There is a real serious problem in Canada, as the police, crown attorneys and the judges have created a little club of rome that the majority of the law abiding citizenry are learning about and it not about real laws that protect anyone, while the career criminals seem to be constantly treated with dispensation by the judicial system with special kid gloves, as it appears the whole system requires law abiding citizen to be terrorized to keep the legal system greased with sufficient tax dollars, to keep the doors open for those criminals as they come and go while making a mockery of the Canadian Courts, while law abidding citizen's keep on paying the price for government and police stupidity.


This video is part of surveillance video from the home of Ian Thomson of Port Colborne , ON. Thomson was charged with a series of gun-related offenses after he shot at three masked men who were firebombing his home with Molotov cocktails early on a Sunday morning, Aug. 22, 2010. The attack was caught on tape by his security cameras.

This guy should be praised for standing up to these terrorists, as the police are too busy handing out tickets as they are mandated to do as a collection agency, nothing more for the local government.
A man who in their eyes is an outlaw, while police and crown's misgiven views about how they want to look at the laws, think he does not have the right to protect himself and/or his family; even though he has the responsibility to do it just that to keep them safe.

And no matter what these clowns in government office or those who claim they are there to serve and protect say...No government or Judge or Police can take that away, when it comes to self defense.
 
Another example is how Crown is letting criminals off the hook. This is a vital contrasting element to the whole approach by government. They are perverting the law, and turning it on its head in order to consolidate their control over the people, and are violating the Law of the Land (our ancient Constitution).



Defending your rights Vs. Criminals



This Fellow not only got his guns back after four years but won back his right to defend himself. The Bottom line is police nor the government has the right to arrest people who are justifyied in defending themself against those who try to harm people.

Examination of police shootings

Federal Criminal Code of Canada says;

SELF-DEFENCE AGAINST UNPROVOKED ASSAULT

... / Extent of justification.

34. (1) Every 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.

(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. [R.S. c.C-34, s.34.]

 Also see The Canadian Bill of Rights

People have a god given right and duty to defend themselves from terrorists, criminals and anyone, who attacks, or comes onto private property to commit acts of violence and/or murder. Whether the police or the government likes it or not, the right to self defense is a given..

The justice system is going to get another shellacking of public outrage over this one, just like they did with David Chen the Toronto grocer. The cops and crown 'persecutor' will be writhing in shame once public indignation collectively kicks them all in their smug, self-satisfied arses. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the depth of stupidity, to which our justice system has sunk so low too and how our Canadian government is bent on removing everyone freedoms at every turn., just as the Federal Liberals have done and will do... 

What is intererstring in another issue in BC, the two people that helped to physically subdue an attacker of a B.C. Victoria police officer weren't even charged  themselves with overstepping their bounds, where one man while being interviewed on the mainstream news (CBC) stated if he didn't stay down he would kill him, to the attacker which is uttereding death threats and stated himself again, he gave the attacker a few shots which is an assault on the attacker, which was over looked, not only by the mainstream media, but by Victoria police themselves. Now According to The Victoria News they stated, that the officer said with the attacker pinning her to the ground, Lane had the clairty of mind to yell at nearby pedestrians to stay back, in consideration for their safety, said Sgt. Grant Hamiton, Which is another charge of failing to obay an officer, obstrution of a peace officer in the line of duty..

On the other side, what we have now, is that if you protect your life or protect your property, these clowns in police and the crown, will try to send you to jail, Yes Canadians, think about this, if you protect a police officer, you are a hero, if you protect yourself or your family and property, you are a criminal and a outlaw. What's the difference between the two?

SEC.

I  seriously question whether the 'authorities' actually understand the laws they are enforcing in common law. They should have charged the arsonists, terrorists, masked bandits with attempted murder. They should have charged them with conspiracy to commit murder. They should have charged them with wearing a disguise while committing a criminal act and terrorism. They should have charged them with criminal trespassing. They should have charged them with any number of counts related to illegal possession and use of explosives (gasoline bombs). The lone 'gunman, Hero and defender of his rights' on the other hand has acted totally in accordance with his rights under the law who did not use more force than necessary to protect his property, life and surcurity of one self.

He merely scared the criminals off with his gun and anyone in their right minds knows, if you have common sense, that you do not approach anybody tossing firebombs or those in the act of committing terrorism, as the police and crown would just prefer you to just to ask them to leave.

