[BlackieRay]

In Canada we arrest the victim because he tried to defend himself. Scroll down and watch the security footage:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01...ked-attackers/

[ron10]

i would FUBR their ass.

[the Kolektor]

Thats bullshit!! He home and property are being attacked and he isn't able to protect it?? Thats crap! I would have done the same thing... Except they wouldn't be walking away.

[el ess A]

Absurd. Canada has some nice folks, but their government, dare I say, is sometimes more screwed up than the U.S. government rules/regs. I'd definitely lobby for the "Castle Doctrine". It's stupid to charge someone for defending their property.

Here in SC, they don't even have to be inside your home, just on your property and you can drop them like a bag of potatoes for something like this. Also, the castle doctrine applies to your vehicle as well. For example, if someone tries to carjack you, or get in your car, you can blow them away, no problem.

[the Kolektor]

Originally Posted by el ess X

Absurd. Canada has some nice folks, but their government, dare I say, is sometimes more screwed up than the U.S. government rules/regs. I'd definitely lobby for the "Castle Doctrine". It's stupid to charge someone for defending their property.

Here in SC, they don't even have to be inside your home, just on your property and you can drop them like a bag of potatoes for something like this. Also, the castle doctrine applies to your vehicle as well. For example, if someone tries to carjack you, or get in your car, you can blow them away, no problem.

Amen to that.

[okyankee]

here in ok, we got the "make my day" and "stand your ground" laws. which gives you the right to protect yourself, family and property. where ever you feel there is a threat.

[FenwickHockey65]

Thank God for Ohio castle law.

2 in the chest, one in the head. No questions asked.

[DGthe3]

Odd that I haven't heard about this in the local news. This happened ~45 minutes away from where I live. Oh well.

Here are the important bits, with regard to the law:

Canada allows people to claim self-defence for using force, including guns, to protect their life as long as the force is reasonable and they believe they have no other options.
“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,”

Based on that, I'd say there are a few questions that should be addressed:



Could he have harmed anyone (besides the 3 arsonists) by firing his gun?
If he was able to run out of his house, was his life in danger (thus making use of a lethal weapon reasonable)?
Was there another quick and effective way he could have dispersed the attackers without resorting to the use of a gun?


I'm inclined to think the answer to the first two is no, and the third is an unknown. But I'd like to believe that the court will understand why he did what he did, and since nobody was harmed because of it, nothing will result. On the other hand, if he had killed one of the arsonists, or worse ... an innocent bystander with a stray bullet, things would be much more complicated.

[FenwickHockey65]

Considering how he was a former firearms instructor, I'd say he was proficient enough with his weapon to avoid any collateral damage.

That said, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that he should be charged with a crime for protecting his own property. I sure as hell wouldn't cower under my bed hoping the mean men go away which is apparently what the law in Canada expects you to do.

[Nexus6]

I love Texas laws.I would have had to call the police,just to have them send the meat wagon

[TJTKSDMJ8]

And that, is why, I have a Blue Tactical Model 870 with a collapsible stock and a pistol grip loaded with 3 Buckshot and 2 slugs nestled under my bed.

C5 Veterans know why I need that one....

[Hemlawk]

I hate to say it, but NJ is the worst. If this happened in NJ, the attackers would sue to land owner and win...

I think the camera footage will prove the man innocent.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Considering how he was a former firearms instructor, I'd say he was proficient enough with his weapon to avoid any collateral damage.
I'd say it depends on the conditions at the time. If the only people in the area were him and the arsonists, and it was in the middle of the day, yeah chances are pretty much 0 he might have inadvertently hit someone else. But if other people live in the area and it was at night so he couldn't see much beyond his own property, chances go up substantially (though admittedly, they're still low). Without knowing one way or the other, I wouldn't make a definitive claim

That said, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that he should be charged with a crime for protecting his own property. I sure as hell wouldn't cower under my bed hoping the mean men go away which is apparently what the law in Canada expects you to do.
You can defend yourself with 'appropriate force' but the question becomes, what would be 'appropriate force' in that situation? What he did can be viewed in 2 ways: he used a lethal weapon in a non-life threatening situation (he was outside of his house and therefore safe from the fire), some will see that as an inappropriate use of force. On the other hand, he intentionally avoided causing harm to them despite using a gun, which most would see as entirely appropriate, given the circumstances.

The way I see it, he was arrested on a technicality and even though he did violate the law, I don't believe that the spirit of the law is to convict people who are defending themselves in extreme circumstances. I'm pretty sure it's to keep people from firing guns without purpose

[GSUNCSU]

Bottom Line is these perps were using (not just threatening) deadly force, I would do my best to bring large amounts of chaos upon them and drop them in their tracks. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. And in this part of the world, you'd probably get an award instead of arrested.