomson has spent thousands defending himself. "I frankly don't know how I am going to come up with the rest of the money," Thomson told Sun News Network's Brian Lilley on Byline. Canada's justice system has a knack for punishing people for defending themselves and their property, often called "castle law." MORE: Court drops final charge against Ontario man who fired shots to protect his home under attack by firebombers Joseph and Marilyn Singleton of Taber, Alberta spent $30,000 in court. When the couple returned home in May 2010, thieves that had ransacked their house tried to drive through their garage door. Joe hit one of the thugs with an axe handle to keep him from running over Marilyn. The homeowner was charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm. Lawrence Manzer from Burton, New Brunswick was dragged through court after he was charged with possessing a weapon for a purpose dangerous to public peace. The former Canadian Forces soldier had carried an unloaded shot gun onto his neighbour's yard to help protect his property from vandals. The case was eventually thrown out on a technicality. And Toronto police famously charged shopkeeper David Chen and restaurant owner Naveen Polapady after they defended their properties from thieves. Chen was found not guilty and was the catalyst for the federal government to change Citizen Arrest laws. The Prime Minister is also awarding him the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal. The feds say they are trying to keep Canadians who defend themselves out of courts. "This is why we introduced and passed the Citizen's Arrest and Self-Defence Act," Sean Phelan, spokesman for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said in a statement to QMI. "This legislation provides clear direction on the use of citizen's arrest, self-defence and the defence of property. The fact is Canadians who have been the victim of a crime should not be re-victimized by the criminal justice system." The law allows Canadians to use "reasonable" force to make a citizen's arrest or defend themselves - but charges can still be laid and it's up to judges to decide what "reasonable" means." |
sun news network.... the fox news of canada... i dont know how that things able to exist in canada and he was acquitted how odd to be discussing the charge now instead of concentrating on his acquittal im more interested in the story of why was his house firebombed... |
Good on him for doing that and I would do the exact same thing. I would do anything to protect my house and family and if I have to make the decision between them or the other guy I wouldn't think twice with what I would have to do |
Meanwhile in America someone shoots a salesperson in the head because they "trespassed" and doesn't get charged or anything :derp: Posted via RS Mobile |
Quote:
There's a saying: "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." If someone comes into my home and poses a threat to my family, I wouldn't hesitate. Posted via RS Mobile |
Haven't heard that saying before but I really like it |
Quote:
Quote:
Thomson was charged for mishandling a firearm, not defending his home and family. If the firearm had been handled more responsibly, none of this would have happened. Why would you repeat the errors of Thompson, when a preferable alternative exists? Quote:
|
From the St. Catharine Standard, quite a different spin on it. Charges for careless discharge were dropped relatively quickly, but he had charges of 'unsafe storage of weapon and ammunition'. Timeline at the bottom for those who're interested. Quote:
|
But guys everyone with a gun wants to kill everyone all the time everywhere. Thats why they bought the gun :derp: |
@Mindbomber His charge for mishandling (storage of) a firearm was from setting it down on a table while waiting for authorities wasn't it? Or was there something else? I will admit that I am not super familiar with the event but everything I've read so far doesn't say how he was careless in using it. He did put it down with it loaded when he was waiting for authorities. But that would probably be the last thing on my mind when it's come to a point where I've had to discharge my firearm. Not trolling/ arguing. Just trying to get more info. |
Quote:
now that they're gone i should unload the gun, take the ammunition and store it back into its box and the gun back in the safe and then hide the key again while i wait for authorities to arrive. :badpokerface: i'm sure my neighbours wont come back with more firebombs or possibly their own guns. :concentrate: :troll: |
Quote:
Most people think that they will know what to do, but they don't, and end up fucking up when the police arrive. Do what you have to do, and then empty the gun and get it as far away from you as possible without throwing it in the trash, the police will need to seize it for evidence. The worst thing you can do is leave your own weapon loaded, near you when the police arrive, they don't know who you are, and they will take the same steps that you just took to defend themselves. Get out of your house and put your hands up, knees to the ground when the police come around. Your gun license isn't a badge, make it obvious that you aren't a threat or it'll bite you in the ass. |
Quote:
Quote:
