Home vandalized, mother of accused teen comes to his defense?

Forum Sponsor
Rob MacLennan said:
When someone attempts to firebomb an occupied home it jumps from a simple property crime, to attempted murder.
Click to expand...

I really don't think you'd be successful in convicting someone for attempted murder for throwing a molotov cocktail onto a driveway.. I'm not a lawyer..but good luck with that! :-)
 
classify it as terrorism and call it a WMD, ship them off to GITMO :)

invictus43 said:
I really don't think you'd be successful in convicting someone for attempted murder for throwing a molotov cocktail onto a driveway.. I'm not a lawyer..but good luck with that! :-)
Click to expand...
 
invictus43 said:
I really don't think you'd be successful in convicting someone for attempted murder for throwing a molotov cocktail onto a driveway.. I'm not a lawyer..but good luck with that! :-)
Click to expand...

one word, arson

This guy is in a no win situation. If he responds with force he will get charged. If he does not, it will keep happening.

Maybe the redit people should get involved, some pictures of the kids posted all over the place and calls to the families' employers may shift the balance...
 
backmarkerducati said:
one word, arson

This guy is in a no win situation. If he responds with force he will get charged. If he does not, it will keep happening.

Maybe the redit people should get involved, some pictures of the kids posted all over the place and calls to the families' employers may shift the balance...
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure you could get the arson to stick..they didn't actually burn anything down! :-) I think they'd get a mischief and that would probably stick.
 
backmarkerducati said:
Except they do not seem to motivated to take care of it, that is the tough spot he is in.
Click to expand...

Totally agree..but really it's all he can do. Unless he lures them into the house and they happen to have a weapon on them...
 
invictus43 said:
I really don't think you'd be successful in convicting someone for attempted murder for throwing a molotov cocktail onto a driveway.. I'm not a lawyer..but good luck with that! :-)
Click to expand...

Ineptitude doesn't mitigate against intent.

"I wanted to burn the house down, but couldn't figure out the child proof lighter."
 
FiReSTaRT said:
Our authorities want us to lie down, let ourselves be victimized and then send the police to take a statement, assuming we're able to give one. Chances of catching the suspects are slim to none and they are usually the types who know how to shut up and just ask for a lawyer, so conviction is a very remote possibilities and the plea bargains are typically jokes. I'm all for the castle doctrine.
Click to expand...

Take of the tin foil hat dude. Harper introduced legislation to meet force with force in defence of property and the Liberals shut him down. When the Conservatives got the majority it was reintroduced, and has now been passed. Under the previous wording, you could not under any circumstances meet a trespasser or intruder, or theif with force.

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=3966

Amendments to the defence of property provisions would repeal the confusing defence of property language that is now spread over five sections of the Criminal Code (s.38-42). One new defence of property provision would be created, eliminating the many distinctions regarding acts a person can take in defence of different types of property. The new provision would permit a person in "peaceable possession" of a property to commit a reasonable act (including the use of force) for the purpose of protecting that property from being taken, damaged or trespassed upon.
Click to expand...

This legislation was pushed in part because of the incident where a firearms instructor had his house firebombed and he fired at the guys doing it only to get charged.

I know I've barely been here a month, but I've noticed A LOT of members will let loose on the police and the government with out of date, out of context, or out of country info and assumptions...
 
Last edited:
Macs said:
Take of the tin foil hat dude. Harper introduced legislation to meet force with force in defence of property and the Liberals shut him down. When the Conservatives got the majority it was reintroduced, and has now been passed. Under the previous wording, you could not under any circumstances meet a trespasser or intruder, or theif with force.

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=3966

I know I've barely been here a month, but I've noticed A LOT of members will let loose on the police and the government with out of date, out of context, or out of country info and assumptions...
Click to expand...

It really isn't that much of a change. The majority of the 'changes' are actually just defining what already exists, in the Criminal Code.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
It really isn't that much of a change. The majority of the 'changes' are actually just defining what already exists, in the Criminal Code.
Click to expand...

Somewhat true, but it in effect restricts what a Crown will and won't pursue in court and what someone can be charged with. If the law was written as such there's no way someone would be charged for shooting at people trying to burn down his house with him inside. What it is is an allowance of force which is a pretty major change, and a catch-all wording that empowers property owners. Keep in mind property doesn't mean a house, it extends to property on your person, your car, etc.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Ineptitude doesn't mitigate against intent.

"I wanted to burn the house down, but couldn't figure out the child proof lighter."
Click to expand...

You can try that Rob, but I really don't think you'd have any hope of a conviction. They're young offenders, they didn't hurt anyone..I'd say it's nearly impossible. The house didn't get burnt down..
 
You don't need to be successful to be charged with attempted arson. You only have to go past the preparation stage. Arson is a felony crime in Canada and although the punishment on conviction of the attempt is lighter, it's still Arson once you transport the "equipment" to the scene.
 
invictus43 said:
You can try that Rob, but I really don't think you'd have any hope of a conviction. They're young offenders, they didn't hurt anyone..I'd say it's nearly impossible. The house didn't get burnt down..
Click to expand...

Read back. I've never been talking about getting a conviction. I've been talking about police involvement.
 
Macs said:
Somewhat true, but it in effect restricts what a Crown will and won't pursue in court and what someone can be charged with. If the law was written as such there's no way someone would be charged for shooting at people trying to burn down his house with him inside. What it is is an allowance of force which is a pretty major change, and a catch-all wording that empowers property owners. Keep in mind property doesn't mean a house, it extends to property on your person, your car, etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly the same thing can happen now, that has happened in previous cases, because a determination must be made as to reasonable response and reasonable force.
 
invictus43 said:
That's a bit of hyperbole there.. :-) The bottom line is, they're committing a property crime..and they're young offenders. People propose stopping that with assault, which is a criminal charge. So not only will they egg your house, you'll end up with the criminal record. That's the law, like it or not. You lose twice. The first words out of HR's mouth when we're hiring is "Do you have your criminal background check?" That's 3 fails.
Like I said, if you were already in the thug-life, they wouldn't be egging your house..and if you're not, do you really want to be a thug?
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the legal framework gives the homeowner the choice of being a thug or being a victim and nothing in between? To me that sounds like the legal framework needs to change. If you have problems with that, go to Jane/Finch and hug a few of them. While you do that, I'll visit my MP and talk about realistic solutions.

invictus43 said:
I really don't think you'd be successful in convicting someone for attempted murder for throwing a molotov cocktail onto a driveway.. I'm not a lawyer..but good luck with that! :-)
Click to expand...

You keep illustrating the need for the homeowner to be given the legal leeway to defend his person and property. If a thug missed with one Molotov, how do I know there aren't any more where that one came from and how do I know that the next one won't go through my bedroom window?

Rob MacLennan said:
Exactly the same thing can happen now, that has happened in previous cases, because a determination must be made as to reasonable response and reasonable force.
Click to expand...

I say Castle Doctrine and that way the police doesn't have to make that determination or force tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills on me so the court can make it.
 
I am gonna come right out and say that a thrown molotov cocktail is attempted arson. ( note that attempted anything is really the same as the actual offence ) - indicable offence - 14 year max.
 
grantorino1.jpg


"Get off my lawn"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom