[Newsbot]

Title: Man acquitted of firing warning shots at group who firebombed home | CTV News
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: uwish
Date: 2013-01-05 08:45:58
Canadian

[martin14]

Good for him.

He should never have had to go to court.


2 years, God knows how much money.. tossed away.


Coulda bought some Mars bars for Porkahontas.

[Foxer]

This was a complete travesty. If you read the court stuff and follow the case, it was a horrible miscarriage of justice.

The prosecutor at one point accused him of trying to hide the evidence because the empty shell cases were upstairs. The guy said "it's a revolver - i took the revolver upstairs". The prosecutor said "well it still ejects the casings when you fire, you must have had to pick them up". The guy repeated "Its a revolver." The prosecutor didn't get it. Revolvers don't eject their cases till you actually open it and take them out.

They first went after him for a bunch of crimes which had to be dropped, then they went after him for 'safe storage' in which they claimed he couldn't have stored the gun safely. Even tho they were provided with a video showing precisely what happend and that it's 100 percent possible for him to have stored the gun safely and retrieved it as he said.


This is what's called 'punishment by process'. When the crown or cops feel someone has done something they don't like but no crime has been committed, they charge them anyway and force them to spend thousands to fight it. It 'sends a message' to others.

Firearms owners across the country sent money in to help this guy defend himself. It was a complete joke of a legal action and of COURSE they lost. Their point was to cost him money. It failed because gun owners stood up for him, but that's what their intent was.

[MeganC]

How stupid! The man wasn't supposed to defend himself from people throwing firebombs at him? That's insane!

[Gunnair]

MeganC MeganC:

How stupid! The man wasn't supposed to defend himself from people throwing firebombs at him? That's insane!

Welcome to Crazytown.

[Foxer]

MeganC MeganC:

How stupid! The man wasn't supposed to defend himself from people throwing firebombs at him? That's insane!

And not just throwing firebombs - because he'd had trouble with these neighbours before he had his whole place rigged with video cameras and it clearly caught them yelling up to him that he was going to die.

And he shot a tree to warn them off, it's not like he came out guns blazing to kill them. Or fired the gun into the air where the bullets could have come down somewhere unsafe.

This was completely all about the crown and the cops wishing to send a 'private message' that they don't like people using firearms for defense. They twisted the safe storage laws all out of shape to cost him money and punish him.

And some people wonder why firearms owners are slightly distrustful of the laws and the police/crowns

[Thanos]

He should have killed all four of them and then employed the Three-S's (shoot,shovel, shut up). Would have done the overall genepool a massive favour by taking those bastards out of reproductive circulation altogether and saved the courts a whole lot of hassle.

[MeganC]

Thanos Thanos:

He should have killed all four of them and then employed the Three-S's (shoot,shovel, shut up). Would have done the overall genepool a massive favour by taking those bastards out of reproductive circulation altogether and saved the courts a whole lot of hassle.

Maybe George Zimmerman should have done that too?

[Foxer]

Thanos Thanos:

He should have killed all four of them and then employed the Three-S's (shoot,shovel, shut up). Would have done the overall genepool a massive favour by taking those bastards out of reproductive circulation altogether and saved the courts a whole lot of hassle.

THat's not in keeping with the principles of self defense. If he'd had to shoot them, i'd support him entirely but he was able to stop the attack without loss of life, and that's laudable.

It should never be the 'desirable' end goal to kill people. It may be a necessity sometimes, but just like freedom requires the right to self defense where necessary, it ALSO requires the right to due process where possible.

[andyt]

MeganC MeganC:

Thanos Thanos:

He should have killed all four of them and then employed the Three-S's (shoot,shovel, shut up). Would have done the overall genepool a massive favour by taking those bastards out of reproductive circulation altogether and saved the courts a whole lot of hassle.

Maybe George Zimmerman should have done that too?

Certainly one less black guy for Zimmerman to worry about.

[Thanos]

MeganC MeganC:

Thanos Thanos:

He should have killed all four of them and then employed the Three-S's (shoot,shovel, shut up). Would have done the overall genepool a massive favour by taking those bastards out of reproductive circulation altogether and saved the courts a whole lot of hassle.

Maybe George Zimmerman should have done that too?

Zimmermann picked a fight, ended up on the losing end and got his ass handed back to him by the Martin kid, panicked, and started blazing away with a handgun. Just on the reality alone that he was completely responsible for initiating the entire conflict eliminates his claim to self-defense. A few pictures of Zimmermann's injuries doesn't change any of the basic facts of how the scenario unfolded. Anyone who's actually had to claim legitimate self-defense should be deeply offended by Zimmermann trying to distort the meaning of the law to his own benefit.

[N_Fiddledog]

I was just watching Ian Thompson being interviewed by Brian Lillie.

http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.ca/2013/0 ... -move.html

Reading between the lines I was surprised to come to the conclusion this firebombing incident appears to have originated with some argument Thompson was having with his neighbor.

I still don't think he did anything wrong, but it's an interesting wrinkle.

Also this all isn't over yet. The neighbor is still stalking his farm, and throwing bricks at his house. The prosecution sounds like they want to appeal the recent decision.

[Foxer]

N_fiddledog N_fiddledog:

Reading between the lines I was surprised to come to the conclusion this firebombing incident appears to have originated with some argument Thompson was having with his neighbor.

I still don't think he did anything wrong, but it's an interesting wrinkle.

oh it wasn't just 'an argument'. They've been going back and forth for quite some time as far as disagreement. There was a dispute about property lines and i believe they were letting livestock (chickens or the like) across into his property or something. It had been going on for years. The neighbours are people with a history of violence and bad attitudes, and they decided they were going to kill him.

The prosecution would be pretty stupid to try to appeal. They had no case to begin with and they'd lose, and all they'll do is get even more firearms owners furious and involved in paying for defense.

The problem for the crown is that this sets a number of precedents that the crown won't like. They've actually made things worse by pushing this and losing. So they may not want to let it go but they'll make it even WORSE if they appeal and lose.

[Bodah]

It tells you a lot that the crown would choose to go after this guy, considering it's a clear case of self defense and no one got hurt. They're trying to make an example out of him and the message is: Leave the bang-bang thing-a-ma-jigges to the police and no one else when it comes to defending yourself and property in Canada.

He's lucky he didn't shoot them.

Imagine if he did shoot and wound one of them; anyone think he should be charged with attempted manslaughter ? No doubt the crown would of went after him in this scenario.

[commanderkai]

Thanos Thanos:

Zimmermann picked a fight, ended up on the losing end and got his ass handed back to him by the Martin kid, panicked, and started blazing away with a handgun. Just on the reality alone that he was completely responsible for initiating the entire conflict eliminates his claim to self-defense. A few pictures of Zimmermann's injuries doesn't change any of the basic facts of how the scenario unfolded. Anyone who's actually had to claim legitimate self-defense should be deeply offended by Zimmermann trying to distort the meaning of the law to his own benefit.

I'm sorry, how did Zimmermann pick a fight, exactly? Unless Zimmermann initiated the actual fight (which, by all reports, he didn't), there was no justification for Martin to attack Zimmermann. Martin started the direct confrontation, thus being the aggressor. Good odds a police officer would have used his or her weapon in the situation as well.

I've reported suspicious individuals to the police at times as well. Should I get a beatdown just because I'm somewhat concerned about a strange individual walking around a neighborhood at night?