He is entitled under the criminal code to protect his property, "IF HE USES NO MORE FORCE THAN NECESSARY." That is exactly what he did.

A message to the Crown Prosecutor and Police in this case--read the law, grasp the law and get your dimwitted retardation out of your asses, as it plain to see that you the police and your cowardly government crown had better understand, what these laws means if you want to remain doing your jobs....People are not going to tolerate their rights and freedoms being violated day in and day out, while you clowns keep making law abidding citzen out as outlaws.

I'm Dick Freeman and that is my View.

---

Lorne Gunter: Canadians have a right to self-defence, even if our officials deny it

 

Lorne Gunter January 24, 2011 – 9:45 am

Canadian officialdom is conducting an all-out assault against self-defence. Quite simply, few politicians, Crown prosecutors, judges, law professors and police commanders believe ordinary Canadians have any business using force to defend themselves, their loved ones, homes, farms or businesses.

The latest example of the campaign against self-defence comes from southern Ontario. In August, retired crane operator Ian Thomson, who lives near Port Colborne, awoke early in the morning to find masked men attempting to burn his house down with him in it. When he fired at them with a licensed handgun he had stored in a safe, he was charged.

How out-of-touch are police and prosecutors when you are not even allowed to defend yourself and your property from thugs attempting to incinerate you? Their attitude seems to be that it is better to die waiting for police to respond than to take matters into your own hands.

About six years ago, Thomson moved to a rural property near Port Colborne to find peace and quiet. Almost immediately, he had a run-in with his neighbour over the neighbour’s unwillingness to keep his chickens in his own yard. Ever since, tension between the two has escalated.

Then early one Sunday morning last August, three masked men showed up outside Thomson’s home and started lobbing Molotov cocktails at the house while Thomson was inside. A former firearms instructor, Thomson took a revolver from his gun safe, loaded it, then went outside and fired two or three shots in the direction of the arsonists.

Thomson has surveillance cameras around his property. When he gave tapes from them to police to aid their search for the firebombers, police charged him with pointing a firearm and careless storage of firearms. Officers also turned up at his home and confiscated his collection of seven firearms and seized his firearms licence.

Police are so opposed to citizens defending themselves that even if criminals show up at your rural home, far from a police station, and try to burn it to the ground with you inside, you are considered the criminal if you shoot at them. Even if you clearly and obvious believe your life and home to be in imminent danger, officials will not support your attempts to stop your attackers.

There is also the case of David Chen, the Toronto green grocer who was acquitted last year of assault and unlawful confinement for detaining a career criminal he caught shoplifting from his store. Crown prosecutors had so convinced themselves that Chen’s defensive actions posed a greater threat to public order that they offered a lighter sentence to Anthony Bennett, the shoplifter, in return for his testimony against Chen.

On Friday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper met with Chen and promised him a new citizen’s-arrest bill would be introduced into Parliament within three to four weeks — shortly after MPs return to work on Jan. 31. The bill is supposed to make it easier for ordinary citizen’s to arrest and detain suspects without falling afoul of the law and having to defend their actions in costly court battles.

Then there is Joseph Singleton, the Taber, Alta. oilfield consultant who returned home to his acreage last May to find his home ransacked and a thief fleeing. When the burglar started ramming his car, Singleton took a hatchet and, with the flat side, hit the thief twice on the side of the face. Without questioning Singleton – based solely on the say-so of the burglar – police last October charged Singleton with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

If officials aren’t out to end the right to self-defence, why would they side with the criminals against law-abiding citizens?

Thomson’s case has caused some to call for the entrenchment of the “Castle Doctrine” in Canadian law. Several American states already have such statutes that recognize a person’s home as his or her castle and give homeowners the right to use deadly force to protect their homes, family and property.

Frankly, there’s no need to copy the Americans. Canadians already have the right to use force – even deadly force – to protect themselves, we need simply to return to our legal roots.

When Canada became independent at Confederation in 1867, Canadians retained the rights they had at the time as British subjects. These included three “absolute rights”: the right to personal liberty, the right to private property and the right to self-defence, up to and including the right to kill an attacker or burglar.

William Blackstone, Britain’s famous constitutional expert, argued the right to self-defence included the right to kill even an agent of the king found on one’s property after dark, uninvited. He also traced the right to armed self-defence back to the time of King Canute (995–1035) when subjects could be fined for failing to keep weapons for their own protection.

