Yeah let's have gun laws like Canada - Defend your home from firebombers & be charged

[RamboLiberal]

On the face of it, Ian Thomson should never have been charged.

Thomson was attacked by three men throwing firebombs at his Niagara-area house last August. The 53-year-old former firearms instructor says he went and got one of his pistols and fired shots over the heads of the attackers and they ran off.

The whole event was caught by Thomson on his own security cameras. At least six firebombs were thrown at his property, including his dog house, but when he handed the tapes over to Niagara Regional Police, Thomson himself was treated as a criminal.

On Wednesday, the charges of careless use of a firearm and pointing a firearm were dropped, but two counts of careless storage of a firearm remain.

"We thank the Crown for its consideration," said Thomson's lawyer, Ed Burlew, as he left the courthouse.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/brian_lilley/2011/03/03/17487181.html

Security camera video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dyiqCkgGDCQ

Crown attorneys in Ontario have dropped two criminal charges laid against Port Colborne resident Ian Thomson. Mr. Thomson, who had been involved in a years-long dispute with a neighbour, was attacked at dawn one morning by masked men shouting death threats and hurling Molotov cocktails at his house. Fortunately neither he nor his home was harmed, likely due to the fact that Mr. Thomson, a former firearms instructor, confronted his attackers with a .38-calibre revolver, driving them off with several warning shots, none of which caused any injury.

Four men were arrested and face arson charges (why the Crown did not press charges for attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon remains a mystery). When police arrived at the scene, they entered the house, saw the revolver and another pistol that was not fired during the incident, and arrested Mr. Thomson. They charged him with pointing a firearm, careless use of a firearm and two counts of careless storage of a firearm. On Wednesday, the Crown, citing little likelihood of conviction, withdrew the more serious charges of pointing and careless use of a firearm, but the two careless storage charges remain.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/04/matt-gurney-laying-legal-traps-for-lawful-gun-owners/

Strangers travel to support homeowner facing gun charges

WELLAND — "Drop the charges against Ian Thomson. Charge criminals instead!"

Though that was the only sign held up at a peaceful protest in front of the Welland courthouse Wednesday, it was a message shared by more than 20 people who gathered in support of the Port Colborne man.

-----

"I think this is a gross violation of the principles of Canadian law. It's outrageous," said the Hamilton resident.

Varey believed Thomson "deserves the support of the community," which is why he made the trek to Welland.

Thomson did "nothing that any of us under the same circumstances wouldn't hesitate to do," he said.

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3002565

Yup - just what some here would like to see happen. Guess instead he should've brought them marshmellows.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

2. In most if not all US states, shooting AT the attackers would have been justifiable

As it should be.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Most locales in the US would have had no problem with it, though DC, Bloomieville and Daleytown

and some others might have put the victim through the ringer.

[Callisto32]

5. I can't imagine anywhere that shooting at firebombers would get you charged...oh wait...

Canada...

I guess this is "common sense gun laws" at work.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

22. Your 2A rights do not trump my 9A & 10A rights to throw firebombs around.

My 9th and 10th amendment rights give me the freedom to light things on fire and be free of your high capacity WMDs. Why don't you support the WHOLE Bill of Rights - my 9th and 10th amendment rights!
Ban 'em all.

yup

:crazy:

[slackmaster]

27. YUP YUP YUP

:rofl:

[krispos42]

4. In Canada, nobody uses a firearm for self-defense

If you do use a firearm for self-defense, you have de facto violated laws on safe storage and are thus also a criminal.


And, look, since nobody in Canada every uses a firearm in self-defense, then obviously there's no demand to change the laws. And so it goes.

[iverglas]

37. is this, like, USAmerican logic?

And, look, since nobody in Canada <ever> uses a firearm in self-defense, then obviously there's no demand to change the laws.

Not following that equation, myself.

Interesting, though, how nobody in Canada uses a firearm in self-defence ... and we have all lived to tell that tale.

Why, if we were to listen to ... Gary ... oh, isn't it wonderful? Stay outa here for a few months and I can't even remember his name! ... Kleck, that's it. If we listened to Gary Kleck, we'd know that a few hundred thousand of us, at least, would have been murdered in the last decade for want of firearms to defend ourselves with.

Obviously there's some huge government cover-up going on here. Canadians are dropping like flies, and the media have been hushing it up. Even the National Post! Yes, don't think I didn't notice where the opinions in the OP were coming from.

:rofl:

Anyhow, Canadians don't use firearms in self-defence, and Canadians have no desire to see the laws governing firearm use changed. Both statements are true.

I'm just not seeing the causal connection there ...

[Remmah2]

6. The whole situation defies logic. nt

nt

[Euromutt]

7. So if I understand correctly, the Canadian definition of "careless storage"...

... is that you yourself are able to get to your own firearm.

I understand that, essentially, the authorities want to charge the guy with something, and this is the best they can do, but that is the logical upshot of charging the guy with "careless storage."

[Euromutt]

16. More importantly, this case highlights the most pernicious form of gun control

The ideas that firearm owners need to be licensed and/or their guns registered with the government bears no comparison to the idea that using a firearm to defend one's own life is fundamentally an illegitimate act, which must be punished. That is just something I cannot wrap my head around: how you can advocate that someone deserves to be punished for defending himself with the most effective means at his disposal.

[WatsonT]

25. Lovely catch-22

You can have guns so long as you can't actually get at them.

[iverglas]

41. perfect arrangement, actually

You may have firearms as long as, when not in use, they are stored safely and securely.

Leaving one lying around in case you happen to "need" it for something is not equal to storing it safely and securely.

Really very simple.

I wouldn't have been surprised if the yobs doing the firebombing had instead, or in addition, broken into the house to get the guns. As I recall, that's actually what was happening when that psycopathic bigot in the UK shot the kid burglar in the back and killed him.

Now there's the theatre of the absurd element in these things. You keep guns lying around your house in case you need them ... to ward off the people breaking into your house to steal your guns ...

[spin]

8. If I were a violent criminal, I would move to Canada ...

obviously the work environment for robbers and thieves is far better.

Criminals hate armed civilians who can legally use their weapons for self defense. Castle doctrine and Stand Your Ground law is proactive and enabling.

As of the 28th of May, 2010, 31 States have some form of Castle Doctrine and/or Stand Your Ground law. Alabama,<9> Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island,<10> South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,<11> West Virginia and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Montana, Nebraska,<12> New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

[VoteProgressive]

9. I think if you were a murderer the USA would still be your best bet. We seems to beat Canada in....

in that category easily. Maybe your prediction is the USA will reduce the murder rate below the UK and Canada shortly. We will see.

[spin]

10. If I were a murderer, I would not want to attack an armed victim ...

therefore Canada would be the better choice for me.

[VoteProgressive]

14. The murders in this country have not learned that yet I guess.

[spin]

17. The violent crime rate is down significantly since "shall issue" concealed carry ...

and castle doctrine laws became common. There is a possibility that the bad guys have indeed learned that citizens are much more able to defend themselves than they were in the past. This may have led them to change the nature of their crime to a far less confrontational approach.

Of course, there are MANY factors that might have caused the drop in the violent crime rate.

[VoteProgressive]

18. I have wondered if CCW will help home invasions much.....

as people have always had their shotguns and pistols at home and could use them if needed. I understand the stand your ground part making them worried.

I can see a street robbery being impacted by CCW.

[spin]

20. CCW would have little effect on home invasions ...

the only way I can see that happening is if a criminal watches the news and hears of an incident in which a victim on the street turned the tables on his attacker. The criminal might decide not to invade an occupied home because of the danger that armed citizens pose and to wait until the homeowners were absent.

While humorous, these two videos do a good job of summing the situation up from the criminal's viewpoint.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsKzdKNAmo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPwZeWOZ8JU&feature=related

[iverglas]

39. if you were a murderer

then, as you know perfectly well, you would most likely be attacking a member of your immediate family.

If you have murdered someone else in the US, the odds are fairly good that you did it in the course of an armed robbery.

Interesting how the odds of a robbery ending in death in Canada are a fraction of the odds in the US ... where the odds of the victim of the robbery having a firearm on their person are presumably higher.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/comp-eng.htm

A greater proportion of robberies in the United States involve firearms. For 1987-96, 38% of robberies in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 25% in Canada. Furthermore, the proportion of robberies involving firearms shows an increasing trend in the U.S. (from 33% in 1987 to 41% in 1996), compared to a decreasing trend in Canada (from 26% in 1987 to 21% in 1996).

Firearm robbery rates are 3.5 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm robbery rate was 91 per 100,000 <population> in the U.S., compared to 26 per 100,000 in Canada.

My understanding would actually be that if a homicide occurs in the course of a robbery, the crime is counted as a homicide and not a robbery, so the figure for the US, where homicide in the course of a robbery is more common, would in fact be an understatement as compared to the figure for Canada.

I like statistics.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100325/dq100325b-eng.htm

2008

The nature and extent of robberies, as reported to police, has changed during the past decade. Commercial robberies have declined, while robberies occurring in residences and public transit facilities have increased. Firearms were used in 14% of robberies in 2008, compared with 20% a decade earlier.

Canadian police services reported about 32,000 incidents of robbery in 2008, accounting for 7% of all violent crimes. The police-reported rate of robbery was down 10% from 1999, although most of this decline occurred between 1999 and 2002.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/1998/wd98_4-dt98_4/p57.html

Researchers have noted an increase in the criminal use of restricted firearms in other countries, including England and Wales (Mayhew, 1996: 4). In the United States, offenders use handguns in nearly 80 percent of the robbery cases for which the type of weapon is known (Goetting, 1995: 158).

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/1998/wd98_4-dt98_4/p57.html

Some robberies result in murder. Between 1961 and 1990, 31 percent of robberies turned into homicides as criminals who set out to steal or rob someone ended up shooting their victims. Victims of fatal robberies were beaten in 30 percent of cases and stabbed 27 percent of the time. When a firearm was used, it was a handgun in almost half of the cases (Silverman and Kennedy, 1993: 119).
<this is clearly not an accurate statement of the facts -- plainly, from the context, 31% of fatal robberies involved firearms, not 31% of all robberies turned into homicides>

Block (1998) found that the frequency of robbery in the past five years varied from 2.5 to four percent in seven countries, with Canada situated at 3.4 percent. The differences, according to Block, are probably not statistically meaningful. Indeed, excluding the United States, there was no meaningful difference in the reported rates of armed confrontation during a robbery. In contrast, in the United States, respondents were about twice as likely as elsewhere to have been confronted with a weapon during a robbery in the past five years. In the United States, the weapon was twice as likely as in Canada to be a firearm (Idem: 15-17; Zawitz, 1995).

