Need we arm Canada?

ToadBrother · July 2, 2010

But you put it as though we could be talking about your home property, in the middle of the night, with your children present.

Rather, i was responding specifically to the notion of property only; someone with the intent to damage your property, in broad daylight, in the midst of a crowd.

Deadly force is not only disproportional, it's potentially highly dangerous to others.

How would taking a crowbar to a guy in a mask smashing in my window be seen as highly dangerous to others?

As for your last sentence: these guys do not deserve to die for their actions. That's absurd.

They certainly deserve significantly more than a "yeah, they're violent, but we understand their frustration".

charter.rights · July 2, 2010

No thats a terrible idea. We should let the people who are trained to deal with these types of situations deal with them. Any citizen derived law enforcement will make the job of the police harder, not easier.

Very obviously that wouldn't be the police. They think that getting into arrest mode is free reign to pummel innocent people. On top of that the police think they have the authority to restrict the freedoms guaranteed under our charter. If there is no inquiry you can bet the police will be more brutal the next time.

Toadbrother. Tell that to your buddy Tim Hudak.

bloodyminded · July 3, 2010

How would taking a crowbar to a guy in a mask smashing in my window be seen as highly dangerous to others?

Unless one has weapons training, and training in crowd situations--like the police do--attacking a person with a crowbar in a crowd (which is the scenario which has been painted here, a parameter set not by me (but by Machjo) and to which I am respecting)...it is extremely dangerous to others.

They certainly deserve significantly more than a "yeah, they're violent, but we understand their frustration".

They deserve the proper legal consequences relating directly to their specific actions. Not death. Hell, I consider the death penalty for convicted murderers to be unjust. And this stuff doesn't compare.

Muddy · July 3, 2010

Amazing how many people have sympathy for masked thugs rights. I personally like having rights too. A right to property and freedom of movement from thugs. I also believe in responsibility. I have a right and a responsibility to protect your property and mine from forces who take no responsibility for their actions,but whine about their rights. Legal and peacefull protest are a right and any group that does so has a responsibility as citizens to try and stop those who will commit mayhem behind their skirts.

bloodyminded · July 3, 2010

Amazing how many people have sympathy for masked thugs rights. I personally like having rights too. A right to property and freedom of movement from thugs. I also believe in responsibility. I have a right and a responsibility to protect your property and mine from forces who take no responsibility for their actions,but whine about their rights. Legal and peacefull protest are a right and any group that does so has a responsibility as citizens to try and stop those who will commit mayhem behind their skirts.

I don't sympathize with them. In fact, I am quite happy with the use of the word "thugs" which has been their primary descriptor.

I have only been arguing, in a back-and-forth hypothetical with a couple of posters with whom I generally share a relatively kindred philosophy, that they don't deserve to be killed...hardly a radical or controversial view, I don't think.

Muddy · July 3, 2010

I don't sympathize with them. In fact, I am quite happy with the use of the word "thugs" which has been their primary descriptor.

I have only been arguing, in a back-and-forth hypothetical with a couple of posters with whom I generally share a relatively kindred philosophy, that they don't deserve to be killed...hardly a radical or controversial view, I don't think.

Well none were killed. But if some property owner had knocked down some thug destroying his or her property and the thug knocked their noodle and died. Well it to was a right.

Wild Bill · July 3, 2010

Deadly force is not only disproportional, it's potentially highly dangerous to others.

You know, I am getting very tired of hearing people cavalierly blowing off the idea of protecting one's property, as if that is no real hardship. Many times, it is the difference between keeping the electricity paid or feeding your kids!

Many of these folks seem to think that insurance is cheap and pays for everything. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many small businesses are just scraping by. Every time they are robbed, the insurance costs go up, till eventually companies refuse to insure them! Even with insurance there is the cost of any deductibles and getting through the wait for a settlement cheque.

It's too easy to say that property damage is no big deal when it's not your OWN property! Not everyone is as rich as Conrad Black. Making such implications seems to me to be callous, thoughtless and downright cruel!

It's always the details that matter. We shouldn't look at things so simplistically. Take horse theft, for example. The standard punishment in frontier times was hanging! The modern 'property' outlook might feel this is harsh and inappropriate. However, if you examine the details of the times you find that stranding someone without their horse on the 'wild prair-ee' was tantamount to a death sentence! You simply weren't likely to survive without your horse. So stealing it was essentially murder, or at least manslaughter.

It's just one more example of how we've lost the ability to empathize with the victim, I guess.