Even in Upper Canada for much of the 19^th Century it was the law that all adult males be armed, at their own expense. In part, this was so a militia could be formed quickly for defence of the colony and in part so individuals were prepared to defend themselves and their property.

These rights have not been extinguished just because Canada has become modernized and urbanized, or because our officials would rather pretend they don’t exist and never have.

To be sure, our right to self-defence is not a licence to kill. The force ordinary citizens may use in self-defence must be proportionate to the threat they face. You cannot shoot someone for poking a finger in your chest or cutting you off in traffic. But the real possibility that attackers might burn you up inside your own home – as they allegedly intended to do to Ian Thomson – would seem to justify shooting at them with a handgun, even if you end up killing them.

The right to self-defence conflicts with the belief modern lovers of big government have that only the military and police should be allowed to use force, so self-defence has to be treated as a crime.

In truth, it is an individual right that existed before government and, so, cannot be extinguished by government.

National Post

---

Death of Personal Responsibility: Fight the criminal, then the court

Matt Gurney: Canadians' right to protect their lives and property is being eroded by judges and police who treat lawful self-defence as a serious crime
 

Matt Gurney: Protecting the lawful citizen

 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/01/25/matt-gurney-protecting-the-lawful-citizen/

Matt Gurney January 25, 2011 – 7:12 am

 

Shoplifters. Burglars. Home invaders. All too often, they are deemed “victims” of the very people they attack: peaceful law-abiding citizens, many quite literally minding their own business.

 From store-owner David Chen’s attempts to fight shoplifters, to Port Colborne, Ont. home-owner Ian Thomson’s attempts to fight off arsonists, courts and the police treat many Canadians who defend themselves no better than the thugs who would do harm to their persons or property. Over time, this attitude has eroded Canadians’ sense of personal responsibility for their own security — or made them too fearful of the consequences to act on it.

 Thomson’s plight speaks eloquently to this bleak truth. Last August, three masked men pelted Thomson’s rural Ontario home with at least six flaming Molotov cocktails while he was sleeping inside. Thomson, who legally owned handguns, stepped out and fired several shots, driving off the attackers without harming them. He notified police of the incident and turned over surveillance film from security cameras installed around his home. The police arrested two men … and then arrested Thomson as well, for firearm-related offences. The Crown is seeking jail time.

 

In 1995, Ottawa resident James Morrow endured an even worse ordeal. A man with whom Morrow had a business dispute kicked in his apartment building’s door in a drunken rage. The man proceeded to Morrow’s unit, where he claimed he had a gun and was there to “blow [Morrow’s] head off.” Morrow immediately called 911 and spent a harrowing nine minutes on the telephone with the operator, during which time police failed to arrive. The intruder finally smashed down the door and entered his home, whereupon Morrow, also a legal handgun owner, shot him dead. Morrow was charged with murder; his court battle lasted two-and-half-years, despite being a textbook example of a legitimate use of force according to the judge dismissed the charges against him.

 

The cases of Thomson and Morrow illustrate the nature of such confrontations. Faced with an imminent and grave threat to their lives, with nary a cop in sight, what other options did these men have? Had they not acted in self-defence, both might well be dead.

 

In some cases, the police not only fail to show up to calls from citizens, but make it plain that they have no intention of protecting them or their property.

 

That was the situation facing New Brunswick resident Lawrence Manzer. In March of 2010, when his neighbour discovered three intruders in his backyard at 2:30 a.m., he phoned Manzer, who stepped on to his porch holding an unloaded shotgun. Manzer and his neighbour had suffered repeated acts of vandalism on their properties before this confrontation; previously, the police had shown themselves uninterested in responding to such minor crimes. Yet this time, the police acted — arresting Manzer for threatening the public peace. His case remains before the courts.

 

On a broader scale, there also is the disgraceful abandonment of the people of Caledonia by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). Since 2006, the residents of this Ontario town have faced threats, intimidation and outright assault at the hands of natives enraged by a land claim dispute involving a housing development. Instead of protecting the terrorized homeowners, the OPP refused to intervene lest they further “inflame” the situation.

 

And of course, there is the case of Toronto store-owner David Chen. After suffering daily harassment by shoplifters and manifest indifference by the police, in May 2009 Chen finally made a citizens’ arrest of one of the most notorious repeat offenders. Instead of thanking him for doing their job, police charged Chen with assault and forcible confinement. Acquitted of both counts last October, his actions may prove a tipping point. Last week, the federal Conservatives announced that they would introduce legislation to change the rules for citizens’ arrests, to ensure other well-meaning individuals do not face a repeat of the Chen fiasco.