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/ (U.S.)

In 1976, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (97 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant. The percentage of gang-related homicides caused by guns fell slightly to 94 percent in 2004, but the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during the commission of a felony rose from about 60 percent to 77 percent from 1976 to 2005.
<I would phrase that as "the percentage of homicides during the commission of a felony that were caused by firearms ...">

What I'm not finding for the US is actual numbers for homicides committed in the course of a felony, i.e., for the most part, robberies. The best I've found so far; it's old (1981-1985 figures) and I don't have jstor access:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1143453

... approximately 2000 robbery victims are murdered each year.

That's about 10% of all homicides at that time.


So feel free to find some that rebut my case!

[X_Digger]

53. Actually, that's not true for the latest figures..

if you were a murderer then, as you know perfectly well, you would most likely be attacking a member of your immediate family.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_10.html

The totals for immediate family are 1,855
Stranger - 1,676
Acquaintance - 2,941
Unknown - 5,986


Heck, I'm not sure that's ever been true. Checking 1995 (the earliest that the FBI has up on their website)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1995/95sec2.pdf

Immediate family - 2,298
Stranger - 3,036
Acquaintance - 5,347
Unknown - 7,905

In most cases, no relationship can be determined, then the second most likely relationship is 'acquaintance' (distinct from family).

Where did this bit of 'common wisdom' originate? I've heard it before, but never seen it sourced.

[iverglas]

56. possibly a bit of hyperbole

as in: your best chances of getting gunned down are not when you are wandering abroad, they are when you are in the company of intimates.

Possibly I was speaking Canadian.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/2009000/part-partie5-eng.htm

Spousal homicides accounted for 16% of all solved homicides in Canada in 2007, and as in previous years, represented nearly half (47%) of all the homicides committed by family members that year.

So that makes about 35% of homicides immediate-family homicides. Not a majority, but a plurality was what I was saying by best odds.

[X_Digger]

59. Or they left out 'of relationships that could be determined' (and they included acquaintances)

Interesting to see a talking point evolve over time, and how small changes add up to something completely different..

Most of the time, I assume it's unintentional, others, not so much.


My favorite example? The 90% thing re MX and guns..

The talking point? Something like, "90% of the guns in Mexico used by narcotraficantes come from the US"..

When it started out as, "Of the guns that the MX govt seized (first subset), of the portion of those that they submitted for tracing to the BATFE (second subset), of those that the BATFE could trace (third subset), 90% of those came from the US."

[iverglas]

61. I know you're pleased

that the numbers are carefully broken out in Canada when determining the sources of crime guns.

For instance, if the serial number is obliterated, it is deemed to have originated within Canada, since there'd be no point in obliterating the serial number on a smuggled gun, which couldn't be traced anyway. (Yeah, I thought you people had tracing methods ... I think the deal is that nothing could be done if it was traced, maybe, since the likely straw purchase, the intermediate transfers and the transfer by which it made its way to Canada could not be shown to be illegal as it could in a jurisdiction with mandatory licensing and registration.)

Toronto Police have done very careful analyses (working with the BATFE). Those that can actually be identified by origin are specified, those whose origins are assumed are identified, and why (apart from the serial numbers, nobody would bother smugging a hunting rifle into Canada, and conversely, there are some firearms that just couldn't really be got here), and the remainder are identified as of unknown origin.

Entirely OT, but just of passing interest maybe.

[WatsonT]

11. Shooting over the heads of people is careless

you have no idea where those bullets are going to land.

Aim for the center of mass. It may not stop the bullet but at least it won't have much energy when it exits.

[RamboLiberal]

13. True - but he's probably thinking shit I'm in Canada

If I shoot them I'll be charged with murder or attempted murder.

[WatsonT]

15. True

I wonder if the thugs could be hit with environmental fines for starting all those fires.

Think of all the carbon that released.

Obviously the arson was fine, but they should be better stewards of the land.

[Starboard Tack]

46. That's what happens when you shoot someone usually.

You get charged with something, especially if you are not being shot at.

[gejohnston]

124. firebombs are more deadly than guns, sorry does not fly

[Starboard Tack]

131. What a wonderful world you must live in.

I've never seen a fire bomb

[X_Digger]

12. At times like these, I miss Iverglas..

I know she'd be doing Cirque de Soleil-worthy verbal contortions explaining why the homeowner was wrong to try to stop the arsonists.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. +1 I hear ya. We used to get the Dream Team of gun control advocates. Nowadays, it's....

...the Washington Generals.

[WatsonT]

24. yup

yup

[-..__...]

30. No one... I repeat NO ONE...

could hold a candle to MrBenchley for sheer stark raving lunacy and unbridled anger.

I really miss the guy... his rantings and spittle flecked commentary, was comedy gold.

[X_Digger]

31. +1

Wharrgarbgle raised to the wharrgarble power.

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. I think the anger evinced by many Prohis is the 'tell' that theirs is a religious argument.

Declining violent crime rates in the face of massive increases in the number of guns owned?

Lack of evidence for objecting to CCW carry on campus?

Nevermind that, they're still angry about guns.

Facts (or lack thereof) are just irrelevant to them.

[Common Sense Party]

34. Any links?

Those sound like fun threads.

[iverglas]

38. is that like

the Toronto Maple Leafs?

;)

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. More like the Harlem Globetrotters designated team of patsies.

Let's just say that we've not been dealing with the sharpest tools in the shed during your absence...

[spin]

21. She was far more entertaining than the current group of posters ...

who oppose firearms.

Debating her was often like going into the rabbit hole with Alice but it was challenging and fun. She definitely made you think.

[pipoman]

23. She's still around..I saw her in a gun thread

a month or two ago. Maybe she'll answer your conjuring query..

She could be like the immediate big dog of antis if she came back..

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. I would welcome her...she is intellectually honest, which is more than I can say most antis

[slackmaster]

28. I might even consider taking her off Ignore

:D

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

150. and you and others who do this

will stay on my "alert" list.

You either IGNORE, i.e. shut the fuck up about people you claim to have on "ignore", or you don't.

[TPaine7]

81. LOL

You sir (or Madam) are either a saint--someone who sees only the best in everyone... to a fault--or one hell of a comedian.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Common Sense Party]

33. Can you point me to any good old Iverglas threads?

I never knew her...

[iverglas]

36. all this time, and you still haven't read the house rules?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating.

I think you have ... I think you just don't give any more of a shit about the rules of this place than you do about the truth.

This post is evidence of your lack of respect for both.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RSillsbee]

54. I don't see that anyone was talking negatively about you.

As a matter of fact it was stated in several posts that Iverglass

Is intelectually honest

Made you think

Would instantly become the big dog of the antis (which would certainly piss Jpak off)

Plus you were likened to the Harlem Globe Trotters (recognized exprets in their feild and generally considered the "A" team of basket ball)

Were is the negative comentary?

[iverglas]

57. yes, that's very true

and a new development. ;)

I hadn't read any further at the time.

Myself, I've been favourably impressed by the substitutes!

Basketball was invented by a Canadian, you know.

[friendly_iconoclast]

85. One of the subs you liked just got ejected from the league:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x408879#409656

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=270728


Another thinks they can read minds at a distance and is unable to provide links, and a third apparently has some variety of

Tourette's. Like the Knicks, the old team ain't what it used to be....

[beevul]

42. And right you are.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x387366#409885


Of course she takes a slightly different tack than to try to explain why why the homeowner was wrong to try to stop the arsonists...she rather focuses on the homeowner simply being wrong for using a gun to do it.


Because in Canada that happens to be tantamount to unsafe storage, and that suits her just fine.


A distinction with no meaningful difference in this debate.


At least to anyone with any sense, or any sense of civilization.


And for bonus points she plays the kimveer gill card too.

[iverglas]

43. ah, that's so cute

I'm here now, so now you can ignore me. ;)

You still don't get to make false statements about me, of course.


Of course she takes a slightly different tack than to try to explain why why the homeowner was wrong to try to stop the arsonists...she rather focuses on the homeowner simply being wrong for using a gun to do it.

Learned how to copy and paste yet? I'll bet you can. Here's your chance to practise: copy and paste my words to that effect. Now, please.


Because in Canada that happens to be tantamount to unsafe storage, and that suits her just fine.

What a dog's breakfast.

What was exactly equal to unsafe storage in this case was ... hmm, give me a minute ... oh yes: unsafe storage!

And unsafe storage doesn't suit me at all, at all.

[beevul]

44. Not gonna play your game tonight sweety.

You know what you said, I know what you said.

The world knows what you said too.


Go play "I said X but it really meant y...err I said Y but it really meant x..." with someone that doesn't know better.

"You still don't get to make false statements about me, of course."


Right. And I didn't, because I don't get to. Claim its false til you're blue in the face for all I care.

Your post speaketh for itself.

It, and your pretense that it didnt mean what it clearly says, speaks volumes about you.


Worthy of bookmarking for future use, in fact.


"What a dog's breakfast."

Still haven't lost that narcissistic superiority complex, either, I see.


I hope you brought a new bag of tricks with you.

Your old ones aren't gonna cut it hereabouts, I'm afraid, these days.

[iverglas]

47. happy to play your hand for you

Here's what I said:

If Thomson owned a .38 handgun legally, he obtained the permit
to do so based SOLELY on his membership in a gun club and purpose
of possessing it for sports shooting at that club and nowhere else.
Pretty plainly, this was not his real purpose in possessing it at all.
Had it been, the firearm would have been in secure locked
storage, separate from all ammunition, and that's not what it
sounds like when someone "grabs" a gun and runs outside with it.
And since he was charged with improper storage, that is
perfectly plain.

He was absolutely properly charged with improper storage, because he had perfectly obviously committed improper storage.

The Crown's decision not to proceed with the other charges seems reasonable to me. I guess my quoting that bit, along with old Gary Mauser's opinion (normally, I'm not likely to cite Mauser with approval, but I'd say it was plain I was doing so in this case), wasn't sufficient to get the idea across to you that I was citing them with approval.

Nowhere, at no time, did I say the individual was wrong for using a gun to do it (stop the arsonists).