Muddy · July 3, 2010

Wild Bill that was a great post and analogy. Guys like us work hard to create and become independent ,but insurance costs can bankrupt us if we are high risk from vandals,punks ,thieves and other low life. Putting a beating on these thugs if you catch them should be a right and responsibility. A legal system does not punish miscreants who victimize us nor offer us compensation. Now if we had a justice system ,just might be a little more patient. But we don`t! We have a legal system.

eyeball · July 3, 2010

The real point is that they are self-serving self-righteous people who have decided that societal restraints don't apply to them. But I do love how your type always excuse their actions. You guys just can't quite say "They are bad."

They are at least as bad as any self-serving self-righteous people who have decided that things like regulatory restraints or environmental responsibilities shouldn't apply to them.

Like I said. I think we should give store owners guns and give them free reign to shoot anybody in a mask during these things.

Like I said, I'm quite certain the Black Bloq feel the same way.

eyeball · July 3, 2010

I agree completely. It still doesn't mean I think we should give up and let the vile thugs do their worst. That's why I still think deputizing protesters, which would pretty much require they deal with the violent elements in their midst, is the best idea.

So who do we deputize and put amidst the vile CEO's, lobbyists and bureaucrats that are wrecking thing like our ecosystems?

eyeball · July 3, 2010

Amazing how many people have sympathy for masked thugs rights. I personally like having rights too. A right to property and freedom of movement from thugs. I also believe in responsibility. I have a right and a responsibility to protect your property and mine from forces who take no responsibility for their actions,but whine about their rights. Legal and peacefull protest are a right and any group that does so has a responsibility as citizens to try and stop those who will commit mayhem behind their skirts.

What Muddy said but as it applies to things like corporations, bureaucrats, healthy ecosystems, common property etc, etc.

eyeball · July 3, 2010

You know, I am getting very tired of hearing people cavalierly blowing off the idea of protecting one's property, as if that is no real hardship. Many times, it is the difference between keeping the electricity paid or feeding your kids!

Many of these folks seem to think that insurance is cheap and pays for everything. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many small businesses are just scraping by. Every time they are robbed, the insurance costs go up, till eventually companies refuse to insure them! Even with insurance there is the cost of any deductibles and getting through the wait for a settlement cheque.

It's too easy to say that property damage is no big deal when it's not your OWN property! Not everyone is as rich as Conrad Black. Making such implications seems to me to be callous, thoughtless and downright cruel!

It's always the details that matter. We shouldn't look at things so simplistically. Take horse theft, for example. The standard punishment in frontier times was hanging! The modern 'property' outlook might feel this is harsh and inappropriate. However, if you examine the details of the times you find that stranding someone without their horse on the 'wild prair-ee' was tantamount to a death sentence! You simply weren't likely to survive without your horse. So stealing it was essentially murder, or at least manslaughter.

It's just one more example of how we've lost the ability to empathize with the victim, I guess.

What WB said but again, as it applies to things like corporations, bureaucrats, healthy ecosystems, common property etc, etc.

Bortron · July 3, 2010

Well I don't think compulsory martial arts training and universal gun ownership would in any way be beneficial to Canadian society, but I like guns and martial arts so i give the idea a thumbs up. Seriously though 2 years military service should be compulsory for all citizens like it is in less complacent societies; after all history has shown when you can't protect what is yours someone stronger will take it away, isn't that right Native Americans?

bloodyminded · July 3, 2010

You know, I am getting very tired of hearing people cavalierly blowing off the idea of protecting one's property, as if that is no real hardship. Many times, it is the difference between keeping the electricity paid or feeding your kids!

Many of these folks seem to think that insurance is cheap and pays for everything. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many small businesses are just scraping by. Every time they are robbed, the insurance costs go up, till eventually companies refuse to insure them! Even with insurance there is the cost of any deductibles and getting through the wait for a settlement cheque.

It's too easy to say that property damage is no big deal when it's not your OWN property! Not everyone is as rich as Conrad Black. Making such implications seems to me to be callous, thoughtless and downright cruel!

It's always the details that matter. We shouldn't look at things so simplistically. Take horse theft, for example. The standard punishment in frontier times was hanging! The modern 'property' outlook might feel this is harsh and inappropriate. However, if you examine the details of the times you find that stranding someone without their horse on the 'wild prair-ee' was tantamount to a death sentence! You simply weren't likely to survive without your horse. So stealing it was essentially murder, or at least manslaughter.

It's just one more example of how we've lost the ability to empathize with the victim, I guess.

I haven't lost empathy for the victim; and if someone smashes a storefront window and is murdered for this action, the vandal becomes the victim.

If you feel so strongly, you no doubt believe that people in goldman Sachs, and Bernie Madoff deserve to be killed...they have been far, far more damaging than some mask-wearing fools disrupting a protest.

You must think Coca cola executives should be killed, since Latin American union organizers were murdered on their behalf. You must think that the folks who devised the neoliberal policies, which are directly related to the devastation in Haiti (as Clinton freely admitted recently) should be shot on sight.

