Argus Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 This is where you go wrong. Criminals are apprehended and prosecuted every day. This example clearly illustrates that. The dumbest and easiest to catch. According to Stats Canada only 1/3rd of crimes are reported to police. Now the criminal solution rate in Ottawa is 21%. That means about 7% of all crimes commited in Ottawa result in an aprehension. Doesn't sound to me like the state has devoted an overwhelming amount of attention to enforcing laws and protecting the citizenry. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Which is (for the most part), BS. I've seen many people's natural understanding. There's nothing sensible about it. . Intelligent and mature people of sound judgement routinely display common sense. You seem to be of the belief that because there are those who make dumb decisions and don't show common sense, then it can't exist. That's illogical. Of course it exists. Some people simply don't have it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 (edited) And you think that is a defensible act in the face of theft? Yes, definitely. That's the fault of the sane Government of Alberta and/or the county in which he lives. Far be it for me to stand in the way of your desperate attempt to release some venom at a province you despise but as far as I know the policing in rural alberta is provided by the RCMP. Edited October 8, 2010 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Yes, a simple, easily changeable law, is much better than a constitutional guarantee (one requiring the consent of all sovereign the legislative bodies in Canada to change). You make yourself very hard to take seriously with statements like that. The Bill of Rights actually was better and more comprehensive than what was set out in the Charter. It should have been simply enshrined within the Constitution. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Pretty much... And these folks try to claim they're NOT hillbillies.... These folks? Care to elaborate? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 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? In the case under discussion, all the shopkeeper did was chase the criminal and hold him for police. That seems entirely acceptable to me under any reasonable definition of the law. Nor do I share your indignation that anyone would "take the law into their own hands". As far as I'm concerned if the law isn't being properly maintained and enforced it is a duty of citizens to help out. Of course, if they get the wrong guy or go beyond what a police officer would reasonably do then they should be subject to sanction. Your attitude, the "it's not up to citizens to do anything, only the state can" is a sad surrender of independance and a lack of critical thought. I can just imagine you staring in horror at a house burning down and children screaming from the top windows but doing nothing whatever - because it's not your job. I can imagine you watching someone drowning but being unwilling to do more than call the proper authorities, or ignoring a villain tying the hapless maiden across the railroad tracks because interfering would be "taking the law" into your own hands. Though of course, you'd be more than willing to summon the proper authorities - even if they are an hour away. I should write a script wherin the hero comes upon a maiden being attacked by evildoers. "Don't fear, my good woman!" you'd proclaim. "I shall go to the corner and call the authorities on the telephone! No doubt someone will arrive in good order to assist you!" Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 You make it sound as if the police never deal with these situations. The reality is, we have rapidly growing police forces across Canada, Evidence? Cite? The police to population ratio in Canada is among the lowest in the western world. It's about a quarter what it is in France. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 The law is the law, and under very few circumstances should it be ignored. Is that a quote from Adolph Hitler? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 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. Did you ever get around to answering my question about where your source of knowledge about statistical sampling comes from? How many courses in statistics have you taken, for example? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 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. Quote
Smallc Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Did you ever get around to answering my question about where your source of knowledge about statistical sampling comes from? How many courses in statistics have you taken, for example? I've obviously taken more than you have. Quote
Wild Bill Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 The shop keeper isn't the state. Once again, I do not follow your reasoning. Are you implying that if the state does not do its job the shopkeeper should just sit there and be a victim, repeatedly if necessary? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
guyser Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Here are the relevant details ... Except they arent the relevant details but a gloss over to try and make a point. Get the real details and maybe youll see the light Quote
guyser Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 In the case under discussion, all the shopkeeper did was chase the criminal and hold him for police. That seems entirely acceptable to me under any reasonable definition of the law. Oh ffs , if thats all he did then Id agree. But we all know he did far more than that. This thread is a perfect example of people reading only what they want to see and the hell with the facts. Quote
