A Man’s House Is His Castle – Except If You Live In Canada
After having his house firebombed by three masked men, former firearms instructor, Ian Thomson, grabbed one of his Smith & Wesson revolvers from his safe, loaded it and headed outside, and fired three warning shots over their heads.
Mr Thomson’s surveillance cameras caught the firebombings on tape, but when he handed the footage to Niagara police, he was charged with a slew of offences and now faces jail time for his actions:
The local Crown attorney’s office later laid a charge of pointing a firearm, along with two counts of careless storage of a firearm. The Crown has recommended Mr. Thomson go to jail, his lawyer said.
His collection of seven guns, five pistols and two rifles was seized, along with his firearms licence. Mr. Thomson said he lives in fear that his attackers will return and has taken to arming himself with a fire extinguisher.
“I don’t have enemies,” said the soft-spoken man, who now studies environmental geosciences full-time at Brock University after being injured in a workplace accident. “I don’t know that many people. I’m a quiet man. I just want to go back to my life and be able to live out my days in relative peace.”
Sorry, Mr Thomson, that just isn’t possible. Sure, we do have laws in Canada that allow people to use force when it comes to self-defence, and yes, we are allowed to use guns to protect ourselves if the force we use is “reasonable”, but you sir have crossed the line.
Trying to protect your property and life? According to the crown attorney, that isn’t considered reasonable. Just because Mr Thomson had his house FIREBOMBED, and the masked men were screaming death threats at him, firing three warning shots OVER THEIR HEADS isn’t considered reasonable.
What is considered reasonable in Canada? Running to your safe house, curl up in the corner with a warm blanket, stick your thumb in your mouth and repeat these words, “serenity now, serenity now.”
Instead of lauding Mr Thomson as a hero for fending off three masked intruders, he is considered a criminal. He had his weapons seized, he was arrested and charged, his trial will put him in the poor house and his reputation destroyed. And for what? For defending his life and his property.
And then there’s this from the article:
“If the public are wondering can you run out of your house and [fire a handgun at an intruder], the bottom line is, according to the laws of Canada, no, you can’t,” said Constable Nilan Dave of the Niagara Regional Police Service, which charged Mr. Thomson. “That’s why the courts are there, to give a person an opportunity to explain their actions.”
NO, Constable Nilan Dave, that’s NOT why we have courts. Courts are there for YOU to explain why the accused should be convicted. Maybe in China that’s the way things run, Constable, but not in Canada. It’s hard to believe a cop could believe that.
What has become of this country? Where the hell has common sense gone?
January 21st, 2011 at 11:29 am
The mistake he made was firing “warning” shots at the bad guys. If he had said that he was defending himself and missed, it’s a different story.
If one is going to defend onself using a firearm, you make every effort to make damn sure you hit what you are firing at, and kill the bad guy. Hell, even in the US warning shots are verboten in a self-defence situation…because you obviously didn’t need to stop the bad guy, so you didn’t need to use your gun, putting you in the wrong. Make sense?
Moral of the story: If you have to defend yourself with a gun in Canada,keep your yap shut, and don’t say a thing until you talk to your lawyer!
January 21st, 2011 at 11:58 am
Yes. Farmers in Canada have a saying, “Kill it, bury it, and shut up about it.”
I’m pretty sure they aren’t talking about rodents every time.
January 21st, 2011 at 2:01 pm
“What is considered reasonable in Canada? Running to your safe house, curl up in the corner with a warm blanket, stick your thumb in your mouth and repeat these words, “serenity now, serenity now.””
That IS more or less what you are supposed to do in Canada. First,you’re supposed to ALWAYS call the cops,then,if the intruders attack you, you’re supposed to retreat as far as possible,which includes running out the back door of your house,over the fence and down the road.
Only if you can retreat no further,like if you’re backed up against a 200 foot high rock wall,only THEN are you allowed to defend yourself,and even then the defence has to be REASONABLE,which is open to the Judge’s interpretation.
A cop once told me many years ago,that if an intruder enters your home,”shoot him and drag him into your bedroom” as I guess if you’re in bed under the covers,you’re not expected to jump out in your ‘jammies and run.
