Justice canadian style

[dre]

How many average everyday people are trained in Criminal Law and know all the fine details of the criminal code of Canada? The message this send is either live with the boot of criminal on your throat or live with the boot government of your throat, in other words be victimized by criminals, or be victimized by the system your choice.

Yes... if you developed a knee-jerk emotionalist response to a situation like this, and didnt look deeper into why various rules govern various different parties then thats a person would think.

But in reality theres a very good reason for the rules. And you dont have to be trained in the criminal code. I used to own a video/rental and convenience store where shoplifting was an issue at times. I called the police and simply asked what my rights were and how I should handle the situation. Not really that big a deal. Information on these procedures is freely available to shop keepers.

[guyser]

How many average everyday people are trained in Criminal Law and know all the fine details of the criminal code of Canada?

How many avg everyday people are trained in tax law, highway traffic act law,accounting law,and so on and so on.

"Your Honour, it's illegal to rob a bank? Well I'll be damned."

Ignorance is no excuse.

[Saipan]

The reality is that the law and whats right are not always absolutely aligned. You have to be aware of your actions from not only a moral standpoint but a legal one. When you are the victim of a crime, you have considerable lattitute. You can defend yourself, and in some cases you can temporarily restrain or incarcerate someone. But you are still bound by the law, and you have to be very carefull.

So if you sell flowers you also better be a lawyer with basic police training.

But if you're a criminal you only need to know what you want.

[dre]

So if you sell flowers you also better be a lawyer with basic police training.

But if you're a criminal you only need to know what you want.

No, but if you own a store where shoplifting is a problem you should place a ten minute call to the property crimes division at your local police detachment and find out your legal rights and obligations when dealing with shoplifters. Dealing with shoplifters or unruly patrons is part of running certain businesses. You should have procedures in place to deal with this, and you should train your employees on those procedures, like most businesses across the country that deal with this issue have done.

[Alta4ever]

How many avg everyday people are trained in tax law, highway traffic act law,accounting law,and so on and so on.

"Your Honour, it's illegal to rob a bank? Well I'll be damned."

Ignorance is no excuse.

When protecting your property yes it is, the intent was not to break the law, the intent in this case was hold a person who broker the law until the police could take custody.

[dre]

When protecting your property yes it is, the intent was not to break the law, the intent in this case was hold a person who broker the law until the police could take custody.

Doesnt matter. Theres still rules for incarcerating shoplifters and you have to follow them. If theft and dealing with theft is part of your business then you should educate yourself on the right way to deal with them like millions of business owners HAVE. If you dont... youre putting yourself in needless jeopardy.

[PIK]

http://news.sympatico.cbc.ca/local/on/toronto_grocer_says_police_would_let_thieves_go/bfda46ea

"David Chen, the co-owner of the Lucky Moose Food Mart on Dundas Avenue West near Spadina Avenue, said shoplifting had become such a serious problem that he felt the installation of a $30,000 surveillance system was a sound investment.

Testifying for the first time in his trial, Chen said through a Cantonese interpreter that he repeatedly called police about shoplifting incidents. But officers would take up to five hours to respond, only to let the shoplifters leave with a warning to never return, he said.

***

Chen testified that Bennett punched and kicked him during the tussle, and that he and his nephew subsequently tied Bennett up. They then locked him in the back of a delivery van with the intention of taking him to another location so they could hold him for the police, Chen said.

But police intercepted the van as it started to move, Chen said, and arrested Bennett, Chen, his nephew Jia Chen and cousin Chin Li."

If this is indeed the way police have prioritized store robberies in this area then only an idiot of a storekeeper would have any faith in the police! Let's hope this case gets a HUGE amount of publicity!

Sounds like the Toronto police have taken a Caledonia approach to crime, i.e. if they ignore it and no one hears the victims then it never happened!

This is what happens when police chiefs are beholden to politicians first instead of the Law. At least the Americans let ordinary citizens pick their police chiefs. Here it's up to politicians like David Miller.

Now the good part, the crown prosecutor (and this has benn going on for 17 months) in court a few days ago ask for more time because he forgot some videos and hours later when he had them ,he said he forgot to get a Cantonese interpreter , so they held off for a little more time, this guy should be fired. 17 months and you forget 2 important peices of the pie.

[guyser]

When protecting your property yes it is, the intent was not to break the law, the intent in this case was hold a person who broker the law until the police could take custody.

He wasnt protecting his property. Can you not understand that ?

He cannot do what he did that long after the fact.

He did not take the guy to the police.

Look, had the shopkeeper gone up and punched the guy and told him to bugger off and not to return, chances are nothing would have come from it. And I honestly would not have an issue with it.

But he didnt, he went stuck on stupid for awhile.

[guyser]

Now the good part, the crown prosecutor (and this has benn going on for 17 months) in court a few days ago ask for more time because he forgot some videos and hours later when he had them ,he said he forgot to get a Cantonese interpreter , so they held off for a little more time, this guy should be fired. 17 months and you forget 2 important peices of the pie.

