Justice canadian style

[Keepitsimple]

As for the apathy/crooks on their way angle, I really dont buy it.

I'm not selling. Those are just the facts.

[dre]

Are you for real? The police arrest perpetrators, (habitual criminals), and then it is then supposed to be up to our joke of a justice system to put these people on trial. Unfortunately the Crown prosecutors being the lazy bunch that they are, enters into pleas that basically allows criminals to plead to lesser charges. Once it gets to our appointed, and unaccountable judiciary they also allows this joke to take place. In the end, they are sentenced to incarceration, it is often no where near long enough, considering the crime committed. Once in jail they become eligible for parole, (also a system comprised of appointees who are not accountable to society), and before we know it, the criminal is right back on the streets committing more crimes. Our once appropriate justice system has been gutted by successive Liberal governments, with the help of their socialist friends in the NDP, who seem have this naive idea that there are no bad people in Canada, so why the need for prisons? Very likely why they are arguing against spending any money on prisons. Their idea seems to be that criminals are going to get out of prison at some point anyway, so why put them there in the first place. Instead just send them to programs lobbied for by organizations like the John Howard Society, & Elizabeth Fry who make money from these useless programs.

and then it is then supposed to be up to our joke of a justice system to put these people on trial

What justice system is better than our "joke"? I agree theres lots of problems with it, but when I look around at the results in comparable nations, the results we get seem better.

The real problem with our justice system is that we over-criminalize activities and people needlessly and waste an awfull lot of money doing it.

Unfortunately the Crown prosecutors being the lazy bunch that they are

This is definately horseshit where I live. In BC the conservative government here has been cutting the number of prosecutors and legal staff. I know the crown in my town and he works harder than most other people I know. The problem is hes bogged down by petty drug crime, marginal DUI charges, and crap like that. Its not that hes lazy.

[Saipan]

The real problem with our justice system is that we over-criminalize activities and people needlessly and waste an awfull lot of money doing it.

I agree. It could be much cheaper. Most perps could be released after 5 to 20 lashes and back to work.

And the most dangerous hanged high.

In BC the conservative government here

You had elections already?

The problem is hes bogged down by petty drug crime, marginal DUI charges, and crap like that.

Mostly by the SAME criminals appearing in court over and over and over..... just to be released shortly after under the liberal Catch & Release program.

DUI charges are "marginal" until it's someone from your own family splatered on the road because of drunk driver.

[bloodyminded]

Moronic , but predictable

You mean the job the police did ? You really should keep up, that ignorance thing you have going sucks.

Air India disaster vs Toronto Police.

See that word in bold above? Want to add stupid to it ?

Yep. The Toronto police really dropped the ball on the whole Air India thing.

[guyser]

If you're losing debate try name calling.

Theres that ignorance thing again.

Look up the word Moronic.

Charging the guy who did their job?

Geez, they caught the guy. Really do you follow along? Never mind, obviously you dont

[Saipan]

Theres that ignorance thing again.

Look up the word Moronic.

Back to what I said.

Geez, they caught the guy.

So why do they charge the shopkeeper for that?

[guyser]

Back to what I said.

So why do they charge the shopkeeper for that?

They didnt.

The again, maybe he was holding a nativity scene...cuz, gosh they're illegal.

[Saipan]

They didnt.

The again, maybe he was holding a nativity scene...cuz, gosh they're illegal.

Is that why the shopkeeper appeared in court? Twice. For being charged with nothing?

[guyser]

Is that why the shopkeeper appeared in court? Twice. For being charged with nothing?

Stop being the resident idiot, if you can

[Shwa]

So why do they charge the shopkeeper for that?

The shopkeeper and others were charged with assault and forcible confinement and they have pled not guilty. A citizen's arrest is one thing, vigilante justice is another. This is what the courts will decide as they ought.

[PIK]

Im quite impatient actually.

Mr Chen , clearly frustrated (understandably so), decided to do a dumb thing. He too got popped. But Mr Chen wasnt smart enough to weigh his pros and cons and he was the one who had more to lose. (Hope he gets off or reduced to misdemeanor)

As for the apathy/crooks on their way angle, I really dont buy it.

You really have no clue do you?

[guyser]

You really have no clue do you?

Actually, I do.

I understand , as many here do not, that separate incidences cannot be combined for the purpose of seeing justice mangled. I suspect you are in that camp.