The individual should not have had the firearm, in my opinion, because, in my opinion, individuals should not be permitted to possess handguns outside of approved facilities. It's Canada's fault he had it; the fault lies with the legislators and legislation. As long as individuals are permitted to possess firearms in general, but most particularly handguns, some who have been duly licensed for that purpose are going to use their firearms for purposes not contemplated by the licence (and very certainly not declared when they applied for the permits), as in this case, and are going to violate safe/secure storage rules, as in this case.

And in this case, there was no self-defence involved, do let us keep in mind, since there was no assault to be averted. As, in fact, there was no use of the firearm against any person directly. There was nonetheless a very improper use of the firearm.

So the amazing thing -- even stopped clocks being occasionally right -- is that you are correct in this case. It is my opinion that the individual was wrong to use the firearm in the manner and for the purpose that he did. I simply had not said that; what I said was that he had failed to abide by the law, since that was actually the subject matter of my post -- not my opinion of the rightness or wrongness of what he did.


I do hope that helps, although I'm afraid that I haven't advanced your standing in the game.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. In the US it is a felony to attempt to set fire

to a building that is inhabited.

Out of curiousity, is that the case in Canada?

[iverglas]

50. nah

We build 'em in the summer, after cutting down the logs and rolling them downriver singing jolly songs, then we burn 'em in the winter to keep warm.

I'll bet you had a point somewhere!

[AtheistCrusader]

51. I'm curious if your opinion was in-line with Canadian law.

"It is my opinion that the individual was wrong to use the firearm in the manner and for the purpose that he did."

Perfectly fine opinion. But I am curious if (outside the fact he should not have had the gun at all) he should not be employing deadly force in defense of himself, wherein the threat was an arsonist setting fire to an inhabited building.

In the US, that would be a justifiable use of force in response. I am curious if that is so, in Canada.

[iverglas]

55. no, you're not going to make me

I have cut and pasted the Criminal Code of Canada provisions on the use of force in self-defence so many times I'm just not going to do it again.

The way the story ends is that it is never excusable to use force with the intent to kill, but if death results even though not intended, where the force used was reasonable and all other conditions are met, the self-defence excuse will apply against a homicide charge.

There are provisions about using force to protect property, but they very definitely don't include shooting at people. (I hasten to add that I know this guy didn't shoot at anybody.)

Certainly a fire set to a building with people in it (a "dwelling-house" in particular) is no trivial matter. But if somebody can grab a gun and run outside and fire it, they are obviously not in actual danger of being roasted alive.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html

Unfortunately, you have to open the whole entire Code at once.

... Right. Sections 25, 26, 27 may be of interest (use of force in arrest etc.). Self-defence starts at s. 34. Oh, sigh ... here's yer basics. My general agreement can be taken as read.



Defence of Person

Self-defence against unprovoked assault

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Extent of justification

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

Preventing assault

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

Extent of justification

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.

Defence of personal property

38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified

(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or

(b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,

if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.

Assault by trespasser

(2) Where a person who is in peaceable possession of personal property lays hands on it, a trespasser who persists in attempting to keep it or take it from him or from any one lawfully assisting him shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

Defence of dwelling

40. Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 40.

Defence of house or real property

41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

Assault by trespasser

(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

[iverglas]

65. half the answer

Ran across it in that article I quoted down lower. (C'mon -- one of the arsonists who got scared off by the gun toter was called Randy Weaver. Somebody has to get a chuckle out of that!)


Arson — disregard for human life

433. Every person who intentionally or recklessly causes damage by fire or explosion to property, whether or not that person owns the property, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life where

(a) the person knows that or is reckless with respect to whether the property is inhabited or occupied; or

(b) the fire or explosion causes bodily harm to another person.


The technicalities of how the self-defence excuse would apply are a little obscure to me. Defence of person or property? Provocation, maybe. ;) One way or another, I don't doubt one may use force to prevent one's dwelling-house being torched. Just not intentionally deadly force, and only such force as is reasonable, keeping in mind that fine calculations are not required of people facing such situations.

[one-eyed fat man]

90. Must be we are just so much less civilized,

here in Kentucky as our statutes are quite different, particularly when it comes to ARSON or attempted ARSON. Nor are we required to abandon our hearths and homes to improve the working conditions of villains or blackguards.

503.080 Protection of property.

(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:

(a) The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or

(b) Theft, criminal mischief, or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts.

(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that the person against whom such force is used is:

(a) Attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

(b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or

(c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a dwelling or other building in his possession.

(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

The use of deadly force to prevent property crimes is limited. Note especially the exception for arson includes not only the dwelling, but other buildings as well. Under Kentucky law you would be justified in using deadly force against someone attempting to burn down your barn.

It is your apparent belief that if unable to stop the assault by any other means than to use a gun, the homeowner should have been either willing to submit to the fate his assailants were attempting to place upon him or abandon his home and out run them. Now it may offend your sensibilities, but I think justice would have been served had he hit one of the Molotov cocktails while still in its possessor's hand.

[iverglas]

94. ooooh, arson porn

I have to say I love your source: www.mojahedin.org. It has a personal meaning to me that I won't go into since I do like my privacy. ;) But I doubt you'd find much sympathy for your views in those quarters. Where do you find these things??

Many years ago, I was a researcher at a govt agency here doing a study of sex offender sentencing. The police information people sent us a load of printouts of all offenders and sentences for a five-year period. Included were arsonists. Ha, Freudian slip, we thought. No, they said when we enquired, we categorize arson as a sexual offence in our system. Obviously most weren't, but I guess some are!

Anyhow.


Now it may offend your sensibilities, but I think justice would have been served had he hit one of the Molotov cocktails while still in its possessor's hand.

You really might want to brush up on developments in political philosophy in the last few centuries, and in particular that concept of "justice".


You may have noted that I was a little surprised not to find any particular reference in the protection of property provisions of the Criminal Code relating to arson, which is different from trespass, indeed. Maybe there's something there and I just missed it. It may be just a bit of an oversight; when a law dates from over a century ago, when it was a much simpler arrangement, and has been amended and updated hundreds of times since then, the issue may have just never arisen. I suppose it might actually come under the provisions for arresting someone found committing an indictable offence (felony, to you).


http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html

Protection of Persons Administering and Enforcing the Law

Protection of persons acting under authority

25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

... When not protected

(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection (1) in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservation of any one under that person’s protection from death or grievous bodily harm.

Oh, here we go:

Excessive force

26. Every one who is authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.

Use of force to prevent commission of offence

27. Every one is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary

(a) to prevent the commission of an offence

(i) for which, if it were committed, the person who committed it might be arrested without warrant, and

(ii) that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of anyone; or

(b) to prevent anything being done that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done, be an offence mentioned in paragraph (a).

So that covers arson, I'd say.


If the person in the tale we are discussing had actually shot at and hit the individuals throwing firebombs at his home, had they kept doing it when he appeared, I'm quite sure he would have been protected from the assault or even homicide charge. (As long as he didn't intend to kill, and as long as what he did didn't constitute excessive force, and that's the thing that can be kinda hard to show when one uses a firearm.)


So anyhow, here we have one rather bizarre tale of which we still do not have details -- I'd just like to know a little more about these people in my province who are firebombing and shooting, before having any views about the matter.

Had he not been able to stop the arsonists, and had police and fire department not arrived in time to save the dwelling -- well, I'd be devastated if it happened to me, I know that. Luckily, these days, we have insurance, and don't have to worry about starving over the winter if someone burns down our barn with our stock of grain.

Do I want my society transformed into a place that is awash in firearms, where people may use their own judgment (or, the real problem, act on their own motives) for using them, because of one tale of warring neighbours that I don't even have the full story on?

Nope.

[one-eyed fat man]

98. I spent some time stationed in Saudi Arabia and thereabouts

In Riyadh, beheadings take place in a downtown public square equipped with a drain the size of a pizza box in its center.

I am retired now, but former associates and co-workers tell me the process is less overtly public now than when they were a regular event, held on Fridays after noon prayers, and drew much bigger crowds. No formal event or fanfare begins or ends them now. Corpses aren’t hung for display in the square as often either.

If you ever get to the region, you will no doubt notice a number of individuals missing a left hand. It is the mark of a thief. You will likely conclude rather quickly you rarely see an individual with both hands missing.

It is brutal and repressive, but seems to very efficient at curbing recidivism.

I do not believe most criminals are "forced" into a life of crime because they are stealing scraps of dry crusty bread to feed their starving family. It is a choice they make freely. I would go along with you for non violent offenders, particularly first-time offenders. Many drug abusers need medical care not prison. On the other hand, those who have committed violent crimes, by which I mean robberies, assault, shooting, stabbing murder, arson. They need locked up. I would be perfectly happy they never get out. I would shed not a tear if, in during their criminal attempt, they were killed by their erstwhile victims either.

By the time a career criminal has spent 30 or 40 years of his adult life in and out of prisons for robbery, assaults and killings I am of a mind they are probably not worth redeeming, even if I thought it possible. The sneak thief who breaks into an unoccupied building and steals goods is not the threat to human life the guy who knocks over convenience stores and shoots minimum wage clerks just for the fun of it.

Again, for many, being a criminal is a choice. The low-life isn't stealing bread to feed his starving family. He might be miserable, but he ain't Les Miserable.

If it was only about stealing stuff or money, he would break into places where no one is home or pilfer cash from his mother's purse.

Robbery is confrontational. That is where the rush is. He wants to see the fear. Why should someone who'd threaten with death a minimum wage clerk at a fast food joint or a convenience store be treated as if he had just created a new social compact? "Give me what I want an might not hurt you."

Subway clerk murdered

A 22 year old clerk, paralyzed with fear, unable to open the cash drawer, and the vicious vermin says to her, ‘Girl you’re too slow. You gots to die.’ Then the misbegotten bastard shoots her three times.

Robbery is about cash like rape is about sex. The goal is subjugation, humiliation, and domination, the rest is incidental. The robber's threat of bodily harm makes it personal.

Paul Dennis Reid

You really believe he turned to robbery because he was down on his luck Nashville songwriter?

Robbers Execute 2 Store Clerks

This Florida robbery might go down as the most senseless double-homicide ever. These men rob a convenience store. Even though both clerks are obviously compliant, the man guarding the door shoots them both -- all for $77...

Surveillance video images of two men sought in Monday morning robbery incidents and a store clerk’s shooting.

Do you have any rational expectation that Ted Bundy would ever have been cured of his proclivity for murdering women in any other way than he was?