If not, why not?

Machjo · July 3, 2010

I haven't lost empathy for the victim; and if someone smashes a storefront window and is murdered for this action, the vandal becomes the victim.

If you feel so strongly, you no doubt believe that people in goldman Sachs, and Bernie Madoff deserve to be killed...they have been far, far more damaging than some mask-wearing fools disrupting a protest.

You must think Coca cola executives should be killed, since Latin American union organizers were murdered on their behalf. You must think that the folks who devised the neoliberal policies, which are directly related to the devastation in Haiti (as Clinton freely admitted recently) should be shot on sight.

If not, why not?

I think we need to make distinctions here:

If someone smashes my storefront window, drops his bat, and walks away, I try to arrest him, and he does not resist, then yes I have no right to hurt him since he's no longer a threat to my property, especially if he's destroyed it already. That said, if he has not destroyed my property already but is trying to destroy it, I should have the right to use the minimum force necessary, even lethal if that is the minimum necessary, to stop him from destroying property.

Looking at it that way, there is no comparison to Madoff. By the time we'd realized what he was doing:

1. the damage was already done, and

2. He could be stopped without resort to force.

Therein lies the diference. These vandals raise the level of intensity considerably via the force and threatening demeanor they adopt, making it ore difficult to prevent them from causing such damage without resorting to the use of force. Looking at it that way, they force us to be more aggressive in the defense of our property. But I do agree that if one of them were about to smash my window, and I was just about to kick the bat out of his hand, and just then he decides to drop his bat, then I fully agree I'd be in the wrong to intentionally kick his hand after that.

But if he insists, I kick the bat out of his hand, and others try to hold me back while he picks up the bat again with the intention of smashing the window, at that stage I ought to be allowed to use whatever force is necessary to get out of their grip and strike at him again. And if there are many trying to do this, then I may have no choice but to give a few of them a concussion so that while I'm dealing with one another one is not smashing my windows. That in my opinion is justifiable force.

bloodyminded · July 3, 2010

I think we need to make distinctions here:

If someone smashes my storefront window, drops his bat, and walks away, I try to arrest him, and he does not resist, then yes I have no right to hurt him since he's no longer a threat to my property, especially if he's destroyed it already. That said, if he has not destroyed my property already but is trying to destroy it, I should have the right to use the minimum force necessary, even lethal if that is the minimum necessary, to stop him from destroying property.

Looking at it that way, there is no comparison to Madoff. By the time we'd realized what he was doing:

1. the damage was already done, and

2. He could be stopped without resort to force.

Therein lies the diference. These vandals raise the level of intensity considerably via the force and threatening demeanor they adopt, making it ore difficult to prevent them from causing such damage without resorting to the use of force. Looking at it that way, they force us to be more aggressive in the defense of our property. But I do agree that if one of them were about to smash my window, and I was just about to kick the bat out of his hand, and just then he decides to drop his bat, then I fully agree I'd be in the wrong to intentionally kick his hand after that.

But if he insists, I kick the bat out of his hand, and others try to hold me back while he picks up the bat again with the intention of smashing the window, at that stage I ought to be allowed to use whatever force is necessary to get out of their grip and strike at him again. And if there are many trying to do this, then I may have no choice but to give a few of them a concussion so that while I'm dealing with one another one is not smashing my windows. That in my opinion is justifiable force.

OK, Machjo, I do appreciate your distinctions between imminent danger and and deeds-already-done. I might have misconstrued you.

I take your point too about Madoff and his ilk; but what about the other scenarios? What about the ongoing violence and economic devastation, occurring moment by moment, and viciuously, angrily defended by so many people?

Do the Haitians have the "right" to kill an investor on sight, if they know he's profiting from their misery, and in fact helped engineer it?

Machjo · July 3, 2010

OK, Machjo, I do appreciate your distinctions between imminent danger and and deeds-already-done. I might have misconstrued you.

I take your point too about Madoff and his ilk; but what about the other scenarios? What about the ongoing violence and economic devastation, occurring moment by moment, and viciuously, angrily defended by so many people?

Do the Haitians have the "right" to kill an investor on sight, if they know he's profiting from their misery, and in fact helped engineer it?

In the event the investor is breaking the law, turn him over to the police. After all, he has no bat in his hand, does he?

And if the law is unfair, then what about a letter writing campaign, a petition, voting in elections, writing a column for the newspaper, etc. There are plenty of peaceful options. But the second one turns to violence against my property, as far as I'm concerned, that ought be be construed as equal to violence against me, and even if I'm not personally in danger, I ought to be allowed to use whatever force is required to defend my property. I realize the law currently allows it only for my personal being, but I think it should extend it to my property too.