But please, by all means, please tell me what I have no clue about. I welcome the education and will readily concede a point if correct in law.

Have at it.

[Saipan]

I welcome the education and will readily concede a point if correct in law.

I got to see that

[Alta4ever]

Mr. Chen was charged with assault and forcible confinement after catching and tying up a shoplifter in Toronto. He was acquitted Friday after a judge ruled it a citizen's arrest.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/feds-move-to-protect-citizen-thief-catchers/article1782965/

Hah all the dolts on this board siding with the bloody criminal, give your heads a collective shake. You are the problem siding with the criminal rather then the victim. At least this judge got it right.

I AM LOVING THIS, I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Wilber]

[Smallc]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/feds-move-to-protect-citizen-thief-catchers/article1782965/

Hah all the dolts on this board siding with the bloody criminal, give your heads a collective shake. You are the problem siding with the criminal rather then the victim. At least this judge got it right.

I AM LOVING THIS, I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe I said that we should wait to see what the judge decided. You on the other hand....

[Alta4ever]

I believe I said that we should wait to see what the judge decided. You on the other hand....

And yet all three parties are scrambling to suggest changes to the criminal code to make sure this doesn't happen again. It wasn't about what the judge was going to decide, it was about what is right, and in this case the judge's decision was in accordance with that. The scurrying of the politicians is proof of that.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Smallc]

And yet all three parties are scrambling to suggest changes to the criminal code to make sure this doesn't happen again. It wasn't about what the judge was going to decide, it was about what is right, and in this case the judge's decision was in accordance with that. The scurrying of the politicians is proof of that.

What the judge decided was right based on the law of the land. The parties are now going to make sure that the situation doesn't happen again in this particular type of case (the Crown and the Police thought there was a case, and it appears that there wasn't). Note that this is not in any way analogous to the Alberta case that you referenced. That is a completely different case.

[Alta4ever]

What the judge decided was right based on the law of the land. The parties are now going to make sure that the situation doesn't happen again in this particular type of case (the Crown and the Police thought there was a case, and it appears that there wasn't). Note that this is not in any way analogous to the Alberta case that you referenced. That is a completely different case.

Funny they waited until after the judges decision.

[Smallc]

Funny they waited until after the judges decision.

What? Why would they not? Why would they not want to see the outcome, when a person who is qualified examines the facts?

Edited November 3, 2010 by Smallc

[Alta4ever]

What? Why would they not? Why would they not want to see the outcome, when a person who is qualified examines the facts?

So Canadians aren't qualified to decide what is right and wrong? We need some elite to do it for us?

This is about more then some interpretation in our justice oops I mean legal system.

My god what would you do if you actually had to make a decision, your head would would explode. Good thing we have a "benevolent" government to tell us how to act and think!

Edited November 3, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Smallc]

So Canadians aren't qualified to decide what is right and wrong? We need some elite to do it for us?

If you're asking if we should leave legal questions to judges, well, yes. If you're asking whether or not we should have input into the creation of laws (through our elected representatives) the answer is again yes.

This is about more then some interpretation in our justice oops I mean legal system.

This decision isn't. The reaction to it may be.

My god what would you do if you actually had to make a decision, your head would would explode. Good thing we have a "benevolent" government to tell us how to act and think!

Good thing I have you to put words in my mouth. I'll leave legal questions up to legal authorities. I'll leave questions of justice up to judicial authorities. I'll leave questions about things that you know about to you....when we discover one of those things.

If you want my opinion on this matter, the shop keeper did go too far in some of his actions, but it seems that what was done was still inside the law. The fact that the police and the prosecutor thought that it wasn't (with reason) means that the law probably needs clarification. That's something that Parliament will have to fix.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Smallc

[William Ashley]

You raise a difficult question. What constitutes "holding"?

IMHO, a society where private individuals can arrest other individuals is not civilized.

why?

----

I think the greater issue is that police

The primary role of police is compliance of law.

/judges

Clarification of law

/crown prosecutors

representing the interests of the queen.

(the State) should protect us.

We are the state - you fail to recognize that it is the public that comprises the state. They days of slavery and subjection have longed passed. In 1982 we were given freedom and equality.

Imagine the long-term result of such a State.

Of what type a state - where people had an accountability to maintain order and good will?