Yes, I do truly believe that some people really do need killing. The Saudi system, while efficient is flawed. Our system is both inefficient and, but less flawed. I have no problem with the concept of capitol punishment. As a practical matter, it is the execution that is the trouble. With a sentence of life without parole we only need support a criminal until he dies of natural causes. With a death sentence we support the criminal and platoons of lawyers through endless appeals until he dies of natural causes.

[iverglas]

99. could you maybe highlight your point in there?

In Saudi Arabia they publicly behead people and cut off people's hands.

That's nice. I gather that in the USofA you don't?

You're not seeing a point in there somewhere? Mine is rather blatantly obvious, as compared to whatever yours was.

You seem to be saying that in the USofA it should be illegal for the state to cut off people's hands for stealing (I don't know actually; are you??), but legal for members of the public to intentionally kill other members of the public for reasons not even amounting to averting death or serious injury.


Do you have any rational expectation that Ted Bundy would ever have been cured of his proclivity for murdering women in any other way than he was?

I don't recall learning in law school that the goal of the criminal justice system was to "cure" people. Rehabilitation is one of the goals, but protection of the public is generally looked at as the first goal (rehabilitation, where possible, being one method of doing that, of course). It is commonly achieved by incarcerating people, sometimes for very long periods of time.

My parents were in Florida on Ted Bundy day. They stopped at a convenience store for coffee on the way back home up A1A, and as my mum paid the clerk, she was watching the festivities on television. I forget exactly what she said to my mum, but the bloodlust was sufficient to turn my mum's stomach so that she fled to the car, said "drive", and got the hell out of Florida as fast as possible. Your cultural practices have unintended consequences, eh? Tourism is kind of an economic necessity in Florida.


Yes, I do truly believe that some people really do need killing.

And that's just one of your charming little personality traits, I'm sure. And I'm sure bloodlust is attractive to some of the girls.

Sadly, perhaps, what you believe in this regard is not of the slightest consequence in the civilized world.

Similarly, the straw person you have erected regarding people being "forced" into crime blah blah is also of no consequence. People who actually know what they're talking about, as in have spent years researching and so on, know (not "believe") what the major factors are that result in criminal behaviour, and those are the people whose words are actually worth listening to.

[one-eyed fat man]

102. You make your choice

Sadly, perhaps, what you believe in this regard is not of the slightest consequence in the civilized world."

If "civilized" behavior requires me to accommodate a thief, an assassin, or a rapist and makes HIS life less stressful I'd just as soon not participate.

The advice to "just give them what they want" would seem to a bit awkward if the crime in question is rape. Is there a graceful way for her to submit and spare her attacker the anguish of rejection?

You are free to choose to cower and plead, "...not in the face, not in the face!" in the hopes your attacker will allow you the courtesy of an open casket funeral.

[iverglas]

103. "if"

If "civilized" behavior requires me to accommodate a thief, an assassin, or a rapist and makes HIS life less stressful I'd just as soon not participate.

Hey, if "civilized" behaviour required me to walk around town in pink pyjamas for a day, I'd be kinda put off too.

Fortunately, it doesn't require either thing. And no one hereabouts suggested it did.

So I do hope you don't choke on your straw, don't I?

Do you have macros for this stuff -- the stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said or the subject of this thread or the price of tea in China, for that matter?

[one-eyed fat man]

109. You appear fundamentally against self defense

if it involves lethal force, unless wielded by a state actor.

"Had he not been able to stop the arsonists, and had police and fire department not arrived in time to save the dwelling -- well, I'd be devastated if it happened to me, I know that. Luckily, these days, we have insurance, and don't have to worry about starving over the winter if someone burns down our barn with our stock of grain."

You must be blessed with the legendary speed of the "Gingerbread Man."

"One way or another, I don't doubt one may use force to prevent one's dwelling-house being torched. Just not intentionally deadly force,"

Ian Thomson moved to a rural homestead in Southwestern Ontario to lead a quiet life investing in a little fixer-upper. Then his neighbour’s chickens began showing up on his property. He warned his neighbour, then killed one of the birds.

The incident began six years of trouble for Mr. Thomson that culminated early one Sunday morning last August when the 53-year-old former mobile-crane operator woke up to the sound of three masked men firebombing his Port Colborne, Ont., home.

I'll give you, "He started this whole feud over chickens??" Looks like there are pinheaded morons in Canuckistan. I'll even assume you rather frown on firebombing peoples' houses as an acceptable way to roast stray chickens or avenge dead ones.

But back to the philosophical disagreement over dealing with criminals. People who actually know what they're talking about, as in have spent years researching and so on, know (not "believe") what the major factors are that result in criminal behaviour, and those are the people whose words are actually worth listening to.

Just what are these factors that I should feel compelled to accommodate criminals in order to qualify as civilized? How am I wrong in assuming that, except for the criminally insane, criminal behavior is a conscious and voluntary choice?

[iverglas]

111. you appear hell-bent on misleading

You must be blessed with the legendary speed of the "Gingerbread Man."

I have no clue what that means, or what it has to do with anything I said.

Just in case you were referring to the actual case under discussion: the individual who fired the shots was outside his home at the time and his home was not on fire at the time; some fires had started outside the house.


Just what are these factors that I should feel compelled to accommodate criminals in order to qualify as civilized?

Who knows?? You could try asking someone who told you that you should.


How am I wrong in assuming that, except for the criminally insane, criminal behavior is a conscious and voluntary choice?

Where you're actually "wrong", in very much the moral sense, is in refusing to acknowledge that denial of opportunities and the basic benefits of membership in society leaves people unequipped to succeed in life, and vulnerable to making bad choices.

You just don't see a lot of Harvard graduates holding up liquor stores, do you?

Maybe people of colour and poor people are born stupid and are thus unable to go to Harvard, or even finish high school or learn a trade, and thus give themselves choices. Maybe the whole thing is fast-tracked and people of colour and poor people are just born evil. There's gotta be some explanation for the hugely disproportionate over-representation of minorities and people with disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds in the criminal justice and penal systems, doncha think?

That's a serious question, by the way, and open for answering by anyone else reading.

What IS the explanation for the huge overrepresentation of people of colour and certain other ethnocultural groups (and in Canada, First Nations people), and people who grew up in disadvantaged families/communities, in the courts and prisons?

Doesn't there kinda have to be one? The disparity falls way outside any kind of statistical blip explanation. So what is the explanation?

[one-eyed fat man]

121. That's where you mystify me

Poverty makes people poor, it does not make them criminals. I have known people who were poor and were not thieves. I have known people who never got past eight grade, yet worked all their lives, raised families and sent their offspring to college. What was it about those people that kept them from embarking on lives of crime?

Is it a generational thing? You bring up race as an issue but the rates of incarceration were not always as disparate. In 1939, at the height of the Depression, the rate of imprisonment was 137 per 100,000 in the US. It is over 5.5 times that now with blacks jailed at rates of up to 5 times those of whites.

http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/1940.html

You explain why in the 1940 census, excepting the eleven states of the Confederacy, the incarceration rates between blacks and whites is within statistical expectations proportional to their percentage in the overall population.

A German mother in 1946 trading a Russian soldier sex for half-rotten potatoes from the mess hall's garbage is an act of desperation. Some hoodlum stabbing a kid to death for an iPod has not a damn thing to do with poverty but everything with the thug's grandiose sense of entitlement. He will take what he wants, when he wants and there is no societal or moral restraint to prevent him except the odds of getting caught.

"Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught." ~J.C. Watts

As for the Gingerbread Man, perhaps an overly obscure reference to a nursery rhyme. "Run, run as fast as you can. You can't catch me, I'm the Gingerbread Man."

If you are sufficiently fleet of foot you can outrun every antagonist self defense is not an issue. Otherwise you may have to fight off your attacker or plead with him, "Not in the face, not in the face!" relying on his good graces to allow you an open casket funeral.

[iverglas]

127. if you don't want to answer the question, just say so

'k?

[gejohnston]

93. since he was inside the house

it is an attack on person as well as property. The firebombers he was in the house. In some if not all states, that is attempted murder. It is absurd and immoral to me that intentional deadly force not be allowed in such a case.

[iverglas]

95. what's absurd and immoral, and not just to me

but to the civilized world in general, is that "intentional deadly force" is allowed in any case, anywhere.

The force that may be authorized, in a society that recognizes the right to life, is the force that is necessary to stop an act that individuals are allowed to act in order to stop.

It may be that the use of such force results in death. It may be that it would have been impossible to avert that result and at the same time avert the serious injury or death of one's self or someone else. But in all cases, the intent must have been to avert that result, not to kill.

It's just one of those really simple, fundamental rules of human society. You don't kill people. If you do, you present your excuse for it, and if it's a recognized excuse -- if it meets the criteria for self-defence, for example -- you don't get convicted or punished.

It applies universally. You don't kill anyone. Because no one's opinion as to the worthiness or unworthiness to live of anyone else is of the slightest importance, and no one is entitled or allowed to act on that opinion. Period.

How obvious is the need for that principle?

Kentucky allows its residents to kill people burning barns. Who's next?

[PavePusher]

101. Burning someones barn may well mean the destruction of their economic welfare...

and subsequent death for a number of reasons.

But who cares, as long as criminals have a safe working environment...

[iverglas]

104. well, as I did say

Fortunately we have insurance these days.

One fine consequence of that, which might even have been an intended one, is that people don't need to kill each other any more to protect their foodstuffs or tools for producing them.


But who cares, as long as criminals have a safe working environment...

That looks almost like a question. Have you considered putting it to someone who has given you an evidentiary basis to ask them that?

[PavePusher]

107. Right, because insurance always pays full replacement value...

and never refuses correct reimbursment...

whatever.

[iverglas]

108. if you have a replacement value policy it does!

Maybe the deductible is the value of the human life not ended ...

[gejohnston]

112. yes the point is to stop the attack

If suing simply branishing, or firing and missing ends the attack, fine. So much the better.
The person in question fired warning shots instead aiming at the attackers. Does that not meet your definition of civilized? If not, why not?


It applies universally. You don't kill anyone. Because no one's opinion as to the worthiness or unworthiness to live of anyone else is of the slightest importance, and no one is entitled or allowed to act on that opinion. Period.

