Justice canadian style

[Alta4ever]

I live in the rural prairies. Outside of risk to security of person, physical force of most varieties (especially shooting someone) is unacceptable.

Then you must have a real problem with the police using physical force to bring citizens under control, even though they may not be threating any persons including themselves.

[Smallc]

Then you must have a real problem with the police using physical force to bring citizens under control, even though they may not be threating any persons including themselves.

Unlike you, I'm able to differentiate between those who are charged with upholding the law (peace officers) and those who are not. That said, even police have lines that they must not cross, though I give them a bit more leeway given the situations that their job requires them to face.

[Alta4ever]

I just did a search through it now. It really wouldn't have done anything in this situation. The right to the enjoyment of property doesn't allow you to violate someone's right to security of person. Under the law, vigilantism of any kind is not allowed, for any reason.

The criminal code allows citizen arrest or as you have begun to call it vigilantism.

Canada

Section 494. (Criminal Code)[7]

(1) ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT BY ANY PERSON

Any one may arrest without warrant(s)

(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or

( a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes

(i) has committed a criminal offence, and

(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person

(2) ARREST BY OWNER, ETC., OF PROPERTY

Any one who is

(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or

(B ) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property

may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.

(3) DELIVERY TO PEACE OFFICER

Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.

-Section 494, sub. 1, (a) is the "General Power of Arrest" for non-peace officers.

- Section 494, sub. 1, (B ) is known as the "Assist Power of Arrest" and includes assisting another citizen who witnessed a "Criminal Offence" and, therefore, "... is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person ...". This section of the Criminal Code of Canada IS that authorization.

- Section 494, sub. 2, is the "Owner/Agent" power of arrest. It applies to both security and all other staff (or friends/neighbours if it is a dwelling) of any given property (The reason companies tell their staff they can't make such an arrest is because if the person making the arrest is hurt/killed by the criminal, the company becomes liable for the injury or death. Further, most people are neither equipped or trained to make proper arrests, which greatly increases the likelihood of injury or death to the citizen).

- in Section 494, sub. 2, (B ) "...a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property." includes criminal offences that are not on that property at all. If someone steals from a store, the security personnel who pursue the thief can (but rarely ever do) leave the property to continue the pursuit. When the pursuit is broken off the thief is no longer considered to be "freshly pursued" and therefore others are no longer permitted to assist in the apprehension of the criminal (it, then, becomes a matter for the Police to handle). Note that 494(1)(a) allows for arrest related only to indictable offences, while 494(2) allows for arrest for any offence against the laws of Canada,[8] most notably small value theft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest#Canada

Edited October 8, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Smallc]

Does it say there that you can physically harm them? Does it say that you can forcibly confine them (throw them in a van, hit them over the head, etc.)? Does it say that you can shoot them?

You're again showing me why I don't believe in common sense. If it does exist, you certainly aren't displaying any.

[Alta4ever]

Unlike you, I'm able to differentiate between those who are charged with upholding the law (peace officers) and those who are not. That said, even police have lines that they must not cross, though I give them a bit more leeway given the situations that their job requires them to face.

"A government that fails to fulfill its responsibility is not a legitimate government, thus, citizens aren't obligated to recognize its legitimacy"- John Locke.

By the police not dealing with these situations the government is failing to fulfill its responsibility.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

"A government that fails to fulfill its responsibility is not a legitimate government, thus, citizens aren't obligated to recognize its legitimacy"- John Locke.

By the police not dealing with these situations the government is failing to fulfill its responsibility.

Well said.

[Alta4ever]

,

Edited October 8, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Smallc]

By the police not dealing with these situations the government is failing to fulfill its responsibility.

You make it sound as if the police never deal with these situations. The reality is, we have rapidly growing police forces across Canada, and more and more of this is handled. Last I checked, Canada has not descended into anarchy. In fact, it is one of the safest countries on earth. Vigilantism is still unacceptable, no matter what you quote from John Locke.

