Home defence laws changed, this man is an example

[revelations]

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/charges+dropped+against+Ontario+self+defender/4380391/story.html


In a move that acknowledges the difficulty of prosecuting people who feel forced to act in self-defence, Crown attorneys have dropped two gun charges against an Ontario man who shot at masked intruders firebombing his home, saying they had no “reasonable prospect of conviction.”

The rules around self-defence in Canada are “complex,” prosecutors said, and courts have “repeatedly” established that victims can’t be expected to thoughtfully examine all consequences of using deadly force while under attack.

“Because each case is unique, with widely diverse and sometimes contradictory evidence, no broad policy statement is intended with respect to the use of firearms in the defence of one’s home,” the Crown brief says.

According to a written submission from the Crown, Ian Thomson awoke early on a Sunday morning last August to find three masked men firebombing his Port Colbourne home, yelling “are you ready to die” in what the Crown called a “neighbour dispute that has been simmering for several years and has now boiled over.”

Prosecutors say Mr. Thomson, 53, grabbed a .38 handgun and ran out his front door, firing three shots toward the arsonists, who ran off uninjured. Four men face arson charges in the firebombing.

Police charged Mr. Thomson with four gun offences, but on Wednesday, Crown prosecutors withdrew the most serious charges of pointing and using a firearm.

He hailed the Crown’s decision to drop the charges as a victory, but said he is still determined to fight two remaining charges of careless storage of a firearm, which carry a maximum penalty of jail time.

“I’m grateful that the Crown has come to reason and seen the folly of their ways,” he said. “But I look at these as being false and spurious charges that were laid against me, all of them. The fact that they’ve removed two of them is positive, but it’s not over yet.”

Mr. Thomson’s lawyer decried what he said was an “epidemic” of police targeting legal gun owners who use their firearms to defend themselves and their property, cases he said are too often used to test the legal boundaries of self-defence when they shouldn’t have been laid at all.

“I keep seeing these kinds of charges on an almost daily basis,” said Edward Burlew. “They constantly seem to be want to test the waters by laying charges that don’t have any substantiation, especially with respect to firearms. It seems to be an epidemic.”

Mr. Thomson’s case, in which charges were laid and then later dropped, is one of “maybe 100 cases that I have at home just like this,” said Lawrence Manzer, a New Brunswick man facing firearm charges after he used an unloaded shotgun to scare off three teenagers prowling through his backyard last March. “Every one of these shows there is something inherently wrong with the Criminal Code or the way the police interpret it.”

A spate of high-profile charges against people defending their homes and businesses from criminals prompted the federal government to introduce changes last month to the Criminal Code that would broaden Canada’s citizen’s arrest and self-defence laws.

“Canadians who have been the victim of a crime should not be re-victimized by the criminal justice system,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on one of two visits with David Chen, the Toronto grocer who was acquitted on charges he tied up a repeat shoplifter. But some legal experts and even gun proponents say that self-defence is often a complicated legal question that must be answered by the courts, even if many of the charges are eventually dropped or dismissed.

“It seems in some sense to violate common sense, but self-defence is a morally ambiguous situation and therefore a legally ambiguous situation,” said Gary Mauser, a firearms supporter and professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University in B.C. who studies gun control legislation.

“In political science, one of the definitions of government is an entity that arrogates to itself the use of deadly force. If citizens go around killing each other, that’s questionable as a reasonable use of force just on political science grounds.”

Self-defence charges are among most complex legal cases and the most difficult for the Crown to win, said Andrew Barbacki, a Montreal defence attorney and former Crown prosecutor who lectures on criminal procedure at McGill University.

“It seems very straightforward, but when you get into the law it’s quite technical and not easy to sort out,” he said. “Ultimately to say what’s reasonable and not reasonable is a judicial function. I don’t think it’s a bad thing in case of doubt whether there has been a legitimate use of force to charge someone and let a person defend themselves. It just depends on how clear-cut it is, but in law there’s nothing much that is clear cut.”

The Conservatives’ proposed Criminal Code changes reflect existing case law on self-defence, Mr. Mauser said, and are unlikely to change how often people who ward off criminal with firearms find themselves before the courts.

“There’s a basic difference between the law and the application of the law, so I doubt that the changes will have any impact on the courts and their interpretations,” he said. “Courts and lawyers talk to themselves and they do not accept much political direction.”

[Shlade]

finding a reasonable use of force so you dont get in shit when defending yourself is really tough.

