Self-defence in Canada

[Aardvark154]

In light of some previous threads I thought this article about a case in Port Colborne of interest.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...-acquits-man-who-defended-himself-with-a-gun/

 

[Celticman]

Thanks for posting this. The people behind these charges should be facing discipline.

 

[username999]

Typical Liberal political reasoning - of course it does not have to make sense but as long as Tyler Shuster feels better about having persued charges against a responsible gun owning citizen, it's all OK.

Just an FYI, you are not allowed to purchase a handgun in Canada if you tell the Firearms Center that you intend to use it for self defense.

 

[danmand]

In light of some previous threads I thought this article about a case in Port Colborne of interest.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...-acquits-man-who-defended-himself-with-a-gun/

I am proud that our policies are different from the ones in the US.

 

[fuji]

This was not a self defense case, it was a safe storage case, and it turned on the insanely poor and ambiguous wording in the act.

For years there have been long threads on gun forums of people, including lawyers, debating the meaning of that section. It is that unclear. There is a lot of other poor and ambiguous wording in the act as well.

I don't have any problem with the general idea of the safe storage law, but it needs to be rewritten to make it clear and simple.

Considering it is a criminal charge if you get it even slightly wrong firearms owners need clarity on what the law expects of them.

There is another issue here which is aggressive prosecution. The Ontario crown is flat out hostile to gun owners and takes almost any opportunity to lay a careless transport or storage law, taking advantage of the ambiguity. Then they try and plea deal down to a weapons prohibition. Most don't want to risk a criminal record or a lengthy trial as this guy did and wind up losing their guns.

The hostility towards law abiding owners using criminal law is really pretty offensive.

 

[guelph]

Question -- when he fired was there an immediate threat? The article seems to skirt around this.

 

[fuji]

Question -- when he fired was there an immediate threat? The article seems to skirt around this.

Yes. There were masked assailants throwing firebombs at his home. He had security cameras on his home after several previous incidents and had that on camera.

 

[Aardvark154]

I am proud that our policies are different from the ones in the US.

That's nice, but it has what to do with the points raised in the article?

 

[alex4you2]

This is clearly a case against people defending themselves. The Gun storage is just an excuse used by the crown to prosecute people who defend their life and home. Just look at the many cases where people get charged for defending themselves, whether there are guns involved or not.

Are you going to call 911 and wait until the police arrives (if they bother showing up at all)? Are you supposed to retreat and let your family be raped or murdered until the cops decide to show up? Are you supposed to just let people burglarize your home and let them take whatever they want?

This poor man's life is ruined, emotionally, economically, etc

We need castle doctrine

 

[katsrin]

Yes. There were masked assailants throwing firebombs at his home. He had security cameras on his home after several previous incidents and had that on camera.

Based on what I have read I think that neither side were absolute angels. Other articles have reported that the feud started in earnest when some livestock wandered onto Ian Thomson's property and he killed it.

 

[ooh-ya-more]

Based on what I have read I think that neither side were absolute angels. Other articles have reported that the feud started in earnest when some livestock wandered onto Ian Thomson's property and he killed it.

True enough. But that doesn't give them the right to burn his house down. He could have perished in the flames himself. Not sure what they were charged with but I would add attempted murder as well. I'm not sure but if someone does die in an arson created fire are they also charged with homicide?

 

[oldjones]

This is clearly a case against people defending themselves. The Gun storage is just an excuse used by the crown to prosecute people who defend their life and home. Just look at the many cases where people get charged for defending themselves, whether there are guns involved or not.

Are you going to call 911 and wait until the police arrives (if they bother showing up at all)? Are you supposed to retreat and let your family be raped or murdered until the cops decide to show up? Are you supposed to just let people burglarize your home and let them take whatever they want?

This poor man's life is ruined, emotionally, economically, etc

We need castle doctrine

No we don't. We need fewer people committing crimes—like arson, or taking the 'law' into their own hands when threatened—and more and better police to stop them and to protect us. What else are we paying taxes for, if not that?

 

[rld]

What a strange article. It does not name the judge, or the crown involved.

 

[ooh-ya-more]

No we don't. We need fewer people committing crimes—like arson, or taking the 'law' into their own hands when threatened—and more and better police to stop them and to protect us. What else are we paying taxes for, if not that?

Not everyone lives within minutes of police protection. And alot can happen within a few short minutes.

 

[fuji]

No we don't. We need fewer people committing crimes—like arson, or taking the 'law' into their own hands when threatened—and more and better police to stop them and to protect us. What else are we paying taxes for, if not that?

Sure. In the meantime, there were four masked men trying to burn down a house, and his family were inside that house. Would you have stood waiting for the police? I bet you would have used whatever means were at your disposal to try and chase the attackers away before they killed your kids. I think anyone would. He happened to have a firearm at his disposal.

 

[rhuarc29]

Why was the crown so intent on pursuing this? I don't get it. So what if the guns were still outside their proper storage areas when police arrived? He had just been using them to scare away his attackers and probably feared they would return.

 

[r_s426]

As the saying goes, "it's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

Kudos to the judge for making the proper decision. The person in the crown's office that decided to go ahead with this case should really have their head examined. The "careless use of a firearm" and the "pointing a firearm" are the very things which stopped the attack (for which the assailants had already been convicted.)

 

[katsrin]

True enough. But that doesn't give them the right to burn his house down. He could have perished in the flames himself. Not sure what they were charged with but I would add attempted murder as well. I'm not sure but if someone does die in an arson created fire are they also charged with homicide?

True enough on your first point. I don't know enough about the details of the story to have an opinion on the charges.

I do have a feeling, though, (and this was the point I was alluding to before but didn't feel like coming right out and saying at the time) that many who support Thomson shooting at the firebombers now would have been among the first to support those people had they not firebombed, but instead fired their own guns at Thomson in order to stop him when he was killing their livestock. Well, certainly I think that would be the case down south. I think the whole thing is messed up, and certainly more complicated than most articles make it seem.

 

[destillat]

True enough on your first point. I don't know enough about the details of the story to have an opinion on the charges.

I do have a feeling, though, (and this was the point I was alluding to before but didn't feel like coming right out and saying at the time) that many who support Thomson shooting at the firebombers now would have been among the first to support those people had they not firebombed, but instead fired their own guns at Thomson in order to stop him when he was killing their livestock. Well, certainly I think that would be the case down south. I think the whole thing is messed up, and certainly more complicated than most articles make it seem.

you are comparing the life of livestock being threatened to the lives of a family of humans being threatened?

 

[fuji]

True enough on your first point. I don't know enough about the details of the story to have an opinion on the charges.

I do have a feeling, though, (and this was the point I was alluding to before but didn't feel like coming right out and saying at the time) that many who support Thomson shooting at the firebombers now would have been among the first to support those people had they not firebombed, but instead fired their own guns at Thomson in order to stop him when he was killing their livestock. Well, certainly I think that would be the case down south. I think the whole thing is messed up, and certainly more complicated than most articles make it seem.

Gun owners as a group tend to take a dim view of criminal acts. Maybe something about being the only club in Canada where membership requires you to have lived a life free of crime.