Jump to content

Should the Law protect criminals?


Argus

Recommended Posts

What happened here is ordinary untrained citizens chased down an alleged criminal. Emphasis on alleged as he has not yet been tried. Your post assumes his guilt, which we cannot do at this point, that's not the way our system works. Further, the folks in this situation were lucky, if we encourage or even support this type of behavior we may not be that lucky next time. Someone could be seriously hurt by attempting to be a hero. The Police are trained to handle difficult situations, and react to danger appropriately, ordinary citizens are not. I'm sure you personally can appreciate the difference training makes in dangerous situations.

Well in this case the Judge did find him guilty, and one does not have to be a judge or lawyer to see a crime take place and know it is illigal....if i walk up your drive way and steal your car, and you see me both of us know i'm guilty of theft....thats how common sense works.... And while chasing down criminals is a serious bussiness and does require training and is NOT recommended by law enforcement....it should NOT be again'st the law....

Our current sys we have in place is not working, as it should....the lack of proper funding to our law enforcement sys, to our courts, and many of our liberal laws such as this one here....we are discussing .....has effectivily handed a large advantage to the criminals....Criminals would not be doing this type of activty if it did not pay off in some way....

Why should a criminals rights out wiegh a normal citizens rights.....

Therein lays the danger, if we open the door to this type of behavior we'll open a whole can of worms we're not prepared to deal with. You may think the notion that this will lead to vigilantism is absurd, and perhaps it wouldn't go that far. However, human nature being what it is, you give them and inch and they take a mile. Rarely do we make grand leaps to where we end up, the road to hell is taken one step at a time and every inch is paved with good intentions.

Here we are saying that protecting ourselfs, assisting the law is bad, will be one step closer to hell, that there will always be a citizen that will stretch it to far.....your right there is always that chance.....but all it takes for these scumbags to floushish is to do nothing.....and trust me they are more willing to take that extra mile than ordinary citizens are...in fact they've built an entire industry out doing so.....

Citizens are tired of being on the short end of the stick, and will eventually take the law into thier own hands damn the consquences....Do you see policing getting better any time soon ? do you see our courts changing laws for the better ? do you see these criminals changing thier ways anytime soon....I bet your answer is NO....so where does that leave us , citizens that do obey the laws, but result in paying for criminals out of thier pocket....we pay for policing, we pay for housing, we pay higher insurance, we pay for equipment to stop them, ie secure doors, security gear, etc etc etc

now we are becoming criminals when we get frustrated that our system the one designed to protect us from all that is not doing what it is suppose to do....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This one is extra special, though, Army Guy.

Mr. Chen is not being punished for catching the guy. He really had no choice about that, since the alternative seemed to be to simply let him take whatever he wished, whenever he wished.

Mr. Chen is, in fact, being punished for notifying the police: Not calling the police is the only change of action that would improve his circumstances. Calling the police is the only element of his action that makes his situation worse than it was.

That's the special absurdity of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Molly, what are you talking about ?

all three men face charges of assault, kidnapping, unlawful confinement and carrying concealed weapons (box cutters, Mr. Lindsay says).

You're allowed to detain people that you catch in the act of committing a crime, from what I understand, but there's a grey area and that's the problem. If they had simply detained the suspect and called the police, there would arguably have been no charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from the article.

On the morning of Saturday, May 23, surveillance video at Mr. Chen's Lucky Moose supermarket caught Mr. Bennett on a bicycle stealing $60 worth of plants, only to return an hour later. When confronted, he fled on foot, with Mr. Chen and two employees in pursuit.

They caught him, tied him up and put him in a delivery truck to await police. For their trouble, all three men face charges of assault, kidnapping, unlawful confinement and carrying concealed weapons (box cutters, Mr. Lindsay says).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I wonder what this will mean for those red beret wearing guardian angels douchebags? I think that theives should be punished a lot more harshly by the way, and that if the cops spent less time focused on stopping people from growing and smoking whatever plants they want they might have the time and personnel to use for catching real criminals like thieves and those who commit violent acts. We can't have people using natural health products though can we Mr Nicholson? We better pass laws against garlic capsules and sea kelp. Then we can keep whining that we have not enough police to catch criminals.

from the article.