The charges were based on a belief Thompson improperly stored firearms leading up to the event; the location of the firearms and ammunition in the home, and chain of events, as described by Thompson, himself, were the basis of the charges. If you read Thompson's description of the events, it comes across as very unnatural. It's goes something like, he heard the people, woke up, unlocked the case and trigger locks for two handguns, loaded them in the bedroom, put one down on the bed, carried the other outside (all in under one minute), shot three times, went back inside, repeated the earlier unlocking and loading in the kitchen, went outside, went back inside and put it down, put the first gun in his underwear, and started putting out the fire. I might not have that exactly correct, but that's the general idea. The Investigating Officer believed the series of events unfolded too quickly for Thompson to not have the guns unlocked, loaded, and stored around the house. The prosecutor also held the contention, Thompson improperly stored ammunition by keeping 61 rounds in his bedside table. The charges for discharging and pointing a firearm are standard, they have to do with use of force laws. In Canada, you're charged, and then prove to a Judge the force was within reasonable limits given the situation. Those charges were dropped quickly because they were deemed reasonable. Quote:
If the charges were based on having a loaded gun on hand while waiting for the authorities, I would think, that would be a crux of the case, and included in the article. |
Quote:
I'm just engaging in far, far left hyperbole to parody some of the attitudes I've seen towards gun ownership here on Revscene. |
Quote:
Hey, 2damaxMR2, miss your 'Fail' button? :fullofwin: Anyway, I see an apparent lesson in this case. One that is not firearms related. Be a good neighbor. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
There have been more incidents involving what I just mentioned than you might have imagined possible. Ask an officer, any officer, what he or she would do if they saw a man with a gun (or a gun near him) when they answer a call regarding violent intrusion/assault. Best not to take the chance. If you're talking about leaving your firearm loaded, but away from you, then you run the risk of being accused of improper handling. Go for it if that's your thing. --- I fail to see why you had to be so rude, this topic is up for discussion, but not for slander. If you want to talk about the merits and demerits of laying down your arms after an incident, I'll entertain it, but don't go calling people idiots for starting a valid (and rather serious) branch of discussion. |
Oh god...I hate gun laws. Just a very ugly area of the law. On one hand, you have: The United States :denied: Do not want anything like their obsession with being able to blow the masses away with a single pull of the trigger, sleeping with an uzi. On the other hand, you have Canada: The bad guys have guns...we have trigger locks and gun safes and bullets all locked so if you wake up to someone in your home, you are a good couple of minutes before you can go and defend it, and yourself. I've had people break into our house when we were asleep. And I'm going to tell you, I felt better when I heard the pump of my father's shot gun coming down the stairs. Then a little worry as I realized he'd be the type to shoot them. I like the freedom that guns entail, but not the issues of a gun friendly culture. I hate that guns are treated worse than crimes in Canada. But I don't know that I'd want to risk changing it. |
"the judge ruled the former firearms instructor had no choice but to defend himself when attackers firebombed his rural Ontario home. Thomson has spent thousands defending himself." So, based on what I have read, the judge said he was justified in what he did. The "unsafe storage" charges were not proven. "He was acquitted of the remaining improper storage charge after Justice Tory Colvin ruled Thomson kept his guns safely stored in a steel locker and that the ammunition, which was stored in his bedroom, was not readily accessible to the guns." His actions in getting hold of the guns wold not be difficult to do for a firearms instructor who is fully experienced in the handling of the guns. The crown did not prove he had broken any laws in the 'storage". Even if he had, the judge said he had no choice but to defend himself in the way he did. |
Quote:
I don't want them on my property sticking up the place or causing a raucous. If you see me eating some fried chicken, you know you dun-goofed and didn't keep what is yours under control. Seriously though. I WILL EAT YOUR CHICKENS. This is not a threat. It is a FACT. https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.n...50131404_o.jpg |
Quote:
|
Quote:
A few chickens wandering over the property line is a normal event, and certainly nothing to be concerned by happening. The neighbors dogs wander over to visit us all the time, and a few times their cows have gone wandering past our windows after breaking out. Thompson lived in the Country, but maybe he should have stayed in the City where big fences are the norm and livestock is not. |
if people get that upset about chickens crossing into your property imagine how upset natives were when the british came into north america. |
Quote:
Now we know what the outcome would be. You reading this apple guy? Posted via RS Mobile |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net