Wild Bill Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Oh ffs , if thats all he did then Id agree. But we all know he did far more than that. This thread is a perfect example of people reading only what they want to see and the hell with the facts. And apparently they tied him up with duct tape and tossed him in a van to take him to the police station. Now it was also said that they hit him and made him "afraid". Who said that? The perp himself! A man who has had a ridiculous number of prior convictions, had robbed the store just an hour before and had come back to rob some more, by his own admission! Sounds like you've said "the hell with..." some facts of your own, guyser. This is getting to be all too common a story. The State fails in its duties to citizens, leaves them with no alternative but vigilantism and then when the citizens defend themselves the State comes down harder on them than the real criminals! Anybody want to discuss the term "consent to be governed" and what it means when the State gets that derelict in its duties? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
guyser Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Now it was also said that they hit him and made him "afraid". Who said that? The perp himself! A man who has had a ridiculous number of prior convictions, had robbed the store just an hour before and had come back to rob some more, by his own admission! Which , judging by the charges, the police and later the crown believed that to have happened. So many other things the shopkeeper could have done, but let frustration get the better of him. And frankly I see why, but it has no bearing on the charges. Sounds like you've said "the hell with..." some facts of your own, guyser. No Sir on the contrary. This is getting to be all too common a story. The State fails in its duties to citizens, leaves them with no alternative but vigilantism and then when the citizens defend themselves the State comes down harder on them than the real criminals! No alternative? Hogwash plain and simple. He had him on videotape. Ergo he had options. Quote
Wild Bill Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 He had him on videotape. Ergo he had options. Further reports have revealed that this is not a one-time incident. The police have a history of making robberies in this area a very low priority. Perhaps you'd care to tell us just what those 'options' are? And why a citizen should have to go to such lengths on his own? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Evening Star Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Yeah, sorry, I just don't agree that Canadian society is especially lawless or crime-ridden, certainly not to the point that vigilantism is justifiable at all. Quote
Alta4ever Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Yeah, sorry, I just don't agree that Canadian society is especially lawless or crime-ridden, certainly not to the point that vigilantism is justifiable at all. What would make you think this was vigilantism, the shop keep wasn't wasn't applying his own justice, he made a citizens arrest and held the criminal until the authorities arrive to take custody. That is a big difference, and a very justifiable act. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Evening Star Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 I guess I was specifically replying to Wild Bill there. As for this instance, I feel, like Smallc, that a just decision would have to be based on precise knowledge of the details involved. I can see why there might be good reason to arrest the shopkeeper. Quote
Alta4ever Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 I guess I was specifically replying to Wild Bill there. As for this instance, I feel, like Smallc, that a just decision would have to be based on precise knowledge of the details involved. I can see why there might be good reason to arrest the shopkeeper. The shop keeper acted when the police failed to do so. The government did not live up to it responsibility. If you saw someone being mugged or assaulted and had the power to stop it now rather then wait 20 minutes for the police to show up (if they show up), the perp to get away and the victim seriously injured. Would you still just wait for the police, if they even bothered to show? Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
guyser Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Further reports have revealed that this is not a one-time incident. The police have a history of making robberies in this area a very low priority. Quite true. And largely irrelevant. Perhaps you'd care to tell us just what those 'options' are? And why a citizen should have to go to such lengths on his own? Last first.He shouldnt have to . He chose to. Videotape, call cops , show tape, tell cops he should be back around here any minute now. Cops arrest shoplifter. Shopkeeper goes home without charges. Very simple really. Quote
guyser Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 The shop keeper acted when the police failed to do so. The government did not live up to it responsibility. They, police nor gov't, have no legal responsibility. Otherwise we could sue them anytime crimes against us occur. If you saw someone being mugged or assaulted and had the power to stop it now rather then wait 20 minutes for the police to show up (if they show up), the perp to get away and the victim seriously injured. Would you still just wait for the police, if they even bothered to show? Ahh, the old emotion ploy. Its been used far worse than this earlier in the thread. No one can answer since there are numerous variables in play. Quote
guyser Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 What would make you think this was vigilantism, . Not to put too fine a point on it, he could have called the police and shown them the videotape. He didnt, he decided to take matter in his own hands, thus, vigilatism. Quote
Alta4ever Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Not to put too fine a point on it, he could have called the police and shown them the videotape. He didnt, he decided to take matter in his own hands, thus, vigilatism. He conducted a citizens arrest which is not vigilantism. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Recommended Posts
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.