On the morning of Saturday, May 23, surveillance video at Mr. Chen's Lucky Moose supermarket caught Mr. Bennett on a bicycle stealing $60 worth of plants, only to return an hour later. When confronted, he fled on foot, with Mr. Chen and two employees in pursuit.

They caught him, tied him up and put him in a delivery truck to await police. For their trouble, all three men face charges of assault, kidnapping, unlawful confinement and carrying concealed weapons (box cutters, Mr. Lindsay says).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Michael.

"He wouldn't comment on the charges facing Mr. Chen and his co-accused, but noted that had Mr. Bennett been in the act of stealing when Mr. Chen and his employees chased, tackled and bound him, the matter would have ended there.

That's what lawyer Mr. Lindsay hopes to change – to expand existing citizen's arrest laws so it's legal for property owners to arrest someone they suspect is committing or has committed a crime, even if they're not doing it at that moment.

“Why should the law be difficult and tricky for the good guy?” he said. “That's what doesn't make sense to me.”

"If they had simply detained the suspect and called the police, there would arguably have been no charge." is not true, because that is exactly what they did. Now if they had done precisely the same thing an hour sooner, or if they'd waited until after he grabbed whatever he was there to grab, then there would have been no charge.

But I'll make'what I'm talking about' clearer by listing the available options:

1. Ignore him, do nothing, and let him steal repeatedly.

2. Phone the police, waste your breath, be frustrated while they do nothing, and let him repeatedly steal .

3. Catch him, hold him for the police, be charged with assault and kidnapping.

4. Catch him, actually assault him (vigorously) since you would be charged with assault anyway for catching him, and don't call the police... then he' just might avoid your place when he's out stealing next time, and likely won't call the police either for fear of being charged with thievery... but even if he does, it's still just his word against that of you and your accomplices, so no charges are likely... and in worst case, you could score some leniency for testifying against the thief....

So... the two options that include calling the police are the least beneficial. The two that leave the police out of it have the best cost/benefit balance. The only one that has a possible postive margin, where some good could actually come of it, is the one in which the thief is truly assaulted, and the police obstructed.

Edited by Molly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I wonder what this will mean for those red beret wearing guardian angels douchebags? I think that theives should be punished a lot more harshly by the way, and that if the cops spent less time focused on stopping people from growing and smoking whatever plants they want they might have the time and personnel to use for catching real criminals like thieves and those who commit violent acts. We can't have people using natural health products though can we Mr Nicholson? We better pass laws against garlic capsules and sea kelp. Then we can keep whining that we have not enough police to catch criminals.

Well if you want true libertairian society allow me to stop paying for your healthcare, so you can smoke all the plants seeds and chemicals you want, and you can be truely responsible for your actions. You cannot have it both ways. As for the the natural health products bill you couldn't be more wrong it was all about truth in labelling what was on the label should be in the bottle, it was also to stop companies from making false claims. It better darn well do what the label on the bottle says it does. Tehir was nothing in the bill that took away your right to use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Molly,

No Michael.

"He wouldn't comment on the charges facing Mr. Chen and his co-accused, but noted that had Mr. Bennett been in the act of stealing when Mr. Chen and his employees chased, tackled and bound him, the matter would have ended there.

That's what lawyer Mr. Lindsay hopes to change – to expand existing citizen's arrest laws so it's legal for property owners to arrest someone they suspect is committing or has committed a crime, even if they're not doing it at that moment.

That's going too far in my opinion.

If this is indeed the case, that they didn't see this person commit a crime and just detained them anyway, then they were rightly arrested IMO.

“Why should the law be difficult and tricky for the good guy?” he said. “That's what doesn't make sense to me.”

"If they had simply detained the suspect and called the police, there would arguably have been no charge." is not true, because that is exactly what they did. Now if they had done precisely the same thing an hour sooner, or if they'd waited until after he grabbed whatever he was there to grab, then there would have been no charge.

No, they tied the person up.