That is true to a point. Why were the firebombers not charged with attempted murder? In the US, if you commit arson and someone is killed it is murder. It applies even if the arsonist assumes to building to be empty. If Mr Thompson were to do nothing, would that not be making Weaver and company's lives more worthy than Thompson's?

[iverglas]

115. hm

The person in question fired warning shots instead aiming at the attackers. Does that not meet your definition of civilized? If not, why not?

Well, I wasn't talking about that. The discussion was about killing people.

I guess it would be handy to have a gun around the place so one could fire "warning shots" at people doing things they needed to stop doing. I guess if everybody had one of them, then the people one was warning would have guns too. Then we'd have somebody saying "stop that or I'll shoot you", and somebody saying "I double dog dare you because I'm going to shoot you first". In this case, it being Canada, the other guys didn't have guns. But if I were doing something like firebombing a house and I knew the occupant had guns (not likely that people didn't know he did, given his past career), I'd take one with me.

I know the love I got around here when I said it before, so I'll say it again: shit happens.

You can have a shotgun on every table and a rifle behind every door and a pistol in every pocket (because some shit might happen when you were in the room where the gun wasn't, hm?), and shit may happen to you. No individual can prevent every kind of shit from happening to them. No society can eliminate the shit that happens to people.

Do I want to live in a society where all householders have guns on every item of the furniture and people at the mall have guns in every article of clothing? And where people fire warning shots to stop other people doing things they shouldn't? No. Just: no.

So shit is going to happen to some of the people some of the time. In fact, shit is going to happen to some of the people some of the time no matter how many guns they or anyone else has. That's called "life". Guns are not magical; they don't ward off shit or stop all shit in its tracks or make one immortal.

I won't be organizing my life around the fear of shit happening. I take normal precautions against various kinds of shit, but I don't live under some delusion that I can immunize myself against it.

And frankly, people who think guns serve that purpose do scare me. They have an unrealistic notion of life and I do distrust their judgment when it comes to what they might do with those guns to make sure their dream bubble isn't burst. It's your catch-22: people who want guns for "self-defence" strike me as precisely the people who should not have them.


Why were the firebombers not charged with attempted murder? In the US, if you commit arson and someone is killed it is murder.

As it would be here, of course.

The thing is that to prove a charge of attempted murder, you have to prove intent to kill -- beyond a reasonable doubt and all. That isn't easy when someone isn't dead.

(As a sidenote, it's why I'm wary of including "attempted murder" in violent crime statistics analyses. Convictions for that offence depend heavily on prosecutorial discretion in charging, and the kind of evidence available; where injury was actually caused, it's much more likely that a conviction for a serious assault will be sought.)

If you saw the excerpt from the Code I posted, the offence they were charged with carries a maximum sentence of life, same as attempted murder. (Maximum sentences in Canada tend to range from 6 months to two years for less serious offences, and then five years, seven years, 14 years and life, generally.) The evidence we can see, the videotapes, would provide a very weak basis for an attempted murder charge, I think. A couple of Trailer Park Boys (TM) shambling around the lot lobbing firebombs somewhat randomly, it seemed. If they'd started by throwing one in the bedroom window at an hour when they knew someone was there sleeping, well yes, maybe then.

[gejohnston]

122. nice digression but you did not answer the question

and "shit happens" is the biggest cop out imaginable. If you call that a progressive value, Tommy Douglas must be spinning in his grave.
Teddy Roosevelt sure would be as is cousin's wife. Firebombs are deadly weapons, more so than a revolver. Let me be more direct: what do you think Mr. Thompson should have done? What would you do? If doing nothing or begging for your life is your answer, how is that not putting a higher value on the lives of the thugs than Mr Thompson? There is a big difference between nonviolence and pacifism. MLK explained it best, do not react when the cops show up with the fire hoses and dogs. At the same time, the Klan were to come to your house, by all means shoot back. He had armed body guards and even applied for a CCW (being black in the south, he was turned down obviously.)

In most states in the US in this case, proving attempted murder would be pretty easy. The house was occupied. Like I said, here even if the fire bugs did not know, it would still be attempted murder or murder as well as arson.

[iverglas]

126. how about you stop making false statements about me

and then maybe we can talk?

The sum total of what you said was:

112. yes the point is to stop the attack

If suing simply branishing, or firing and missing ends the attack, fine. So much the better.
The person in question fired warning shots instead aiming at the attackers. Does that not meet your definition of civilized? If not, why not?

It applies universally. You don't kill anyone. Because no one's opinion as to the worthiness or unworthiness to live of anyone else is of the slightest importance, and no one is entitled or allowed to act on that opinion. Period.

That is true to a point. Why were the firebombers not charged with attempted murder? In the US, if you commit arson and someone is killed it is murder. It applies even if the arsonist assumes to building to be empty. If Mr Thompson were to do nothing, would that not be making Weaver and company's lives more worthy than Thompson's?

I've highlighted the questions I see there. Exactly what question are you alleging I did not answer?

Please copy and paste it into a new post so I can give it a go.

Did you imagine that you had asked me:

Let me be more direct: what do you think Mr. Thompson should have done? What would you do?

Well, you didn't. So that isn't being more direct. That's shifting the goalposts. Talk about "deflection".

My answer is that the question is loaded with the premise that Thomson had firearms in his home.

I have a problem with that premise. The firearm that he used was a handgun. I don't think he should have had that firearm in his home. I don't think anyone should have a handgun in their home. The only reason anyone is allowed to have a handgun in their home in Canada is, if they have a restricted weapon licence, that they intend to use it for sports shooting at an approved facility of which they are a member. There is no reason for anyone to keep a firearm in their home if they only place they may use it is a gun club. The very fact that we see instances of people with these kinds of licences using their firearms for purposes for which the licence was not issued demonstrates the folly of the law. So asking me what he should have done in the actual situation depends on me accepting that he had a handgun in his home -- which he did, but, in my opnion, he should not have had.

If I apply the premise that he did not have a firearm in his home, he should have (i.e. my recommendation would be) got to safety and called 911, if his mere appearance and shouting, e.g., had not scared off the arsonists (who plainly did not want to be recognized and were apparently dolts and might very well have left then).

He took his firearm with him and fired it as his first choice and act, as far as I can tell. This apparently means that he wasted some time getting it out of the safe (if that's where it was; forgive me if I say we have no actual evidence of this). My own first instinct, if I thought someone was throwing firebombs at my house, would really be to get the hell out of it as my first move.

He also had large dogs who could easily have been let out of their pen and very probably would not have just sat there if instructed to be more proactive. I speculate.

If I go with the premise that he had firearms in his house, as he did, well, I still don't think his first act should have been to fire them. Sorry. If he had been advanced on and was in fear for his life, alrighty, fire away. But he should not have had a handgun in his house.

Essentially, he should have done what he needed to, to ensure his safety. This could have meant running from the house and in a direction away from the arsonists, if he did fear for his safety if he remained. We don't call this "duty to retreat" (which only a testosterone-overdosed mind could have come up with). We call it "otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm" -- as in:

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

That is the test he would have to meet if he did assault someone else in self-defence (the "reasonable" in both instances having both a subjective and an objective element, recognizing that people do not perform careful calculations in situations like that ... although that's exactly what I did myself in that situation; I just can't help it).

So -- given that I don't know enough about the objective element, the full facts of what was going on, and I can't assess the subjective element, as a jury would, because I have not seen and heard Thomson explain what was in his mind, I can't say what he "should" have done. What he did may have been the "right" thing to do in the circumstances: may have produced the best possible outcome at the least possible cost, assuming the presence of a firearm. He didn't harm anyone. It isn't actually illegal to use a firearm for self-defence in Canada, by the way.

But had he decided that what was necessary, to stop the arson, was to shoot the arsonists, then no. Human life trumps property every time. That fundamental principle of human rights may have been left by the wayside in at least some states of the US, but it is still a fundamental principle, and laws that run counter to it, in societies that recognize the inherent and inalienable right to life, are simply incoherent.


If doing nothing or begging for your life is your answer, how is that not putting a higher value on the lives of the thugs than Mr Thompson?

Well, we can just reject that question right off as being loaded with a false premise. No one has said that "doing nothing or begging for your life" is the answer, let alone given you the slightest tiniest iota of a reason for suggesting that it is mine.

In this very thread -- in this very subthread -- I posted, for the umpteenth time, the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada regarding the self-defence excuse, along with, for the umpteenth time, my comment on them: "My general agreement can be taken as read".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=387366&mesg_id=410060

Apart from those specifics, why would you suggest to anyone that you think their answer to the question of what someone should do when facing a life-threatening assault is "nothing"? Who on this green earth would actually think or say that, outside some very small sects who wouldn't even tell anyone else that this is what they should do?

This kind of weirdness just never ceases to amaze me. Do you actually know people who would say that? Headscratch, totally uncomprehending headscratch, at how often this bizarre insinuation is made here.


In most states in the US in this case, proving attempted murder would be pretty easy. The house was occupied.

Well, then, your criminal justice system is crappier than I would have thought. Strict liability criminal offences. Who'd 'a thunk it?

[gejohnston]

130. Not meaning to make false statement just trying to make sense

of your philosophy. Besides, not being Canadian, I am trying to make sense of the law and theory behind it.

Our system has its problems, but if someone is firebombing your house knowing you are home, they are trying to take your life with a lethal weapon. The fact that they threw it in a wrong part of the house sounds like something a defense council would try to sell to the jury. That is still an attack on person rather than just stuff. It is very reasonable for him to assume his life was in danger. Your system certainly is not perfect either.
It is easy to sit back and play armchair general saying what someone should have done in a stressful and dangerous situation.
How far was the nearest phone to call 911?

It would be worth following, but if the Crown wanted to discourage vigilantism, I think it would be best for him or her to find a clear case of vigilantism to prosecute or at least explain the difference.

[NewMoonTherian]

134. You've struck at the very heart of the debate.

And what I believe to be the fundamental impasse that will prevent the debate from ever being settled.

It is my belief that, by initiating a deadly attack, an attacker signs an implied contract, waiving the expectation of the right to life. He has committed an act of war, for lack of a better term, and for as long as he poses a deadly threat to an innocent person, he is not protected by society's recognition of the sanctity of life. Of course, once he no longer poses a threat, this protection is immediately reinstated(you cannot kill a person who has assaulted you and is now fleeing, for instance).

[iverglas]

135. uh huh; but your belief simply doesn't matter a pinch

It is my belief that, by initiating a deadly attack, an attacker signs an implied contract, waiving the expectation of the right to life.