Depending on the circumstance if a guy enters my property and I see him and he starts swinging a knife at my he has the intent of using deadly force on me to which I can retaliate and do the same without getting in shit. Im basically defending my self no?But if hes trying to run away and I shoot him or beat him with a baseball bat ive used exessive force and I can get in shit.

Self defense is in your home is deffs a area to watch. I suppose if you dont know something about law you probably should not try and point a gun at somebody or fire off shots if they are running away. This is Canada... Not Texas.

Interesting article none the less tho. I dont know what Id do if somebody tried firebombing my house lol. Probably call CPS and CFD and tell them to get here asap and do something about the clowns before I do. Watch how fast they get here then haha

[dexlargo]

The self defence law in the Criminal Code is short, but confusing. It's a good thing that it's being changed. Here is the text of the Bill as it currently stands - the first part with the columns on the right, is the law as it is currently written, followed by the proposed changes: Bill C-60 (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-60_1&File=30)

Here is the proposed new text for self-defence in the criminal code (see link for text of defence of property and changes to citizen's arrest):

Defence — use or threat of force

34. (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

Factors

(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court may consider, among other factors,

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

(c) the person’s role in the incident;

(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

(e) the size, age and gender of the parties to the incident;

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

No defence

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully. So, there won't be different rules anymore where someone kills in self-defence, there aren't confusing rules about where a person starts a fight, then acts in self defence when the fight escalates, and the bottom line will be: in the circumstances, was the force used reasonable?

Still not perfect, but a big improvement in my opinion

[Supa Dexta]

Bury em deep!

[Kloubek]

Wow... I'm not sure I've ever felt the need to support a bill so strongly. Go C60!!!!!

Seriously - if someone breaks into my home at night and I feel threatened, there is no good reason I should fear getting thrown in jail for defending myself, my family, and my home. That's just silly, and if we lived in a more violent society it would be resulting in a lot of innocent people getting criminal records for no just reason.

Luckily, we live in a pretty safe and respecting country, and incidents like that rarely happen. But even once is enough.

Glad to hear the guy got off the hook for shooting at these people. He should have every right to do so if they are threatening his person and property with weapons. (And firebombs ARE weapons, imo) The only concern I have is a question of whether he put other neighbors in harm's way in doing so. In Kincora, the houses are packed pretty closely together and if I started shooting at someone I would fear hitting a nearby house if I wasn't careful. And let's face it - in the heat of the moment, it is easy not to be careful...

[Tomaz]

This is much better for defending parties involved in a crime. I found it absurd a criminal had more rights in your property than yourself.



Originally posted by Supa Dexta
Bury em deep!

Hahaha. In the words of Ralph Klein: Dig a hole and shut up.



Originally posted by Kloubek
Wow... I'm not sure I've ever felt the need to support a bill so strongly. Go C60!!!!!

Seriously - if someone breaks into my home at night and I feel threatened, there is no good reason I should fear getting thrown in jail for defending myself, my family, and my home. That's just silly, and if we lived in a more violent society it would be resulting in a lot of innocent people getting criminal records for no just reason.

...

Glad to hear the guy got off the hook for shooting at these people. He should have every right to do so if they are threatening his person and property with weapons. (And firebombs ARE weapons, imo) The only concern I have is a question of whether he put other neighbors in harm's way in doing so. In Kincora, the houses are packed pretty closely together and if I started shooting at someone I would fear hitting a nearby house if I wasn't careful. And let's face it - in the heat of the moment, it is easy not to be careful...

I am in full support. I am curious how this will play out in court if/when the bill passes (the words changed, but the charges stayed the same). I am also curious what other consequences would be placed once an incident has occurred. If you you needed to utilize a firearm, would you lose the right to possess firearms? Is it still going to have the same results in criminal charges if the court is filled with "he said, she said" cases?

I am glad he is now off the hook also. I am still amazed he is still being charged with storage infractions. I couldn't find any information on how he stored the firearm, but I guess only the courts can decide if what he did was lawful.

One should always be very aware of bullet placement. Even shooting a .22LR is very dangerous up to 1.5 miles. A person must be aware of this seeing he still could have easily hurt someone else without any intention to do so. I become more and more thankful I live where I do as I can see anybody come from miles away. The most collateral damage that can happen would be to a tree! lol

[broken_legs]

Even shooting a .22LR is very dangerous up to 1.5 miles.


Really? If you can get a .22LR to travel 1.5 miles I will give you 1,000,000 dollars right now. (no you can't shoot it at the ground from 1.5 miles in the air lol)

http://www.gunsmoke.com/guns/1022/images/22hv_plot.gif

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by Tomaz
I am still amazed he is still being charged with storage infractions. I couldn't find any information on how he stored the firearm, but I guess only the courts can decide if what he did was lawful.