[August1991]

You make it sound as if the police never deal with these situations. The reality is, we have rapidly growing police forces across Canada, and more and more of this is handled. Last I checked, Canada has not descended into anarchy.

An honest Korean immigrant shopkeeper is forced to arrest an habitual thief because the police won't do it - and smallc, you smugly claim that Canada has not descended into anarchy.

Smallc, there is something very, very wrong here. And if you don't see it, you are not only smug. You are also clueless.

Edited October 8, 2010 by August1991

[Alta4ever]

The reality is, we have rapidly growing police forces across Canada, and more and more of this is handled.

You have a stat that backs this up?

Because this goes against what you are asserting http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100928/dq100928a-eng.htm?

Why are fewer people reporting crimes and victimization small c? Would cases like this shop keeper have something to do with it?

[Smallc]

I've said many times that those surveys are rather useless...and there has been, statistically speaking, no real change from year to year.

We have more police than we ever have for a very long time. The jump in even the last five years has been staggering:

http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/legal05c-eng.htm

Now, are you going to assert that Canada has descended into anarchy, and that actual serious crime is being ignored? There are more police, harsher laws, more prison cells, and more judges and prosecutors. Sorry to burst your bubble, but shooting a thief isn't ok....and neither is kidnapping them.

I do see one thing from the link though. For a province with relatively high crime in the Canadian context, along with oodles of money, Alberta doesn't have very many police. More of that sanity, I suppose.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Smallc

[Alta4ever]

I've said many times that those surveys are rather useless...and there has been, statistically speaking, no real change from year to year.

We have more police than we ever have for a very long time. The jump in even the last five years has been staggering:

http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/legal05c-eng.htm

Now, are you going to assert that Canada has descended into anarchy, and that actual serious crime is being ignored? There are more police, harsher laws, more prison cells, and more judges and prosecutors. Sorry to burst your bubble, but shooting a thief isn't ok....and neither is kidnapping them.

It has increased by 10 officers per 100000 of people. Yet the stats on solved crimes have not increased nor have the rates of reporting crimes, can you explain small c. Funny how you will accept one stat report from stats Canada but not another. Why the selective acceptance of stats Canada's reports small c.

What the shop keeper did was not kidnapping.

kid·nap   

[kid-nap] Show IPA

–verb (used with object), -napped or -naped, -nap·ping or -nap·ing.

to steal, carry off, or abduct by force or fraud, esp. for use as a hostage or to extract ransom.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kidnap

Was the criminal used as a hostage or to extract a ransome? Nope he was held until the police could come and take custody. A little bit of a difference small c. The criminal was detained, I will define that for you too since you don't seem to understand the difference between the terms.

de·tain   

[dih-teyn] Show IPA

–verb (used with object)

1.

to keep from proceeding; keep waiting; delay.

2.

to keep under restraint or in custody.

3.

Obsolete . to keep back or withhold, as from a person.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/detain

[Smallc]

It has increased by 10 officers per 100000 of people. Yet the stats on solved crimes have not increased nor have the rates of reporting crimes, can you explain small c. Funny how you will accept one stat report from stats Canada but not another. Why the selective acceptance of stats Canada's reports small c.

One is verifiable, the other isn't.

What the shop keeper did was not kidnapping.

kid·nap   

[kid-nap] Show IPA

–verb (used with object), -napped or -naped, -nap·ping or -nap·ing.

to steal, carry off, or abduct by force or fraud, esp. for use as a hostage or to extract ransom.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kidnap

It sure sounds like it when you read the story. I'm not defending someone who is a career petty criminal. I'm not going to defend Chen, either.

Was the criminal used as a hostage or to extract a ransome?

The criminal din't have to be. Read the definition you found.

The law is the law, and under very few circumstances should it be ignored.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Smallc

[Alta4ever]

One is verifiable, the other isn't.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16862&view=findpost&p=580744

Because that's how you do statistical representations. You include people in the main part of the curve, and you exclude the outliers, because they'll drag the numbers in one direction or another, and won't properly represent a useful average number.