The fellow in the article knows bloody well what Canadian law allows,he IS a firearms instructor,and anybody who owns and uses firearms is well aware of the laws,we discuss the stupidity of them at home,at work, at the Rifle Range,in the coffee shop,and on and on.
He’s damned lucky he didn’t actually hit one of the bastards or he’d be up for second degree murder,unless the Crown tried for First Degree murder due to the premeditation from the time he saw the victims,decided force was necessary,opened his safe,unlocked his other safe to get the ammunition,loaded the gun,and then went after the alleged arsonists.
During that time,sober second thought should have reminded him that in Canada,FIRST, you phone the cops, SECOND, you phone your nearest funeral home to make arrangements for your funeral,THEN siddown and wait for the police to arrive.
With any luck,your friends will get to see your body bagged corpse carried out to the ambulance on TV later that night.
“Hey,there’s Dad on TV”!
January 21st, 2011 at 2:39 pm
There is an other option, much quicker than lobbying for legislative change to protect private property, or re-educating the above named police officer. I think the idea the police officer professes is quite prevalent amongst liberals. You wouldn’t be here if you weren’t guilty of something or other.
Juries are sovereign and legislation is subordinate. A jury can hear the case, and regardless of the instructions of the judge, can find for whatever they want, or not be able to convict because of 1 person who doesn’t see the government as being all seeing, all being, to their existence. Probably the #1 reason I’ve never been chosen to serve jury duty.
http://juror.ca/index.htm for some light pro-drug reading…
As much as I disagree with the Morgentaler juries, (Canada’s Roe vs Wade for the Americans reading this) and the marijuana laws, and the history in Canada, of judges instructing juries that they MUST convict… the truth is, juries are sovereign.
and the judicial system in Canada doesn’t want you to know it.
“hey mom, was dad on Tv again today”? “no, that was his uncle, Billy Carter”…
January 21st, 2011 at 5:10 pm
It’s not self-defense if you have to pursue the culprit to shoot him. That’s revenge.
It’s not self-defense if you fire warning shots into the air. That’s reckless endangerment (of others).
It’s not self-defense if you kill someone who is harassing you or taking your stuff. That’s manslaughter.
It’s only self-defense if you are in imminent danger, and the use of the firearm is proportionate to the danger.
While we all want to see scumbags jailed, or killed, a civil society with an ample amount of liberty doesn’t allow willy-nilly violence in the name of self-defense, though justice demands the accused be permitted a self-defense defense against a charge of unlawful killing.
January 21st, 2011 at 5:18 pm
However, this man was firebombed and didn’t know where the masked guys were. I’d sure as hell shoot in the air to let them know I have a gun, in case they were thinking about coming around again.
I think he was still in imminent danger, at least in his mind. His place was on fire, the culprits were screaming death threats.
Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Damn,if the jury in this case consisted of mikeg81,the Mayor,me,marc,and Mr.Fnortner,we’d have a “hung” jury!
As the guy lives in a rural area, firing the pistol into the air isn’t particularly reckless,but the Law will say it was.
January 21st, 2011 at 9:08 pm
I think the man acted perfectly reasonable.
While this asshole was shouting threats, he was also tossing firebombs into the home. Firing into the air was rather polite.
January 21st, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Shoot, shovel and shut the fuck up, case closed.
January 21st, 2011 at 9:48 pm
[...] A Man’s House Is His Castle – Except If You Live In Canada [...]
January 21st, 2011 at 10:13 pm
nancy,you’re SO American!
January 22nd, 2011 at 3:06 am
“… a civil society with an ample amount of liberty doesn’t allow willy-nilly violence in the name of self-defense, …”
which is why one shoots to kill, and not to warn. The proportionality theory of personal defense has been overturned sufficient times that a prosecution based on it should be grounds for legal malpractice.
Cheers
January 22nd, 2011 at 12:26 pm
I hope you all realize that my comments were in support of a different approach. Firing directly at the perpetrators to kill is the right approach. Anything less or different is not self-defense, and is asking for trouble.
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Mr Fnortner, The Mayor always appreciates your take/slant on various topics. You’ve opened my eyes to quite a few things over the years.
January 26th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
[...] THE MIGHTY MITCHIEVILLE– A Man’s House Is His Castle – Except If You Live In Canada; Abbey Road – The [...]