That is the very definition of civilized behaviour.

The real issue is insuring laws insure order and good will.

IN this case the issue is -reasonable time frame of apprehension and property rights (jurisdiction) - example -

He was "caught" in the act. He was fleeing from arrest.

The arrest is not invalid. The jurisdiction of the arrest is.

But the grounds are wrong due to the pursuit

Section 494 introduces the arrest powers in the Criminal Code by recognizing the

authority to carry out a "citizen's arrest". The provision allows everyone, police

included, to arrest without warrant a person whom they find committing, or

apparently committing, an indictable offence." In addition, if there are reasonable

grounds to believe that an individual has committed a "criminal offence"' and is

escaping from, and being freshly pursued by, those with lawful authority to arrest,

---------

But the question is that it was a criminal offence. The shopkeeper was right. Since he initiated a pursuit ... this pursuit left the premises of the crime. There is no abrogation other than commencing an act with intent. Thus satisfying both parts of the law.

The cops further proved the fact a criminal offence occurred when they charged them. Or the beleif existing. The person even admitted to it after the fact. The only question taht remains is do those grounds of arrest constitute abduction - for instance can cops tie people up... (aapparently use of twist ties and other arrest means are " in question" so what means can someone use to enact an arrest...

that is the legal question not whether the arrest was justified.

The concept though is you may only use as much force as is required - equal force. force +1 is allowed by police immunities from prosecution. for the unjustified use of force. (although reason has to be applied by police otherwise it is unreasonable use of force)

Police have an inherent right of enforcement of law, as opposed to the citizens upholding of law. Police however are suppose to be restrained with enforcement by only the pmeans - that is allowable uses of force - permited - thus the legislators are suppose to insure that people are protected from inhumane and cruel treatment as well as other rights etc.. police are only suppose to act within the grounds of the law and this includes limitations on police powers. People are still limited by the regular law that in most cases is limited far beyond police powers.

"reasonable and probable grounds" is the allowance of police to enforce force +1 under the "concept" of arrest.

=======================================

279. (1) Every person commits an offence who kidnaps a person with intent

a. to cause the person to be confined or imprisoned against the person’s will;

b. to cause the person to be unlawfully sent or transported out of Canada against the person’s will; or

c. to hold the person for ransom or to service against the person’s will.

======================================

The question now exists does a lawful act - astrange the person to an unlwaful act - it would have to be if police have immunity - but perhaps we can look clsoer at the immunities of police and a citizen.

prevent an offender from escaping their custody, the allowable degree of force is constrained by the principles of proportionality, necessity and reasonableness. Under s. 25(1) of the Criminal Code, the use of force to effect a lawful arrest is justified if the police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that it is necessary and if only as much force as necessary is used. Further, under s. 25(3), force intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm is prohibited unless the officer has an objectively reasonable belief that the amount of force used is necessary for self‑protection or for the protection of another person.

Where exactly is the terminus between other person or police --- where does the divergence of immunity exist? Lets see...

25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

© in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

Idem

2. Where a person is required or authorized by law to execute a process or to carry out a sentence, that person or any person who assists him is, if that person acts in good faith, justified in executing the process or in carrying out the sentence notwithstanding that the process or sentence is defective or that it was issued or imposed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.

When not protected

3. Subject to subsections 4. and 5., a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection 1. in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm

When protected

4. A peace officer, and every person lawfully assisting the peace officer, is justified in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to a person to be arrested, if

a. the peace officer is proceeding lawfully to arrest, with or without warrant, the person to be arrested;

b the offence for which the person is to be arrested is one for which that person may be arrested without warrant;

(c the person to be arrested takes flight to avoid arrest;

e. the flight cannot be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner.

as wee can see the shop persons were immune. and this whole thing is a farce.

The "limit of means" was only limited by "reason".

Although one could then question the motives behind the tieing of the theif. Was it to confine him until he was delivered - or were their itents at the time more nsideous such as cannibalism?

The case rests.

The main reason for this is that it is reasonable to think that lee attempted to assist the police in apprehending the thief -the only question here is if the police were desirous of stopping the theif. This would actually if not true place a bunch f other things into legal questioning such as the "mission of police" is it to stop criminals or stop criminals they would like to stop?

It is very bad if the balance of power is shifted from order to chaos.

I think supporting powers of arrest are more orderly than chaotic. in the maxim of reasonble use of force.

