Prosecutor demands prison for good guy, again

[Homeownertoo]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/20 ... attackers/

[Bsuds]

Not fair and BS! If that isn't self defense then what is?

Can I volunteer to be on the jury?

[zzontar]

I guess he didn't realize that when these punks were trying to burn down his house with him in it, they were just expressing their emotions... he should have encouraged them more and just stayed inside and burned to death... after all, this is Canada... maybe he mistakenly thought the one's trying to burn his house down were the bad guys. Is it any wonder more and more people turn to violent crime when they know the law will be against anyone trying to stop them?

[dieseluphammerdown]

I don't know which is more appalling , the fact he is facing charges or the moronic prosecutor who is asking for jail time.

It's time we change the laws so that people can protect themselves and their property using any force necessary when circumstances like this arise.

[Homeownertoo]

I liked a couple of the comments from Post readers:

"I question whether the 'authorities' actually understand the laws they are enforcing. They should have charged the arsonists 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. 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 'gunman' on the other hand has acted totally in accordance with his rights under the law and did not use more force than necessary to protect his property. He merely scared the criminals off with his gun and anyone in their right minds knows that you do not approach anybody tossing firebombs 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."

and

“'That’s why the courts are there, to give a person an opportunity to explain their actions.'"

No Constable. The courts are there for YOU to explain why the accused should be convicted. This is some pretty basic stuff you seem to have not absorbed, officer."

Both comments illustrate how, at least in this case and probably in many more, the alleged justice system has abandoned its traditional role of protecting society from criminal actions and has embarked upon an assault on the concept and members of civil society itself.

[nolanrh]

Both comments illustrate how, at least in this case and probably in many more, the alleged justice system has abandoned its traditional role of protecting society from criminal actions and has embarked upon an assault on the concept and members of civil society itself.

Yes, "at least in this case". I was outraged when I read the story as well. However, it's worth keeping in mind that, we don't see the information the police officer had when he decided to press charges, nor do we see the information that was placed in front of the Crown prosecutor when the charge approval decision was made.

The provincial courts in British Columbia alone handle approximately 145,000 cases a year. Of course some are going to be handled incorrectly, and of course the most outrageous ones are going to make the news. We don't even have an outcome in this case yet. This is not evidence that the justice system has "embarked upon an assault on the concept and members of civil society itself".

[steven lloyd]

The provincial courts in British Columbia alone handle approximately 145,000 cases a year. Of course some are going to be handled incorrectly, ...

And rather than sound like a broken record in pointing out the obvious, I'll decline doing that.

[Homeownertoo]

I was outraged when I read the story as well. However, it's worth keeping in mind that, we don't see the information the police officer had when he decided to press charges, nor do we see the information that was placed in front of the Crown prosecutor when the charge approval decision was made.

That's a pretty poor excuse. If the media was able to dig up this information, then police investigators and Crown, armed with the evidence of six video cameras, not to mention the victim's testimony and the charred ruins of some of his property, cannot claim (whether or not they did) that they didn't have all the facts before pressing charges. That, after all, is part of their job.