The right to life isn't an "expectation". It's a right. People don't expect a right. They have it.

It's inalienable. What is it about that word that so many people here just refuse to get?

Inalienable. Cannot be waived. It's very very simple. You can't sell yourself into slavery, and you can't "sign an implied contract" (eh?) waiving it.

And your society cannot take it away from you by expressly allowing other people to kill you.

If your society does that, it has created an incoherency, and it has excluded itself from the broader human community where the consensus exists that individuals have an inalienable right to life.

You can take it away from one person, you can take it away from anybody.


He has committed an act of war, for lack of a better term

Nope. They have committed (or attempted to commit) a serious crime. Society is faced with two possibilities, an either/or situation, and has to make a choice: either allow the person who initiates the assault to seriously injure or kill the victim, or allow the victim to use force against the person who initiated the attack to avert it, even if that results in death. With no third option, our societies opt for the latter; to do otherwise would be to fail to recognize the victim's right to life.


There simply is no fundamental impasse that will prevent the debate from ever being settled.

Either a society recognizes the inherent, inalienable right to life, or it doesn't.

Yours clamis to, but doesn't.

[NewMoonTherian]

149. So the death of the attacker is acceptable, if it is unavoidable.

But the victim cannot act with the intent to kill the attacker? This is the part that's hard for me to reconcile. Am I correct in interpreting what you've said so far?

[iverglas]

151. I can't begin to guess how many times

I have answered these questions and given these explanations. Over and over and over, each time as if I am being interrogated. But for you, one more time.

Yes. It's plain in the Criminal Code provisions I've repeatedly quoted. There must be no intent to kill; the intent must be to avert death or serious injury. This sounds like angels on the heads of pins, but criminal courts deal with issues of intent (and credibility) every day.

The questions of the reasonableness of the force used, and the reasonableness of any alternative available, are assessed having regard to both objective and subjective factors -- the circumstances of the situation and the victim's perception of the situation.

I assume this is why, in the cases investigated by Judge Ratushny of women in prison for murder, the recommendations were to reduce the murder sentence to manslaughter, rather than treat as self-defence. In battered-woman homicide cases, i.e. the situation where the woman's history of abuse resulted in a reasonable belief that she was in imminent danger where someone else would not have thought that, there generally is an intent to kill.

And seriously, I can't imagine there are two serious self-defence homicide cases in Canada in a year, so to some extent it really is angels on heads of pins.

Here's a case from 1983:

http://scc.lexum.org/en/1983/1983scr1-265/1983scr1-265.doc

(sorry about the format; it's an oldie -- if you're interested in reading them, google lexum "self-defence" and faid or reilly and use the cached version if that's easier; it's what I did)

Where a killing resulted from the use of excessive force in self-defence the accused loses the justification provided under s. 34 of the Code and the defence of self-defence fails.

It does not follow automatically that the verdict must be murder. Unless it is shown that the killing was accompanied by the intent required under s. 212(a) of the Code, it remains a killing without intent, i.e. manslaughter.

Here, the difference between murder and manslaughter was properly explained to the jury. In any event, where lack of intent to cause grievous bodily harm is not even argued, the failure to repeat the murder/manslaughter distinction cannot constitute an error.

As to the second issue, the trial judge rightly decided to refrain from putting the defence of provocation to the jury. There was no evidence produced on which a jury could decide that the accused acted out of sudden provocation, killing in the “heat of passion”, as required by s. 215 of the Code.

And one from 1984:

http://scc.lexum.org/en/1984/1984scr2-396/1984scr2-396.wpd

The defence of self-defence fails on a finding of excessive force; the trial judge therefore did not need to direct the jury to a verdict of manslaughter in those circumstances.

The trial judge’s charge on the qualified defence of provocation was adequate for the jury could not have been misled by the portion of the charge in question when it is read in the context of the whole charge on provocation. The trial judge did not err in his charge to the jury on self‑defence.

The defence accorded an accused by s. 34(1) is not available where the jury finds, as it did in this case, that the accused intentionally used force to cause death. The accused may be found to have acted in self-defence within the meaning of s. 34(2) even if he were mistaken in his apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm or if he mistakenly believed he could not preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm otherwise than by the force he used. His apprehension, however, must be reasonable and his belief based on reasonable grounds. The relevance of intoxication under s. 34(2) is eliminated and the defence is available to an intoxicated person if the accused’s perception meets this objective standard.

[NewMoonTherian]

133. But that's where the problem lies.

"...keeping in mind that fine calculations are not required of people facing such situations."

The law, as you cited it, doesn't make that provision. The necessary degree of force is determined long after the fact, by a group of people sitting in a courtroom, being carefully walked through all available evidence. The victim of the assault had to make that decision in a matter of seconds, being given no evidence beyond "this person appears to be trying to end my life."

That's the purpose of our castle doctrine and "stand you ground" laws. They expand the legal benefit of the doubt given to the defender. Except in cases where there is clear, indisputable evidence of wrongdoing, there should be no recourse for the initiator of a potentially deadly assault.

[iverglas]

136. not really

The necessary degree of force is determined long after the fact, by a group of people sitting in a courtroom, being carefully walked through all available evidence. The victim of the assault had to make that decision in a matter of seconds, being given no evidence beyond "this person appears to be trying to end my life."

And that is exactly what the law -- centuries of common law, codified in the Criminal Code, interpreted by courts when necessary -- provides.

Canada really doesn't have hundreds of people in prison for using force in self-defence. In fact, for quite a few years now, the "battered-wife" defence has been recognized here, and in 1995 the federal government ordered a review of the cases of all women in prison for homicide to determine whether that factor should have been taken into account at their trials, and the sentences of many were adjusted as a result. That defence (using the word broadly) specifically takes into account the victim's subjective assessment of the situation, i.e. that as a result of their own circumstances, they may have perceived an immediate threat where someone else would not have.


That's the purpose of our castle doctrine and "stand you ground" laws. They expand the legal benefit of the doubt given to the defender.

No They Do Not.

They create an IRREBUTTABLE LEGAL PRESUMPTION that a person was in fear for their life that applies even when there was not the slightest objective or subjective reason for a person to be in such fear. The person need not present the slightest shred of evidence or explanation for the decision to use force. And in fact the prosecution is prohibited, by law, from investigating once it is established that the conditions of the legislation that trigger the presumption are met.

This allegation about those ugly laws has been made here over and over and over and I have refuted it over and over and over. You don't need me. Read the Florida law as an example. But here's an analysis:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=125237&mesg_id=125237


Except in cases where there is clear, indisputable evidence of wrongdoing, there should be no recourse for the initiator of a potentially deadly assault.

To secure a conviction of a person who claims self-defence, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. What's the problem?

[-..__...]

29. Ahhh... "Kanada Über Alles".

I heard it's a nice place to visit, and they have great hockey teams... but living there?

I think I'll pass on that one.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

48. oh look, something we agree on!

You not living in Canada.

[iverglas]

40. seems only the right-wing media thought this worth bothering with

Yes, Virginia, the Sun and the National Post are the far right-wing media. (We have just had SunTV inflicted on us too now -- commonly known as Fox News North.)

From a rather more comprehensive National Post item (I recommend reading it all, given the copying limitations here) (note that Gary Mauser is a gun militant):

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

Gun charges dropped against self defender

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.

... “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.”

On the face of it, I'd say they were neighbours who deserved one another and I wouldn't want to live within a mile of either side of it.

If Thomson owned a .38 handgun legally, he obtained the permit to do so based SOLELY on his membership in a gun club and purpose of possessing it for sports shooting at that club and nowhere else. Pretty plainly, this was not his real purpose in possessing it at all. Had it been, the firearm would have been in secure locked storage, separate from all ammunition, and that's not what it sounds like when someone "grabs" a gun and runs outside with it. And since he was charged with improper storage, that is perfectly plain.

So oh look: he was not a "law-abiding gun owner".

Kimveer Gill, who killed one person and seriously injured several at Dawson College in Montreal a couple of years ago, before being interrupted by police who happened to be on the scene, had all the proper permits for his legal possession of the firearms he used in the attack. The man who killed a bystander on Toronto's main street with the handgun he was illegally carrying also had the proper permit for possessing a handgun for use in sports shooting at a gun club. (In both cases, permits to possess restricted weapons, obtained after the usual application and checks.) Ah, those law-abiding gun owners. Don't you just have to love 'em??

We need more people with more handguns in Canada!

I really would like to know the background to that Ozark-esque little drama in Port Colborne. Yeesh.

[Spoonman]

60. Your intellectual dishonesty

has always provided a great deal of entertainment.

the firearm would have been in secure locked storage, separate from all ammunition, and that's not what it sounds like when someone "grabs" a gun and runs outside with it.

If the prosecutors stated: “Mr. Thomson flew threw the house and grabbed a .38”

I suppose you would support flying without a pilot’s license and transporting a firearm on a plane charges too?

I see very little has changed with you.

As always you attempt to speak intelligently on the subject matter at hand without having even the slightest knowledge of the subject matter.

Biometric “Fingerprint” Gun Safe – access in under 2 seconds!

[iverglas]

63. actually

I just kind of assumed that when those charges were kept, and the hot-shot defence lawyer wasn't kicking up any stink about them (I believe he thanked the Crown for the outcome), it's pretty likely the firearm was stored illegally.

Now, I do see "Ian Thomson grabs a handgun from his gun safe, comes outside and fires a couple of shots to scare off the would-be murderers" on varous sites. Given the verbatim repetitions and the fact that the sources aren't authoritative (and don't give full details; that could still be illegal storage), I'm skeptical.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I don't mind monitoring the story. I have often found that quite enlightening around here. ;)

[gejohnston]

79. It was

If I read correctly, the revolver was in the safe and unloaded until the thugs showed up. It just was sitting out when the cops showed up. Still makes the law absurd

[iverglas]

58. good grief

Did anybody catch the name of one of the firebombers?

http://www.wellandtribune.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2917829

Oh, all right, I'll spoonfeed.

Two men were arrested in December in connection with the incident. Randy Weaver, 48, of Port Colborne, and Justin Lee, 19, of Welland, were each charged with arson disregard for human life. A third suspect is being sought.

We just do everything backwards up here.


AC, that should answer your Q about arson offences in Cdn law.

[lawodevolution]

62. Hate crime laws, and the government can deem any media "dishonest" and ban it so you have no

True freedom of speech and if you defend yourself you get charged with a crime. Canada is going down the same toilet as the UK.