ZenOps · July 3, 2010

Lets invade the US, we won last time I think we could do it again.

eyeball · July 4, 2010

In the event the investor is breaking the law, turn him over to the police. After all, he has no bat in his hand, does he?

Quite often though proxies hold the bat for the investor. Especially in some of the police states where the corporations they invest in operate. Remember Dubya's rhetoric about networks of terror and how you're either with them or not? The network that connects the investor to the regime that bats their citizens around is no different.

And if the law is unfair, then what about a letter writing campaign, a petition, voting in elections, writing a column for the newspaper, etc. There are plenty of peaceful options.

Not where some of the G20 crowd hail from or from where many of worst undemocratic countries the G8 crowd like to deal with.

But the second one turns to violence against my property, as far as I'm concerned, that ought be be construed as equal to violence against me, and even if I'm not personally in danger, I ought to be allowed to use whatever force is required to defend my property. I realize the law currently allows it only for my personal being, but I think it should extend it to my property too.

You'd do this the very first second? I'd say the so-called anarchists of the type this thread is concerned with have shown an incredible amount of restraint given the decades of environmental vandalism, social dysfunction and outright anarchy that your beloved so called investors have wreaked in the world.

Machjo · July 4, 2010

Lets invade the US, we won last time I think we could do it again.

Hey, now I understand US militarism today. Losing a few wars sure hurts your national pride. Nothing like big tanks to compensate for little guns :lol:

Machjo · July 4, 2010

Quite often though proxies hold the bat for the investor. Especially in some of the police states where the corporations they invest in operate. Remember Dubya's rhetoric about networks of terror and how you're either with them or not? The network that connects the investor to the regime that bats their citizens around is no different.

This thread is about Canada. So Canada is a police state now?

Machjo · July 4, 2010

Not where some of the G20 crowd hail from or from where many of worst undemocratic countries the G8 crowd like to deal with.

What does that have to do with downtown shops getting their windows smashed in in Toronto?

Edited July 4, 2010 by Machjo

Machjo · July 4, 2010

You'd do this the very first second? I'd say the so-called anarchists of the type this thread is concerned with have shown an incredible amount of restraint given the decades of environmental vandalism, social dysfunction and outright anarchy that your beloved so called investors have wreaked in the world.

BS. I eat vegan, I walk or ride a bicycle whenever I can (and usually take the bus otherwise), I'm a teetotaler and non-smoker. And I pay my taxes too. So I make minimal use of our roads and highways compared to most in my income bracket, I will likely not depend as much as most in my income bracket on healthcare, I pay as much in taxes as any other in my income bracket, I've learnt both official languages on top of other languages to do my part in reducing the need for interpretors at shops, airports, government agencies, etc. anywhere I may go in Canada and to avoid cultural hegemony as much as possible, I recycle, and I give to charities, and then you'd expect me to sit there and watch as vandals would come to my house and smash in my home windows. Or let's say I did in fact own a shop or restaurant. After all I do in my daily life for society, after all the work I'd put into building my livelihood, you'd expect me to just sit there and smile while people bust my windows?

So what do you do for society in your daily life?

Remiel · July 4, 2010

If nothing else, in a situation where we believed that defending your life including defending your property to the extent that is necessary for your life (and I do not mean " lifestyle " here), anyone who things to kill a vandal should be wary of the fact that they will have to prove in court that their life was endangered in some substantial way by the vandalism. That is a test, I believe, most would end up failing.

eyeball · July 5, 2010

This thread is about Canada. So Canada is a police state now?

Remember, you wrote this...

After what I'd seen in the news coming out of Toronto last week, I'm starting to wonder if perhaps we need to arm all Canadians.
I'm normally not for universal possession of firearms. But when Canadians' lack of respect for the law reaches a point where even the police can no longer maintain law and order, then citizens do need to arm themselves.

...and I responded with, I guarantee you the folks in the Black Bloc feel much the same way for very similar reasons.

I expanded on what those similar reasons were, but you either must be oblivious to them or don't care.

You've been going on and on now about the need for law and order and the arming of people and their taking direct action to impose it themselves when the law is absent and unable to protect private property, like a store. I've basically been saying the same thing with regards to people in other countries - countries that all too often don't have any democratic options and the law is a sick joke - when it comes to defending the things they see being vandalized like their ecosystems and civil liberties.

Given the global backdrop of the G 8/20 summits your thread can't help but also be about things going on outside of Canada. Given the context of the protests against corporate globalization with the assistance of the G 8/20, the analogy between lawlessness, vandalism, and people protecting the things they cherish either in the streets of TO or the ecosystems and societies of other countries should be apparent but apparently you just don't get it.