Well, like you said - we don't have that information. If it can be proven that he stored the pistol against government regulations, then I am not against him being prosecuted accordingly.

[ZenOps]

Its simple. In Canada you aim for the knees. In the US you aim for the head.

[mazdavirgin]

Prosecutors say Mr. Thomson, 53, grabbed a .38 handgun and ran out his front door, firing three shots toward the arsonists, who ran off uninjured. Four men face arson charges in the firebombing.


Doesn't sound like self defense to me... He ran outside and took pot shots at people who were running away. That sounds more like he was pissed off and trying to kill them. I wonder too at how people would have received this if he had accidentally shot someone in a neighboring house.

[Tomaz]

Originally posted by broken_legs


Really? If you can get a .22LR to travel 1.5 miles I will give you 1,000,000 dollars right now. (no you can't shoot it at the ground from 1.5 miles in the air lol)

http://www.gunsmoke.com/guns/1022/images/22hv_plot.gif

How about straight into the air, total distance traveled before hitting the ground... lol

If I could look up the Federal Premium box info from work, I would show you the warning. I am sure they exaggerate the warning on the box for legal reasons, but the warning does state:

WARNING Dangerous up to 1.5 Miles :dunno:

Also, that chart seems to be a bit off. I can pull off 1" groupings at 100 yards, and 4" at 200 yards. anything after 150 is getting pretty dicey.

Just stating the info I know. I am not a marksman, so i don't know the numbers off the top of my head.

Range isn't the main concern here anyway, it is the fact bullets travel far, and fast. Just like in the news the other day talking about the idiot who was cleaning his gun and shot through his house, the neighbors house, into a TV. Some due diligence before firearms are used is needed.

[Ven]

As a reasonable person I would never want to kill a person unless I absolutely believed if I didn't then I would die. Essentially I'll do whatever it takes not to take a life. Regardless of that person's current history/problems they are someones child. However, should that point come I want the law to support what should be my right to defend myself with possible deadly force.

Complex law, where do you draw the line. You'd have guys with large caliber firearms standing on his porch sending bullets through 25 houses down the block trying to shoot some punk kid who decided to run away. I think a criminals rights have mostly expired once they entered you dwelling unwelcomed, but the rights of those around you need to be recognized.

Personally I think everyone needs a 14" barrel pump filled with birdshot, or rock salt for defending person and property and the permissions to use it as such.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by Tomaz


How about straight into the air, total distance traveled before hitting the ground... lol


I don't think that would work either.

Any physics PHDs want to work this out?

At 400 yards your velocity has been cut in half (thats shooting horizontally) from over 1000 ft/s to 500 ft/s.

Now if you add in the acceleration of gravity, im sure it would actually be much less if not close to zero before you hit half a mile - but i could be wrong too.

You're right .22lr is dangerous, but getting one out to 1.5 miles would be quite the feat considering the balistics - Maybe if you shot it off Mt everest or something lol.

[Kloubek]

I don't think anyone (so far) advocates wide-open laws for using guns as you please.

For example: I think most of us would agree that shooting someone in the back while they are fleeing the scene is unappropriate. But then, even with the laws as they are suggested to be rewritten above would not absolve someone from punishment if they were to do something like that.

I too would *not* want to live the rest of my life knowing that I killed someone. However, if you are posing as a life-threatening danger to me, in my own house, you're going down. Simple as that. And I strongly believe it should be in my right to do so without fear of being thrown in prison.

[CMW403]

Even shooting a .22LR is very dangerous up to 1.5 miles.

Yeah... no. I'd say half that. 7.62 FMJ out of my 858 on the other hand...

Regardless, I can see your point. One has to be careful even firing a .22LR within city limits.

[l/l/rX]

IMO I don't see this act of self defense any different than gangsters shooting at each other in public. I don't know how his neighbourhood is laid out but I'm assuming there are people living across the street, the article states that it was a sunday morning in the summer. What if the family (assumption) across the street just opened their garage door to go to church or do some sort of family activity, kids are usually the first ones out running to the car.

He left his front door to his deck, aimlessly shot at the arsonists, all 3 shots were stray bullets, those 3 bullets could of easily struck an innocent.

Now if the arsonists entered his home and he fired shots inside his house, I'd be fine with that, higher chance of the bullets getting lodged in a wall and not leaving his house.

Flame on if you don't agree with me, but thats my POV.

Edit: Once he left his front door, he made it unsafe for the public.