If this were out in the country and these thugs were going to throw bombs at my house with my family inside I would have mowed them down with an AK47, it would have been legitimate self defense in Texas and all I'd get are questions.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

70. gosh, if I smile sweetly

and ask what you could possibly be saying here, might I get an answer?


the government can deem any media "dishonest" and ban it so you have no
True freedom of speech and if you defend yourself you get charged with a crime.

I really can't decide whether it is the utter idiocy of that statement or the utter falseness of it that is causing my mouth to hang open in stunned amazement.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

72. your mouth is agape

because you are an ape.

[iverglas]

73. well, it's really agape now

Gobsmacked
in fact.

Did kindergarten just get out?

[Katya Mullethov]

80. Coulda stuck 30 dollars

wortha jawbreakers in mah mouth .

[iverglas]

114. I'm so glad this post has not been deleted by the mods

I find it hilarious and I like looking at it!

I do still find it rather odd that it's still here. Surely one of the people with their trigger finger on the alert button has twitched it by now ...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

116. could be that your reputation in this forum precedes this post

and could be no one has alerted on it because it is a pretty accurate description of your attitude toward our country, our constitution and your lack of respect for your fellow DUers.

just a guess.

[iverglas]

117. hey now

I could post a TOTALLY accurate description of some of your fellow travellers here, and it would be deleted. ;)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

118. probably because

it would be inaccurate to those of us with reading comprehension skills capable of understanding irony and sarcasm.

[iverglas]

119. hmm

probably because it would be inaccurate to those of us with reading comprehension skills capable of understanding irony and sarcasm.

If only your writing skills were up to the same standard ... I can glean no meaning from that one at all.

I am a frequent user of sarcasm so it's nice to know you comprehend. But what I referred to was the totally accurate description I could offer of some posters in this place, so that would hardly involve sarcasm. So how what I wrote would be "inaccurate to" people who understand sarcasm ... whew, that's a long spiral of gibberish, to me.

If you're actually suggesting that your saying to me

your mouth is agape
because you are an ape.

involved some kind of irony or sarcasm that went over my head ... well, no, I don't think so.

If I were to respond with a remark about your obvious schoolboy eros for me, would that fly too high for you? I had considered it, but thought it probably would, unless you're familiar with some of the finer points of Christian theology ...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

120. you have my pity. Good day and good luck. n/t

[lawodevolution]

75. Your personal attacks show anyone who is reading this thread how intellectually bankrupt

your side is

[iverglas]

76. yeah

I'm the one spewing false xenophobic garbage here.

Right.

[lawodevolution]

125. yes you are, correct

[iverglas]

128. oh dear

And here I'd just been given to understand that folks hereabouts are really good at getting sarcasm.

:rofl:

[iverglas]

77. by the way ... I wish.

the government can deem any media "dishonest" and ban it

If only the government knew that. We wouldn't be getting subjected to Fox News North: the new channel SunTV, populated by people like Ezra Levant. (Ask around if you don't already know; right-wingers in the US will be quite familiar with him.)

And to think, all the government had to do was ban it before it started, for being dishonest ...

Tell me more, please. I evidently need educating about how things work up here.

:rofl:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

66. no thanks, now their health coverage...that would be worth considering..

[iverglas]

67. but again, isn't it funny

how things go together?

Firearms registration and licensing, universal healthcare ... every western industrialized country (and some others) except the U.S.

Free-ranging firearms, shoddy healthcare ... only in the U.S.

Isn't anybody else ever struck by these, uh, coincidences?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

68. no. because you know why ... there is only one USA ... no other

country is like us and while we have problems we can find solutions. one has nothing to do with the other.

[iverglas]

69. ah yes,

you're soooo exceptional.

Nothing at all to do with the fact that what you actually are is way to the right on the political spectrum of any of your counterparts in the world, and the absence of both effective firearms control and decent health care is symptomatic of precisely that, as can easily be seen in other countries as governments shift up and down that spectrum. Oh, well, hey, I guess being way to the right of all the rest of us does make you exceptional.

:eyes:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

71. bull shit.

health care and 2A are two separate issues. how hard is that for you to understand?

[iverglas]

74. you must forgive me

health care and 2A are two separate issues. how hard is that for you to understand?

I'm just an ignorant Canadian ... with degrees in philosophy and French literature and political science, and law, and over 30 years of very wide-ranging professional and political experience ... and the apparent ability to type things I can't see on my monitor. I'm supernerd.

What I see on my monitor is this:

"the absence of both effective firearms control and decent health care is symptomatic of precisely that"

"Both ... and ...".

A structure commonly used when talking about, wait for it, two different things.

Two different things commonly -- nay, pretty much exclusively -- found in tandem, or not found at all. Love and marriage, horse and carriage, firearms control and universal healthcare. Soulmates.

I just think that's interesting, and am always surprised that nobody else seems to.

Of course, my mistake could be in thinking that anybody else actually wants universal healthcare any more than they want effective firearms control ...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

78. personally, I think we have effective firearms control however,

I would like to see a change in our health care system.

as for you and your condescending insults to your fellow DUers, if you are gpomg to dish it out then be ready to take it.


btw, are you also good looking, 6'2", and a millionaire?

might as well be, after all its the net, be who you wanna be, right.

and I am not to the right of people on this forum.

2A is a progressive, liberal, individual right in USA.

[iverglas]

88. I was asked:

health care and 2A are two separate issues. how hard is that for you to understand?

When asked such rude and impertinent questions, I think any response provided is appropriate, myself. Mine was informative and relevant. I don't find it hard to understand much of anything (although I'm not enjoying the thing I'm supposed to be working on right now, which is several dozen pages of corporate tax law, and finding it somewhat tricky to understand; the fact that it's in French probably isn't even the main problem).


btw, are you also good looking, 6'2", and a millionaire?

Well, the co-vivant would be happy if I were, that's for sure. Not just the millionaire part. He's 6'4" and is superficial enough to prefer not having to stoop. He found me on a search of an internet site back in the previous millennium using the criteria female, atheist, 5'6" or over, in Ontario. I was his only option, and I just scraped by.


and I am not to the right of people on this forum.

Hey, I won't dispute that!


2A is a progressive, liberal, individual right in USA.

Rights don't actually have political identities. The only relevant word in your statement is "individual", since rights do come in the individual (right to life) and collective (right to self-determination) varieties.

To the extent that the right in question is not one regarded as fundamental/inherent, by consensus (e.g. in international instruments and in more local instruments with provisions and values common to many other localities), and is in the nature of a "civil right" (i.e. a right acquired by virtue of membership in a particular polity/society, like the right to vote and own property there), it could be characterized as progressive or regressive, certainly.

The right of a citizen of a particular polity to vote is indeed "progressive", for example. The right of a citizen of that state to own a non-citizen would be "regressive".

The right to own a particular type of weapon is just a subset of the right to freedom -- one of those fundamental / inherent / inalienable rights, by human consensus -- like the right to own pink socks, or the right to decide what medical procedures one will undergo. It is is subject to the same kinds of limitations on its exercise as any other right of that nature. Societies generally develop rules for determining the legitimacy of such limitations, as yours has in relation to all rights enshrined in its constitution.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

91. the fact that it's in French probably isn't even the main problem).

the main problem (just a guess here) is who is trying to read and understand it. I am going to do you a favor and not bother replying to anymore of your inane posts so that you may get on with your task.

Good day.

[iverglas]

96. oh look, a post consisting of nothing but insult

Here's one consisting of nothing at all in reply.

Are we having fun yet?

[gejohnston]

82. You had medicare before 1977

prior to that, it was easier for an Canadian to legally own a machine gun than down here since 1934. The strict laws have not existed that long. You and I both know that the long gun registry is one of the main reasons why Liberal Party has been losing rural ridings for almost 20 years.
One thing I don't get is prior to 1977, a 14 year old could buy ammunition. The 1977 law raised it to 16 but the 1995 law lowered it to 12. What gives?
By the way, how is Wendy Cukier's fraud investigation going? Last I heard, RCMP had some questions about the way she acquired $400k.

[iverglas]

86. I dunno; why don't you tell us?

By the way, how is Wendy Cukier's fraud investigation going? Last I heard, RCMP had some questions about the way she acquired $400k.

The only thing I can find on line is a few versions of the same sentence making that same allegation. I find it at places where one would expect to find such things.

I gather that the way she (presumably the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control) "acquired" the funds was as a grant from the Department of Justice. (The allegation reads that she acquired it from Alan Rock, Liberal Minister of Justice 1993-1997, or his office or some such, but that isn't generally how these things work.)

You seem to be the one making an allegation.

How about YOU tell us how it's going? Starting with: how about you substantiate the allegation you have made?

I'm certainly curious, and I'm sure you'll come up with the facts you need to offer.

[gejohnston]

92. Not making any allegation, just curious

Just read about it once and never saw any follow up. How do you feel about an advocacy group getting money from the government? Me, I would be writing my MP or congressperson no matter who it is. If they provided a service fine, to lobby or spread propaganda no. Same would apply to NFA. If Harper or whoever gave NFA a grant to teach gun or hunter safety courses fine. But to lobby and spread propaganda would be equally wrong.

[iverglas]

97. no problem with it at all

"Advocacy groups" here get money from the government -- until the filthy Conservatives got power, for instance, there was a program called Court Challenges that funded constitutional challenges to legislation initiated by women's rights groups, minority language groups, disabled persons, and so on. Some very important social justice progress was made as a result of cases that no individual or grassroots organization could ever have funded.

Groups that provide services to refugees, for instance, and also advocate for them, get funding. Where the advocacy is for disadvantaged groups and the activities are consistent with the values promoted in our constitution, for example (like equality rights, which are expressly entrenched in our constitution), I think it's a very good idea.

I expect that the CCGC may have got funding to do research and, given the apparent timing, possibly specifically to prepare for Alberta's challenge to the Firearms Act (based solely on jurisdictional arguments) in the Supreme Court. The CCGC contributed extensively to that case, as an intervener. But that's a wild guess.

http://scc.lexum.org/en/2000/2000scc31/2000scc31.html

You'd need to tell me what the CCGC got funding for before I could have an opinion on that.

I don't think it's wise to say something like By the way, how is Wendy Cukier's fraud investigation going? when you have no evidence that such an investigation even occurred. Allegations on right-wing/gun militant websites aren't evidence. Not wise at all.