 

Taking the law into one’s own hands isn’t the answer, some will say; doing so is not only dangerous but absolves the police of their responsibility to protect the public. But the reality is that the police cannot be everywhere and protect everyone, even when they choose to respond to a call. Even in major cities like Vancouver and Ottawa, the police response time to 911 calls averages about 10 minutes, an eternity for a person facing a life-or-death situation.

 

The right of Canadians to safeguard themselves, their families and their property is rooted in our common-law tradition, and clearly laid out in the Criminal Code. This includes the right to use force when “under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm.” The Code also specifies that “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.”

 

Instead of being hit with a flurry of charges, victims who defeat their attackers should get a citation for bravery. We need more Ian Thomsons, David Morrows, Lawrence Manzers and David Chens. Only by letting individual citizens protect themselves with reasonable force without fear of legal consequence can the law be put back on the side of the lawful citizen.

 

National Post

 mgurney@nationalpost.com

---

 

Harper set to introduce citizen's arrest bill

Last Updated: Saturday, January 22, 2011

The Canadian Press

Toronto shopkeeper David Chen (right) met with Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Friday to discuss a potential new citizen's arrest bill. (Frank Gunn/Canadian Press)

The Conservative government will table legislation soon after Parliament resumes in nine days to make citizen's arrests easier, the prime minister's office confirmed Saturday.

Despite the controversy that sometimes accompanies their law-and-order agenda, the Tories are hopeful that they can count on Liberal and NDP support since each party has already tabled private member's bills on the issue.

"I expect that the government will be introducing legislation as quickly as possible once the new session starts, in the next couple of weeks," Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesman Dimitri Soudas told The Canadian Press.

"We also hope that the opposition parties will support the government legislation."

Harper delivered that same message to two Toronto businessmen in a private meeting Friday, saying that the new bill would be introduced in Parliament in three to four weeks. The House of Commons resumes Jan. 31.

Harper met with shopkeeper David Chen and investment banker Ricky Chan in Toronto on Friday.

Chen made national headlines last fall when he was acquitted of assault and forcible confinement after catching and tying up a shoplifter in Toronto.

Catching a thief in the act is a requirement of the law when making such a citizen's arrest. Chen captured the shoplifter one hour after he stole plants from his store. However, a judge called the one-hour issue a "red herring," saying the thief had gone back for more loot.

The huge public outcry over Chen's case — especially in vote-rich Toronto — caught the attention of the government and opposition parties.

Soudas stressed that the government was not playing politics with the issue. He said Harper tracked the case closely but could say nothing publicly until it wound its way through the courts.

"The prime minister was following this very closely from the get-go," said Soudas.

"On issues such as this one, politics should always be left aside."

In separate interviews Saturday, Chen and Chan said their private meeting with Harper the previous evening left them feeling upbeat.

"People steal lots of things and we can't do anything," Chen said.

"We hope the law, [they] can change it so we can have more power to protect the store owners … I know how much money we lose there."

Chan, who attended the meeting to help with translation, added that Harper seemed genuinely interested in Chen's plight.

"In about three to four weeks, there will be a law tabled at parliament," said Chan.

Toronto MPs introduced similar bills

Last year, New Democrat MP Olivia Chow — Chen's MP — introduced a private bill to change the law to allow more time for such an arrest. Liberal MP Joe Volpe tabled a similar bill, using different language.

"The Conservative government, hopefully this time around with the expressed support of the Liberals and the NDP, hopefully this thing will go forward," said Chan, who formed a victims' rights action committee a year and a half ago to aid Chen after his arrest.

"If you've got the governing party presenting a bill, you've got a better chance of getting it done."

In November, Harper instructed the Justice Department to look at changing the Criminal Code to ensure that there is no repeat of what happened to Chen.

Chan said Friday's meeting was called on short notice, while Harper was in the Toronto area.

Chen, Chan and Harper spoke for about 10 minutes around the 6 p.m. supper hour, said Chan.

Though the meeting was private, and the media was not advised that it was taking place, Chan said, "we were told it was OK to discuss the meeting … by the prime ministers' office."

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson's office would not discuss the prospect of new legislation being tabled when the House of Commons resumes, deferring all questions to Harper's office

---

Man faces jail after protecting home and self from masked attackers who use fire bombs...

Tamsin McMahon January 20, 2011 – 9:20 pm