[Phenix]

Originally posted by ZenOps
Its simple. In Canada you aim for the knees. In the US you aim for the head.

or just shoot them in the leg a little higher, oh oh there's a major artery, all done.

[Tomaz]

Originally posted by broken_legs


I don't think that would work either.

Any physics PHDs want to work this out?

At 400 yards your velocity has been cut in half (thats shooting horizontally) from over 1000 ft/s to 500 ft/s.

Now if you add in the acceleration of gravity, im sure it would actually be much less if not close to zero before you hit half a mile - but i could be wrong too.

You're right .22lr is dangerous, but getting one out to 1.5 miles would be quite the feat considering the balistics - Maybe if you shot it off Mt everest or something lol.

You need to clear you PMs

I didn't want to fill up the thread with irrelevant information, but here are the limited quotes and links I have obtained at work.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Long_Rifle


...a standard .22 cartridge can have a ballistic range of up to a 1.5 miles (2,400 m).

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-346871.html


22LR ballistic calcs place a 45° positive angled shot (max range artillery style) around 1.5 miles

Everything else I could find would only tell me effective range of 200 yards, which I agree with.

The chart that you posted was regarding the point blank range of a .22LR. Here is a ballistic chart showing the trajectories of many types of bullets which correlates closer to what you had posted. Note this chat does not show the maximum range.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_trajectory_table.htm


So, I take cash or certified cheque. lol

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by Tomaz


You need to clear you PMs

I didn't want to fill up the thread with irrelevant information, but here are the limited quotes and links I have obtained at work.


http://www.newsinferno.com/wp-includes/images/Train-Derail-3.jpg




Maybe in a vacuum tube!

Meet me at the range... I need proof. ;)

[Mibz]

(e) the size, age and gender of the parties to the incident; Women are the weaker sex. Lawyered.

[revelations]

Dexlargo might have more insight into this..... please correct me if I am wrong here..


Judges in different municipalities face different pressues when issuing a conviction.

For example, a judge in Vancouver (liberal hippy land) might have thrown a book at this individual for shooting because they want to set an example for others and because there is pressure from a lobby group or local politicians or even the media.

Whereas a judge in hickland AB, knowing that he wont generate nearly the amount of fanfare, might drop all the crown charges.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


Doesn't sound like self defense to me... He ran outside and took pot shots at people who were running away. That sounds more like he was pissed off and trying to kill them. I wonder too at how people would have received this if he had accidentally shot someone in a neighboring house.

I was listening to this on Adler awhile back and, if I recall correctly, the homeowner is a certified firearms instructor and competitive shooter. I believe that had he any intention whatsoever of hitting them, they would likely be dead. Further to that, I believe his statements were more toward the fact he fired the shots in the air (intentionally well overhead).

A perfectly reasonable response to someone firebombing my house imo...

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE

A perfectly reasonable response to someone firebombing my house imo...

I just picture somebody saying this calmly and matter-of-factualy and it makes me laugh.

"Ya know, in my opinion a perfectly reasonable response to somebody FIREBOMBING my HOUSE would be shooting a gun in the air".

To say that with a straight face would be epic, rather than "I'm going to KILL those b*&tards!"

[Hamann]

From the Article's I've read about this he ran to his safe and took the pistol out and loaded it. The explaination for this is pretty straight forward, he got woke up by an unknown number of individual's throwing moltov cocktails at his house and yelling crap at him. So he got the Pistol and loaded it for his protection, unsure of how many people were outside he needed something to protect himself when he exited his house. This is understandable, if people are trying to kill you (Throwing Fire Bomb's at someone's house while they are inside is attempted murder, fuck what anyone say's, that's a blatant attempt on someone's life) without some form of protection what's to stop them from grabbing you when you run out or throwing the moltov's right at you etc.

When he exited his house he fired 2 or 3 warning shot's, he's a retired firearms Instructor or something like that, if he wanted to hit them he would of. The attacker's ran away.

There is a video on Youtube of the attack, the guy had security camera's all over because of numerous problems with his neighbour. It's also on an acreage or something like that, not in a city community.

[CUG]

How could anyone have voted else wise? Props to Harper :thumbsup:

[broken_legs]

WRVrN3lcumA



Unsafe storage for having guns loaded after the attack when police arrived...

[G-Suede]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
Doesn't sound like self defense to me... He ran outside and took pot shots at people who were running away. That sounds more like he was pissed off and trying to kill them.

Is reading that much of a challenge for you?


Prosecutors say Mr. Thomson, 53, grabbed a .38 handgun and ran out his front door, firing three shots toward the arsonists, who ran off uninjured. Four men face arson charges in the firebombing.

