No personal rights in Canada

So it seems that here in Canada, you can NOT defend your property!
A guy in Ontario could possibly go to jail for defending his house from a home invasion. He's a registered gun owner, and a firearms instructor. His house was hit by six Molotov Cocktails, so he grabbed a hand gun, and fired 3 warning shots into the air. The cops showed up some 20 minutes later, and arrested him. How does that sound?
Here's a link to the story:

Man Faces Jail For Protecting His Home From Masked Attackers

Sounds like the UK :p

reply to post by moondoggy2


The guys who threw the molotovs got charged with arsen. That is what should have happened.

His firing a gun was an irrelevant and unnecessary act.

Additionally, people throwing those fire bombs at his house was not a random act. He obviously had made some enemies somewhere. Shooting his neighbors chickens might be where it started.

What is wrong with the world ? What is wrong with us ? When are we supposed to rise and fight for our rights , for our safety and security , for the lives of the ones we love ?
Six Molotov cocktails being tossed in someone house is a legitimate reason for the house owner to retaliate.
The great nations are falling one by one , the nWo isn't far behind .
i mean for Christ's sakes , he fired warning shots , not blew someone's head off !!

""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"

"This is just an absolute nightmare, this whole thing," he said. "People need to know that this is what can happen to you, and which side of the victim line do you want to stand on? Lying down dead or in court? That's the way it seems it has to go."

Read more: www.nationalpost.com...


hmmm.... i would probably shoot the guy in the leg . instead of in the air . That way the courts can't say misuse of firearm . and i was still protecting mah self !


"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"

failsafe people go for the leg!

if canuckistan the police prefer that you get shot 15x and murdered and then go after your killer. that way the order of civility is preserved.

because everyone knows that law and order is civil and gun-toting civilians are barbaric.

luckily he didnt kill the guys who were trying to burn him alive in his own home, clearly thats murder and not self defence. he would have spent the 25 years in prison as an example to any other person who wants to live.

but a police officer thats a different matter, ask the polish man who came to canada to visit his mother in vancouver, didn't speak english and was overwhelmed by security. he was scared out of his mind and thought they were going to drag him away and execute him. he defended himself with a staple gun and was tasered out of his mind until he died. obvious case of self defence.

if i were him i would go to the u.s. and claim political asylum. clearly he is being unfairly persecuted for political reasons and is going to have is freedom taken away, and on top of that he didn't kill anyone.

maybe the sane and rational american's who live in the real world will protect a citizen of an ally instead of lying mexican drug cartel members who claim refugee status in the u.s. so they can smuggle drugs.

Well being in Ontario at the moment, I admit its a bit alarming. But in all fairness, they did not draw a firearm against him, so it could be argued from this standpoint he was out of line. And to further that, I would expect that initially charges would be have to laid against both parties until such time they appear in court....and here I GET OPTIMISTIC....the court will find in the Gentlemans favor once he has a chance to explain himself....unless he is beligerent towards the judge....then the outcome could be less favourable.

Seriously though, you kinda have to issue the charge, and then he is innocent until proven guilty.....this situation is should be scrutinized after the hearings....we may even have a chance to praise the legal system once this pans out....I will not count those chickens before they are hatched

Originally posted by Drala
Well being in Ontario at the moment, I admit its a bit alarming. But in all fairness, they did not draw a firearm against him, so it could be argued from this standpoint he was out of line. And to further that, I would expect that initially charges would be have to laid against both parties until such time they appear in court....and here I GET OPTIMISTIC....the court will find in the Gentlemans favor once he has a chance to explain himself....unless he is beligerent towards the judge....then the outcome could be less favourable.

Seriously though, you kinda have to issue the charge, and then he is innocent until proven guilty.....this situation is should be scrutinized after the hearings....we may even have a chance to praise the legal system once this pans out....I will not count those chickens before they are hatched

I don't doubt that the Court will find in his favour. However, that will be after he has spent a small fortune in legal costs, etc. It seems to me that Thomson's biggest mistake, was choosing to reside in Canada. Don't get me wrong, I'm a proud Canuck..... We just have NO rights.

In Ontario human life has priority consideration over material "stuff"; even if that stuff is your house.

It is not worth taking a human life, even if its the life of a scumbag, to protect inanimate objects.

I agree with that way of looking at things.

Originally posted by wayno
In Ontario human life has priority consideration over material "stuff"; even if that stuff is your house.

It is not worth taking a human life, even if its the life of a scumbag, to protect inanimate objects.

I agree with that way of looking at things.

I agree to a point as well. However, Ian Thomson fired his gun well over their heads. That would be the definition of WARNING SHOT.

reply to post by moondoggy2


Although I agree we have some unsual laws about home invasions and the ability to defend yourself in Canada. there are too many rights for the accused. There's more to the story than what's in the article. This is being sensationalized.It doesn't say he shot in to the air, it says he intentionally missed. His neighbor is one of the accused, but he also killed one of his neighbors chickens because they kept on coming onto his property. Something is missing. Finally he's seeing a psychiatrist too validate he was actually afraid at the time. Hmmm... I've been in forensic psychiatry and inpatient social psychiatry for a long time, never heard of a psych consult related to something like this before. there's more to the story.

reply to post by moondoggy2


I am getting the picture that he relied on his gun way too much to solve things or to threaten. What goes around comes around. He might of been better of to locate somewhere where there are no people to have to negotiate with.

Then again, honestly, there is the chance that he moved into a neighborhood with crazies next door who had a clique of crazy friends to support them. Taking and firebombing a guys house, even if he is a bad person, is still a stupid thing to do. The firebombing is worse than firing shots over their heads. I am sure that the court proceedings will support that, and the molotov cocktail throwers will receive the harsher penalty.

It sounds like a nonsense situation all the way around.

reply to post by wayno


Agreed... In Ontario if a man breaks into your house with a bat hits you and runs, you pick up the bat and chase him and hit him. You get charged, because he is no longer a threat, now you are. you could of just left the bat and called the police. not that I'm in total agreement with it , but it does make some sense. we don't want a spree of vigilantees chasing people for what they consider to be a threat. That's why we have specially trained police.

You see....The big problem with the entire story is that the home owner fired warning shots in the air instead of killing the sumbiatch and getting rid of the body,

It's true that we can not defend our property, our homes, children or wife. Not only we can not use a firearm but we can not use force, or what could be judged as unnecessary force. BUT....Trust me when I say this, IF my house gets broken in to while I'm in it......No one will ever find the body, I don't need no gun......Mouaaaahahahahahaha!!!....

The worst part about the story, is that this guy can no longer teach people how to safely hunt. Mr. Thompson was an awesome instructor, but now his name has been tarnished because he chose to protect himself.
I know bullets can't put out a fire but it can scare away whatever caused the fire...
What if there was a bear on his property (instead of arsons) and he fired warning shots, would he of have received the same penalty?

I hope his lawyer can help clear his name.

reply to post by Fox Molder


they can charge you in order to do an investigation but that doesn't mean you will get convicted. There is a protection for Canadian citizen's in the "Canadain Charter of Rights and Freedom' that applies to everyone in Canada, even refugees...

"Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

In court all they look for is whether it was reasonable force, if it was then charges are dropped. But if excessive, you will be charged.