But - I think judges should clearly examine what is deamed as reasonable use of force - I think they are excessive and capacitate battery or worse. Subdueing someone who is in flight - known as capturing and holding - seems reasonble - since in this instance the "crime" is not in question. If it were in question then it might be issued but it was admited to and everyone should realize stealing personal property from someone else is considered a crime in Ontario, the only exception relates to intentional abandonment. And I think it is not reasonable to assume an item for sale in a store is abandoned especially after someone gives chase to you.

The law goes even as far as denying the right to life....in the act of a crime if a person flees capture - thus the power of arrest...

to restate:

A peace officer, and every person lawfully assisting the peace officer, is justified in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to a person to be arrested, if

a. the peace officer is proceeding lawfully to arrest, with or without warrant, the person to be arrested;

b the offence for which the person is to be arrested is one for which that person may be arrested without warrant;

(c the person to be arrested takes flight to avoid arrest;

e. the flight cannot be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner.

---------

Where is the definition of assisting a peace officer found if not one is left to very semantic wording.

IS TO ASSIST A CRIME THE SAME AS TO ASSIT AN ARREST?

The definition of assiting a crime under one act is

…assisting…

This includes threatening, pressurising, persuading and instigating, and

• taking steps to reduce the possibility of criminal proceedings;

• failing to take reasonable steps to discharge a duty.

This includes any conduct which makes it easier for the principle offender to commit the main offence, such as giving advice about how to:

• commit the offence;

• avoid detection or apprehension.

So would the same apply if you swith the word "offence ideas" with "arrest ideas"

You get

assisting an arrest

• taking steps to increase the possibility of legal proceedings;

• to take reasonable steps to discharge a duty.

This includes any conduct which makes it easier for the principle citizen" to arrest, such as giving advice about how to:

• to arrest;

• detect or apprehend

Edited November 3, 2010 by William Ashley

[Wild Bill]

If you want my opinion on this matter, the shop keeper did go too far in some of his actions, but it seems that what was done was still inside the law. The fact that the police and the prosecutor thought that it wasn't (with reason) means that the law probably needs clarification. That's something that Parliament will have to fix.

I disagree. The Law didn't need any clarification! The explanation posted by Mr. Ashley was quite clear. What's more, surely the police and Crown are expected to be even more aware of the specifics of the Law, yet they charged Mr. Chen anyway. At the trial the judge certainly seemed to find it a quick and easy decision!

It would seem it is the ATTITUDE of the police and the Crown that needed clarification! They chose to use the Law as a stick to beat Mr. Chen. People forget that often the Crown doesn't have to be right about a law. Most ordinary folks are either intimidated or can't afford to fight such charges. At the lower court levels the Crown usually wins, since the attitude is "there's always the right of appeal!" Of course, most ordinary citizens can't afford an appeal, either in money or in time.

Make no mistake about it. Mr. Chen fighting as he did was unusual. It was indeed a sacrifice. Nowhere did we see any mention of Mr. Chen receiving punitive damages from the Crown, or even court costs! Just the loss of his personal time with his market was a sacrifice. He was a small independent grocer of only a few employees, not the president of Sobey's.

People are put in Mr. Chen's position almost every day. Hell, McGuinty has put the entire town of Caledonia in such a position! The Law is twisted to justify a political action or a different value system of those who hold the reins of power that contradicts that of the common man.

Mr. Chen's case was different only because of the publicity! The very idea of blaming the victim so blatantly was newsworthy! We Canadians have a poor record for supporting each other across the country when someone's rights are abused by a misapplication or perversion of the Law. Americans are much more feisty about such things. A Rodney King is unfairly beaten by some cops and cab drivers on the other coast get upset when they read their morning paper! Canadians tend to either ignore such events or say "He must have had it coming! We don't know the whole story."

Anyhow, the Crown was no doubt both surprised and disappointed. They've been getting away with such things for a long time now. Suddenly someone lifted the rock and we could see all the bugs running around! Politicians were embarrassed. At the end of any argument they are the ones ultimately responsible for the Law and its wordings.

As a society we all owe Mr. Chen a debt. It may not fix the problems but at least it will be a little bit harder for the Toronto police to ignore rights of a shopkeeper.

[Smallc]

Ah cynicism...I'm so glad I don't have any.