Nobody likes it when I ask them whether they've stopped beating their dog.

[iverglas]

87. clearing that up

One thing I don't get is prior to 1977, a 14 year old could buy ammunition. The 1977 law raised it to 16 but the 1995 law lowered it to 12. What gives?

Not feeling like researching the history of the regulations ... I'll guess.

A firearms licence is required for the purchase of ammunition.

12-yr-olds are eligible for firearms licences (on certain conditions and subject to certain limitations, I believe, but again, I don't feel like spending an hour looking it all up again).


http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/information/lic-per-eng.htm

Licensing
Canadian Firearms Program

A licence is your authorization to possess and register a firearm and to obtain ammunition. Your licence must be kept current for as long as you possess firearms in Canada. The types of licences are as follows:

... For Individuals aged 12 to 17

A Minors' Licence will enable young people to borrow a non-restricted rifle or shotgun for approved purposes such as hunting or target shooting. Generally, the minimum age is 12 years, but exceptions may be made for younger people who need to hunt to sustain themselves and their families. Applicants must have taken the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and passed the test. The fee to renew a minor’s licence is waived.
Once a person turns 18, they are no longer eligible for a minor’s licence. Instead, they must apply for a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) and pay the applicable fee. Currently, the fee only applies to the first PAL. Fees to renew a licence or modify licence privileges are waived.

[Straw Man]

83. Do you have a point?

Isn't anybody else ever struck by these, uh, coincidences?

No. Perhaps you could enlighten me. In French, if you prefer.

[friendly_iconoclast]

84. My, we certainly do have a high opinion of ourselves, don't we?

The term ipse dixit is coming to mind....

[iverglas]

89. I like that

Next time I need a username somewhere, I may go for ipsie dixie.

If Jeremy Bentham can do it, so can I.

[rl6214]

132. "shoddy healthcare ... only in the U.S."

How's that canadian healthcare working out for baby Joseph?

[iverglas]

137. where do you people get your news and views?

I haven't the slightest clue who "baby Joseph" is. How in the hell would you have?

I find the Toronto Sun, and I expect some rant against the Canadian healthcare sytem, given the source. But what do I see?

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/03/22/17708861.html

LONDON, Ont. - Some American right-to-lifers are distorting Ontario's Baby Joseph saga to raise funds for their own cause, sweeping facts that don't fit their political agenda into the dustpan in an all-out effort to defeat health reform south of our border.

"It's political. It's related to fundraising goals," said Tom Malloy, Texas lawyer who helped draft a law there that gave hospital ethic boards -- not parents -- the final say on removing life support from children for whom medical care is deemed futile.

Malloy has been a member on five of those ethics boards, some of which have ended the life of a patient, even children, over the family's objections.

But you won't hear of those Texas decisions in the rhetoric of American evangelicals who have tried to make 14-month-old Joseph Maraachli a poster child for all they fear in heath-care reform.

So I repeat: where do you get your news and views?????


The recommendation by doctors that the baby's breathing tube be removed had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the "Canadian healthcare system". It was a matter of the doctors' professional judgment.

My father had neurosurgery at the hospital in question after suffering a subdural haematoma from the violent shaking on a roller coaster at a US amusement park; his case is written up in the NEJM. It is one of the most excellent healthcare institutions in the world.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/945533--hospital-caring-for-baby-joseph-on-alert-after-threats

The hospital caring for Joseph Maraachli, a terminally ill 13-month-old from Windsor, has increased its security measures and notified police after receiving threats over its plan to remove the baby from life support.

The hospital has received email and phone threats, coming from both Canadians and Americans, said London Health Sciences Centre CEO Bonnie Adamson in a statement Saturday.

Adamson said threats are being taken seriously, and the hospital has “taken the necessary steps to protect our staff and physicians.”

And finally we get to the heart of the matter:

The baby has a severe and rare neurological condition that has left him in a vegetative state. He has been at LHSC’s Victoria Hospital since October.

An infant who had been in a vegetative state for months.

Maraachli and Nader want doctors to perform a tracheotomy so their baby can spend his final days at home. Doctors have refused, saying that’s not in the baby’s best interest.

Perhaps in your considered professional opinion that opinion was wrong.

A tracheotomy is a very minor and very cheap surgery. Keeping the infant in hospital would have been multiple times more expensive than doing as the parents demanded.

Are you seriously suggesting, or believing, that the decision not to perform it resulted from the Canadian healthcare system's penny-pinching and concern for money above people?

Man, you need to get out more.


The US right wing's exploitation of this family for its own ends is sickening.

Who's at the head of the line? Pat Robertson and Frank Pavone. I'm sure you know who the former is. I know who the latter is. Google "Priests for Life". He's one of the most virulent anti-choice activists in the US.

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=40705


Well, that has started my day off with a bang. I much prefer just to go along kinda pretending that this kind of ... words fail me ... doesn't exist, or at least that it isn't seeping like sewage across our border. But we do have our own home-grown lying woman-hating right wing, very true, and they've been trying to make hay of this as well. We just don't pay much attention to them, ourselves.



edit to note: I was born at Victoria Hospital. ;)

[iverglas]

100. more illumination from the Natinal Post

Like I said, the right-wing press and blogosphere seem to be the only ones to have noticed this blip on the screen, so I'm short of better sources.

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

Ian Thomson moved to a rural homestead in Southwestern Ontario to lead a quiet life investing in a little fixer-upper. Then his neighbour’s chickens began showing up on his property. He warned his neighbour, then killed one of the birds.

The incident began six years of trouble for Mr. Thomson that culminated early one Sunday morning last August when the 53-year-old former mobile-crane operator woke up to the sound of three masked men firebombing his Port Colborne, Ont., home.

... His collection of seven guns, five pistols and two rifles was seized, along with his firearms licence.

So my question is: if he shot that chicken (and that seems to be what people think), why, exactly, was he still in posession of firearms?

And of course: why am I being asked to be all sympathetic -- and to organize my country's criminal laws around -- some asshole who shoots other people's chickens?

He started this whole feud over chickens??

And people wonder why some of us just think that a pistol in every pot isn't wise social policy.

[PavePusher]

105. Doesn't say he "shot" any chickens, only that he "killed" one. n/t

[iverglas]

106. yes, thanks for that

As I did say, with emphasis to assist you:

if he shot that chicken (and that seems to be what people think), why, exactly, was he still in posession of firearms?

If you can find any fuller information, do enlighten us. I've done my best so far.

[PavePusher]

110. Right, your blatent insinuations were noted.

It's like you're not even trying to hide them anymore...

[iverglas]

113. not blatant enough for me

I must be really thick if I can't see my own blatant insinuations.

Look here now. I've tried to find more info about this case on the net. (You were free to do the same; it's pretty easy, just google something like "ian thomson" arson.) I've posted what I came up with. I found the thing about the chicken, and I saw comments here and there suggesting he shot it, and I posted that possibility as a hypothetical, not as a fact.

I wasn't really trying to hide anything at all, was I?

I surely must have hidden those blatant insinuations well, though.

[WatsonT]

123. Quickfire:

A respected Scandinavian tradition.

Basically it was considered acceptable to murder someone by burning their house down with them in it. Polite to let the women and children out, but not essential. The homeowner could murder you in the process but if he tracked you down and murdered you later after your, presumably, failed murder attempt he would be tried and executed.

Although oddly enough he could just quickfire you back and that would be acceptable.

And interesting culture. A great many Kings ascended to the thrown in this manner.

Not sure how this perverted version made it to Canada though. Clearly the homeowner was in his rights as the attack was still occurring.

[iverglas]

129. well

That was worth reading.

[WatsonT]

138. Not sure if sarcastic, but there's more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickfire

Interesting people, those vikings.

[iverglas]

139. interesting, like many things

Just not remotely relevant to the case at hand, therefore not really worth reading in this context.

Interesting, nonetheless.

[WatsonT]

140. Quickfire is always relevant

and always called for.

[oneshooter]

141. So if I read the comments right

If he had defended himself by throwing "fire bombs" back at them, then there would have been a equality of force. Then there would have been no reason to arrest him.

Is this right under Canuk laws?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[iverglas]

142. why don't you try reading the actual facts?

Not that hard to do.

The charges had nothing to do with his motives or the circumstances. They had to do with his use of a firearm.

They charged him with pointing a firearm, careless use of a firearm and two counts of careless storage of a firearm. On Wednesday, the Crown, citing little likelihood of conviction, withdrew the more serious charges of pointing and careless use of a firearm, but the two careless storage charges remain.

If you can imagine someone "defending" themself by throwing firebombs, you feel free to imagine what charges might be laid under the Criminal Code of Canada.

"Equality of force" has precisely fuck all to do with anything; it's just something you've made up and lobbed into the scene.


I warded off an assailant once by throwing empty pop bottles, back when they were nice glass objects. Not at him, but the equivalent of firing over his head: in front of his feet, where they smashed, so it was kinda like one of those western movie "let's see you dance, pardner" scenes.

[oneshooter]

143. You haven't changed.

Just as impolite and nasy as ever.
Why would we, as Americans, give a damn what the laws in Canukland are?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[iverglas]

144. don't ask me

Why would we, as Americans, give a damn what the laws in Canukland are?

I didn't start the thread, and I didn't jump into it asking ridiculous uninformed questions.

Anything else?

[oneshooter]

145. You really need to read the question before answering.

"If he had defended himself by throwing "fire bombs" back at them, then there would have been a equality of force. Then there would have been no reason to arrest him."


Answer the question asked. Simple enough if you can read and understand the english language.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[iverglas]

146. I don't bother reading loaded questions

I told you that "equality of force" is nonsense gibberish. So using it as the premise for your question rules your "question" out of the discourse.

I've posted the legal rules in this thread. If you can't figure out whether throwing firebombs in "self-defence" would qualify for the self-defence excuse in the case at hand, let me know and I'll see whether I can help you.

Firebombs are not regulated items in Canada. Any charges relating to firebombs will address what was done with them that itself constituted a criminal offence, viz. setting fire to a dwelling-house. Firearms are regulated items. Charges may be laid for various acts in relation to firearms (storage, use, transfer ...) that are not permitted.

I'd guess that throwing a firebomb at someone with the result that they burned to death might be found to be a use of unreasonable force in self-defence, but hey, it would all depend on the circumstances. I just haven't been able to imagine a single circumstance in which someone would be doing that.