But I'll make'what I'm talking about' clearer by listing the available options:

1. Ignore him, do nothing, and let him steal repeatedly.

2. Phone the police, waste your breath, be frustrated while they do nothing, and let him repeatedly steal .

3. Catch him, hold him for the police, be charged with assault and kidnapping.

4. Catch him, actually assault him (vigorously) since you would be charged with assault anyway for catching him, and don't call the police... then he' just might avoid your place when he's out stealing next time, and likely won't call the police either for fear of being charged with thievery... but even if he does, it's still just his word against that of you and your accomplices, so no charges are likely... and in worst case, you could score some leniency for testifying against the thief....

I doubt there's a legal definition for "catching" somebody. You can detain them, from my understanding, but not tie them up or assault them. If they assault you then you can defend yourself.

They tied him up. I don't think it's reasonable to allow people to tie others up based on suspicion. That would lead to abuses, obviously.

So... the two options that include calling the police are the least beneficial. The two that leave the police out of it have the best cost/benefit balance. The only one that has a possible postive margin, where some good could actually come of it, is the one in which the thief is truly assaulted, and the police obstructed.

I guess it depends on how you define 'catching'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are making the assumption that it will stop with simply "Catching" the criminals and that it would not devolve into also making the ordinary citizen judge, jury and executioner.

So we make it legal to catch them and illegal to punish them. It's not all that complicated!

The fact remains that ordinary citizens do not have the right, nor should they, to detain other citizens.

Actually they do. But they have to do it right at the moment the "citizen" is commiting his crime. Not allowed to chase him, for some reason.

What are the consequences of misapprehending? What recompense will the other citizens make for damaging that individuals reputation, holding them against their will for no reason?

If the person detained accidentally wishes to pursue a case then your lovely courts are open for that, right?

You're naive indeed if you really believe that regular citizens are at all qualified to make the legal determinations you seem so ready to empower them with.

I don't think you need a law degree to be able to determine that a man you just saw stealing from you is a thief. Just what other conclusion do you believe could be drawn?

People react emotionally to a situation, that’s not hysteria that's a fact. If a person is upset enough they may end up doing something they regret. Regular citizens are not trained to asses or handle dangerous situations, nor are they trained to assess what the appropriate amount of force is that should be applied. If you think people won’t' take it too far you're deluding yourself.

You're acting like people are children and shouldn't be allowed to tie their own shoes without a lawyer standing over them to supervise. I think that people are mature enough to be able to recognize what they can and cannot do legally. And if they step that far over the line then you can arrest them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you define KNOWN criminal for me please?

A guy with a record 6 pages long dating back 33 years - practically to the day he arrived in Canada from his shithole of a country in the Carribean (thank you AGAIN, Immigration Canada).

A guy who has been repeatedly seen in that neighborhood, in person and on video, stealing.

In other words, THIS guy. This crack-head with (of course) 6 kids.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argus,

Part of the problem is lack of clarity around what constitutes 'holding'. Is binding someone holding ?

And what is 'catching' ?

How else you hold someone, either you bind them with your arms, or a devise.

This seems to be getting into the realm of ridiculous, but I suppose that just is a given now as society has become a ridiculous facade of its former self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A thief who had stolen from local shops dozens of times, recorded numerous times on surveilance cameras returned to the scene of one of his crimes and was recognized by staff. They chased him down the street, caught him, tied him up, and held him for police.

.......

My friend sat in his fathers store after numerous late night burglaries. He waited with a rifle and when the thieves came in, he chased them out and followed them to their car just outside the front door. Oh yes they were scared.

So.... He shot one of them... from behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argus,

Part of the problem is lack of clarity around what constitutes 'holding'. Is binding someone holding ?

And what is 'catching' ?

Catching would be stopping someone from fleeing. Binding, in this case, was by duct taping him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you not figured it out. Our courts are now gaged to protect the wicked...I would not go near a court of law for a million bucks! The powers that be love crimminals..They harrass the good people of the nation and keep them off kilter. Look at the medical profession...if you put an evil old hag in the hospital beside a good and just old woman - they get rid of the good one - because the good one does not serve the bad system well - it's that simple- wake up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a friend who worked in retail and they were instructed to stand in front of the door and not let them leave.

The law is written that you're allowed to detain them "in the act" of commiting an offense. But you can't a minute or two later. Which is silly, imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • paradox34 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...