So in that thread you support statistical representations but because in this thread on justice it doesn't support your claims, you don't support them.

So small c do you support statistical representations or not because you are either blowing hot air in this thread or you were spewing it the thread for Ontario ER waits.

[Alta4ever]

The criminal din't have to be. Read the definition you found.

Detention

The exercise of an element of physical constraint of an individual.

"Kidnapping (is) the stealing and carrying away, or secreting of any person of any age or either sex against the will of such a person, or if he be a minor, against the will of his friends or lawful guardians,

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary

I don't know why you fail to see the difference between the two. What the shop keeper did was a citizens arrest with the detention until the authorities arrived. The shop keeper was not secreting away the person.

It sure sounds like it when you read the story. I'm not defending someone who is a career petty criminal.

You very much are.

[Smallc]

On the statistics, again, one is verifiable and the other isn't. I don't think it's that difficult.

On the definition - the police don't see it that way. They put him in a van, and they were talking him somewhere. They hit him and bound him. We'll have to see how the courts see things. How you see it really doesn't matter.

Also, the fact that you can't distinguish between support for the rule of law and support of crime isn't my fault.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Smallc

[Alta4ever]

Again, one is verifiable and the other isn't. I don't think it's that difficult.

You never answered the question.

So small c do you support statistical representations or not because you are either blowing hot air in this thread or you were spewing it the thread for Ontario ER waits?

[Smallc]

You never answered the question.

Yes I did, you simply aren't paying attention.

Edit: Also, on the thread you quoted, I'm talking about eliminating outliers. That has nothing to do with my distrust of self reporting surveys that deal with topics that people have little understanding of.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Smallc

[Alta4ever]

The law is the law,

I though you said

I'm simply not foolish enough to see the world as black and white.

So no allowance for grey area here but its ok as it pertains to all other aspects of life?

[Alta4ever]

Yes I did, you simply aren't paying attention.

Edit: Also, on the thread you quoted, I'm talking about eliminating outliers. That has nothing to do with my distrust of self reporting surveys that deal with topics that people have little understanding of.

So are you telling me people (the Canadian public) have little understanding of break-ins, thefts of motor vehicles or parts, vandalism or theft of household property, theft of personal property, or violent incidents? Since this is what stats canada was inquiring about when they surveyed the individuals.

I am curious small c do you really think you are more intelligent then the Canadians who answered this survey. What are you views on the Canadian public, because the picture I am getting from you is that you don't think very highly of them or their ability of comprehension and intelligence.

[Alta4ever]

Yes I did, you simply aren't paying attention.

Edit: Also, on the thread you quoted, I'm talking about eliminating outliers. That has nothing to do with my distrust of self reporting surveys that deal with topics that people have little understanding of.

Yet your willing to defend the methodology behind statistical representations. Why would it matter enough to you to defend that methodology even though you don't trust those types of surveys? Strange.

[August1991]

I've said many times that those surveys are rather useless...and there has been, statistically speaking, no real change from year to year.

"Statistically speaking... "

Smallc, you speak in the language of an "official", using the words of "experts". Nevertheless, an ordinary, honest shopkeeper sees things differently.

----

There's now a divide between the "experts" and "ordinary people". This divide is not based on "statistically speaking" differences.

In general, people like Michaelle Jean and Stephen Harper are never robbed - but if it happens, they are protected by the State. When Jean Chretien is accosted, he can push people aside.

For the rest of us, the story is different.

[Argus]

The shop keeper isn't the state.

So what? The state merely enforces the will of the people. So this guy enforced it himself. He didn't do anything wrong in that.

[Argus]

That depends on the exact circumstances. Justice is also about minute details that may not matter to you.

Apparently you don't know what justice is. Nor do you seem to particularly care.

[Argus]

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

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

Apparently, then, there are no civilized states.