[calgary403]

Originally posted by broken_legs
WRVrN3lcumA



Unsafe storage for having guns loaded after the attack when police arrived...

I wonder if Mr. Thomson was himself an officer if he would have still been charged..

[TorqueDog]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
Doesn't sound like self defense to me... He ran outside and took pot shots at people who were running away. That sounds more like he was pissed off and trying to kill them. I wonder too at how people would have received this if he had accidentally shot someone in a neighboring house. ... holy shit. :facepalm:

You don't think they started running away after he fired the shots? They were firebombing his house and made it known they intended to kill him. That easily qualifies as self-defense.

[SJW]

My version of self defence involves dead firebombers.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by G-Suede


Is reading that much of a challenge for you?



Just because someone is a poor shot doesn't mean the intent wasn't there. I don't care if the video says he intended to miss since that's the guys lawyer so of course he intended to miss :rofl: Plus who are you to say it's ok to run out your front door and start taking pot shots in the middle of a town?

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


Just because someone is a poor shot doesn't mean the intent wasn't there. I don't care if the video says he intended to miss since that's the guys lawyer so of course he intended to miss :rofl: Plus who are you to say it's ok to run out your front door and start taking pot shots in the middle of a town?

1. It's an acreage.

2. He was being firebombed.

3. It was the middle of the night and people were trying to KILL HIM.

Even if he was shooting at the people trying to KILL HIM, how can you find fault in what he did? What should he have done? Stood there and taken a molotov cocktail to face? Run away into the woods and let them burn down his house and kill his dogs? Yell at them to leave and hope they play nice instead of trying to KILL HIM?

Note that the police are only charging him with 'unsafe storage of a firearm' which only has to do with how the gun was stored AFTER the attack because he didnt put it away properly.

[G-Suede]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


Just because someone is a poor shot doesn't mean the intent wasn't there. I don't care if the video says he intended to miss since that's the guys lawyer so of course he intended to miss :rofl: Plus who are you to say it's ok to run out your front door and start taking pot shots in the middle of a town?

You still don't get it do you? Go back to school and learn to read, dimwit.

[Sky]

Just remember to unload your firearm, properly locked and lock up your ammunition before police arrives.

Problem is, there could be more attacks even after firing warning shots to scare off the initial attack. Just be quick to secure your firearms when police arrives.

The thing is, anyone from anywhere can face life threatening situations. I know it's quite rare in where we live but IT CAN HAPPEN. If your life or loved ones is threatened, wouldn't you wish you had a gun? Just an example, home invasion and robberies, you hear it all the time, how can you predict what these criminals will do to you and your family? especially when they're on drugs and tripped up.

When it does happen, it can be too late for police to arrive. Oh well, wish every law-abiding citizen will never have to experience such life threatening situations. If they do, good luck hope for the best.

[Shax]

I think this guy was completely within his rights to do this, I don't agree with the fact that he is being charged at all but I can understand it. However, I would think it fully reasonable that if he announced he had a live weapon in the vicinity for protection to the police, that be sufficient for him to not be charged. Too bad he most likely didn't do that.

That is why I disagree so much with the laws we have in place over self defense. In what kind of sane world can I defend myself from a murderer who was trying to fully well kill me and get sued? It's absolute nonsense that if someone were to break into my house and rape and murder my family that the only REAL safeguard to defense is to aim for the knees.

This country is set up in favor for the criminals when it comes to things like this. They can break into my house with intent to kill and rob me, get hit in the head with my bat and than sue me for excessive use of force. It's a win win for them! Maybe I should start robbing people, make a real good living.

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by revelations
Dexlargo might have more insight into this..... please correct me if I am wrong here..


Judges in different municipalities face different pressues when issuing a conviction.

For example, a judge in Vancouver (liberal hippy land) might have thrown a book at this individual for shooting because they want to set an example for others and because there is pressure from a lobby group or local politicians or even the media.

Whereas a judge in hickland AB, knowing that he wont generate nearly the amount of fanfare, might drop all the crown charges. Yes, that's possible, but it's not supposed to happen that way.

Judges aren't supposed to be influenced by lobby groups or politicians or the media - just by the law and the previous decisions of the courts.

That said, they're human beings and, even subconciously, it's likely that some of those factors influence their decisions, as well as their own personal views/biases.

Moreover, being humans, there are some judges with agendas that do what they feel like, regardless of what has been done before or how the law has previously been interpreted. Those judges often end up being appealed, but sometimes they also force changes to the law.

[CUG]

A 22LR round is only dropping 5" at 100 yards. That's not bad actually, it's still hauling ass though.