And I am reasonably sure that Crown will hear from his superiors and it wont be happy birthday.

[Mr.Canada]

I haven't been following this very closely at all because it's largely meaningless to me. However if it's a jury trial I will find it hard to believe that a jury of his peers will vote to convict. If anything I predict the jury will be deadlocked and a mistrial will be announced. Charges will not be refiled with the hope of this just going away. Also whomever the Crown is will be doing his civic duty in Timmins for the next foreseeable future.

If isn't a jury trial, all bets are off.

[Alta4ever]

He wasnt protecting his property. Can you not understand that ?

He cannot do what he did that long after the fact.

He did not take the guy to the police.

Look, had the shopkeeper gone up and punched the guy and told him to bugger off and not to return, chances are nothing would have come from it. And I honestly would not have an issue with it.

But he didnt, he went stuck on stupid for awhile.

Chen was testifying in relation to a May 23, 2009, incident at his store involving Anthony Bennett, who admitted stealing plants from the Lucky Moose Mart. On that day, Chen's security cameras caught Bennett, 52, in the act of stealing plants from the store.

When Bennett returned to the store an hour later, Chen, 36, confronted him. Bennett fled, but Chen said he gave chase and grabbed him. Chen told the court that he planned to call police if he caught Bennett.

Under cross-examination, Bennett admitted he had stolen from Chen earlier that day - and had returned to take more plants. Chen's lawyer, Peter Lindsay, has said that admission strengthens his client's case.

http://news.sympatico.cbc.ca/local/on/toronto_grocer_says_police_would_let_thieves_go/bfda46ea

He was protecting his property. Bennett admitted stealing from him that day and returned to the store to do it again.

But go ahead it side with the criminal put him above those he victimizes.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Alta4ever

[dre]

I haven't been following this very closely at all because it's largely meaningless to me. However if it's a jury trial I will find it hard to believe that a jury of his peers will vote to convict. If anything I predict the jury will be deadlocked and a mistrial will be announced. Charges will not be refiled with the hope of this just going away. Also whomever the Crown is will be doing his civic duty in Timmins for the next foreseeable future.

If isn't a jury trial, all bets are off.

Problem is even in a jury trial jurors deliberate over the legal question of guilt or innocence based on a constrained set of critieria and instructions from the judge. They dont deliberate over whether or not the law is fair.

Your expecting to get a populist decision out of a jury and thats not always the case.

[PIK]

No he didnt.

Was the shopkeeper....

1)arresting him as the crime took place? Nope

2)did he take him to the police? Nope

Thus, he decided vigilantism.

Why do people like your self believe that thieves should have more rights then hard working people?

[dre]

http://news.sympatico.cbc.ca/local/on/toronto_grocer_says_police_would_let_thieves_go/bfda46ea

He was protecting his property. Bennett admitted stealing from him that day and returned to the store to do it again.

But go ahead it side with the criminal put him above those he victimizes.

But go ahead it side with the criminal put him above those he victimizes.

Yes... thats certainly how someone prone to simplistic kneejerk emotionalism would frame the debate. Most people however, will probably take a closer look at why people in that position are ALSO subject to the rule of law.

[guyser]

http://news.sympatico.cbc.ca/local/on/toronto_grocer_says_police_would_let_thieves_go/bfda46ea

He was protecting his property. Bennett admitted stealing from him that day and returned to the store to do it again.

No he wasnt protecting his property. If he was , then none of this would have been an issue.

His right to protect his property means he prevents the dickhead from coming in his store or standing by his produce to ensure nothing is stolen.

Chasing him down the street , tieing him up,duct taping him and putting him in a van is not protection no matter how you cut it.

Good lord!

But go ahead it side with the criminal put him above those he victimizes.

Now thats funny ! Couldnt be further from the truth. But I expect that sort of deflection when some dont have a grasp of what the law states.

Please, there is only one Mr Canada.

[guyser]

Why do people like your self believe that thieves should have more rights then hard working people?

I dont. Plain and simple But it may be hard for you to grasp.

[dre]

Why do people like your self believe that thieves should have more rights then hard working people?

Why do people like your self believe that thieves should have more rights then hard working people?

Why do people like YOURSELF have to engage in this sort of elementary-school-level simplistic sophistry, instead of talking about the subject like grownups?

[guyser]

Problem is even in a jury trial jurors deliberate over the legal question of guilt or innocence based on a constrained set of critieria and instructions from the judge. They dont deliberate over whether or not the law is fair.

Your expecting to get a populist decision out of a jury and thats not always the case.

Not to mention the fact that the guys prior record would likely be inadmissable thus this case would be heard on its own merits.

[Alta4ever]

I dont. Plain and simple But it may be hard for you to grasp.

Thats not the message your putting out here.

[Mr.Canada]

Problem is even in a jury trial jurors deliberate over the legal question of guilt or innocence based on a constrained set of critieria and instructions from the judge. They dont deliberate over whether or not the law is fair.

Your expecting to get a populist decision out of a jury and thats not always the case.

Yeah, you're pov is valid as well. I was just saying what I thought would likely happen. Who knows if it will or not. If they stick to the definition of the law as written and don't waver he's guilty, no question.

However the jurors aren't machines and they have feelings and emotions to contend with, which imo makes anything possible.

[guyser]

Thats not the message your putting out here.

Do not confuse the message Im putting out to what you may want to infer .

Simply put, the facts are thus....

1) dick stole from store.(once twice a 1000 times, doesnt matter)

2) keeper has him on tape stealing- Does nothing with tape althoug he could have

3) dick comes back at least one hour later and gets chased down the street.

4) dick gets tied up, duct taped and put in van

5) dick gets roughed up.

6) cops arrest dick, keeper and his brother on seperate charges.

Point #1 is entirely seperate from point #4,5 and 6.

Any other interpretation is imo changing the facts to suit your arguement.(not you specifically)

As for rights, no one gives them up** , no one has more nor less than the next guy. So how can I give more rights to the dick than the shopkeeper.

** ok, at a border crossing, or someone in jail has them limited.

[PIK]

Why do people like YOURSELF have to engage in this sort of elementary-school-level simplistic sophistry, instead of talking about the subject like grownups?

It is a grown up question, why do you think hugging a thug is better then just throw them in jail,when you steal from people. Do we need to take the law into our own hands and hang a few from the telephone polls to get our point across. I am a business onwer that deals with this all the time and the police tell us let them go we have no time for that. Sorry lad but your attitude is going to cause people like me to take the law into our own hands and hurt some one real bad . I am sick and tired of working my ass off only to get ripped off. No wonder this country is going to the dogs or should I say thugs.

[dre]

Yeah, you're pov is valid as well. I was just saying what I thought would likely happen. Who knows if it will or not. If they stick to the definition of the law as written and don't waver he's guilty, no question.

However the jurors aren't machines and they have feelings and emotions to contend with, which imo makes anything possible.

Thats definately true, and juries are almost populist by definition... thats sort of the point of them. To get legal decisions out of them you have to give them instructions, and make sure they consider certain things in their rulings. Juries that refuse to follow the instructions can be booted off the jury. They can even be held in contempt.

For example in this case the question to the jury could be as simple as "Does the evidence show they tied this guy up and put him in a van or not?". They wont be ruling on whether or not its legal/moral/reasonable to tie someone up and put him in a Van.

In any case... What you predicted is not impossible, Im just pointing out its not necessarily probable either.

There should be a plea bargain here anyways, provided the shopkeeper has a clean record. They should cut him some slack.

[dre]

It is a grown up question, why do you think hugging a thug is better then just throw them in jail,when you steal from people. Do we need to take the law into our own hands and hang a few from the telephone polls to get our point across. I am a business onwer that deals with this all the time and the police tell us let them go we have no time for that. Sorry lad but your attitude is going to cause people like me to take the law into our own hands and hurt some one real bad . I am sick and tired of working my ass off only to get ripped off. No wonder this country is going to the dogs or should I say thugs.

It is a grown up question

No... its exactly what I said it was. Simplistic kneejerk bullshit.

Do we need to take the law into our own hands and hang a few from the telephone polls to get our point across

That would be murder, and youd get corn-holed in prison for a decade or two... but do what you like.

Sorry lad but your attitude is going to cause people like me to take the law into our own hands and hurt some one real bad

Naw dude. If somebody causes you to break the law it will most certainly be YOU. Not me. Ill just be the sucker holding the bag for my share of the cost to process and incarcerate you.

Youre actually a poster child for why we have laws that regulate what private entities are allowed to do in response to alledged crimes. Youre all talking about lynching people and shit and "hurting people real bad".

[guyser]

It is a grown up question,

Nice attempt but its a juvenile knee jerk response eminating from ignorance of rights.

why do you think hugging a thug is better then just throw them in jail,when you steal from people. Do we need to take the law into our own hands and hang a few from the telephone polls to get our point across. I am a business onwer that deals with this all the time and the police tell us let them go we have no time for that.

Who wants to hug a thug?. Spare me the rhetoric intended to inflame outrage.

As a business owner you also know your staff steals a ton more than any thief walking in off the street. You call it 'shortage' in your accounting. Now , you may be a small shopkeeper who does indeed have a theft problem, but I would be very surious just what the figures are for your store.

Sorry lad but your attitude is going to cause people like me to take the law into our own hands and hurt some one real bad . I am sick and tired of working my ass off only to get ripped off. No wonder this country is going to the dogs or should I say thugs.

Arf Arf !

It isnt "making' you do anything. Calm down