Argus Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 I've obviously taken more than you have. Would you care to name them? 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 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. What more did he do then? He seems to have used reasonable force in the apprehension. Was it that they taped the guy up that you object to? They were supposed to simply hold his arms for however long it took police to arrive? 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 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. Chasing down and holding a guy for police is not vigilantism. Looking up his address, going to his home and beating the crap out of him is vigilantism. 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 Quite true. And largely irrelevant. 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. Hello, police? A guy stole a plant from my store! If you wish to file a report, sir, you'll have to come down to the station and fill out the forms. I have a video of him? You can bring that along if you like, sir. But he should be back any minute! I know he will! You call us if he comes back, sir, and we'll see if there's a unit available. ... Hello, police? That man who shoplifted the plant is outside my store! We'll see if we can free up a unit, sir, but it will probably be thirty minutes or more. -- Two hours later a police car rolls up to the curb, bored looking cop gets out, is told the guy has left, and drives away. 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
Wild Bill 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. 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. 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 He conducted a citizens arrest which is not vigilantism. 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. Quote
guyser Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 What more did he do then? He seems to have used reasonable force in the apprehension. Was it that they taped the guy up that you object to? They were supposed to simply hold his arms for however long it took police to arrive? First I dont object to anything he did. But play stupid games win stupid prizes. Was it stupid, of course. Reasonable force my ass. Read the law, it'll spell it out for you. Quote
guyser Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Chasing down and holding a guy for police is not vigilantism. It is when an hour has lapsed. Quote
Wild Bill Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 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. And if the shopkeeper had NOT detained him, would the police have caught him? Would the robber have been arrested? Would he have faced ANY consequence for his illegal actions at all? Guyser, it sure sounds like you prefer that victims just lie there and bleed quietly. If the police do nothing then that's just too bad! Making your own videotape that police can later ignore is hardly a solution. I believe that the State has obligations to its citizens. If it doesn't fulfill them then citizens have less obligation to the State! 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 Hello, police? A guy stole a plant from my store! If you wish to file a report, sir, you'll have to come down to the station and fill out the forms. I have a video of him? You can bring that along if you like, sir. But he should be back any minute! I know he will! You call us if he comes back, sir, and we'll see if there's a unit available. ... Hello, police? That man who shoplifted the plant is outside my store! We'll see if we can free up a unit, sir, but it will probably be thirty minutes or more. -- Two hours later a police car rolls up to the curb, bored looking cop gets out, is told the guy has left, and drives away. Ok And your point is ....? Quote
Wild Bill Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 It is when an hour has lapsed. For Pete's Sake, guyser! The guy had waited an hour and then returned intending to rob again! He admitted that in open court! Geez, what do you expect? When he came back do you think the shopkeeper should have apologized, kissed the man's ass and then handed him some loot for free? 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."
Argus Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 (edited) Ok And your point is ....? That your suggestion he call the police would have served no purpose whatsoever. The police put virtually no priority on shoplifting. They do not even investigate it. Even if he walked into the police station with the video they would have done nothing, would not have viewed the tape, would not have assigned it to a detective. This is why 2/3rds of people don't bother to report crimes to the police. I don't think you really get what theft means to small retailers. The big outfits just shrug it off and increase prices to cover their losses. Small outfits either pay huge insurance bills with high deductibles, or just eat the loss themselves. This guy wasn't stealing from a business. He was stealing - repeatedly - from this man, who was not wealthy to begin with. 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
guyser Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 And if the shopkeeper had NOT detained him, would the police have caught him? Maybe not. He can go in and swear out an arrest for the perp. If the shopkeeper had NOT detained him, the shopkeeper would have a lot more money sine he would not have been arrested. Would the robber have been arrested? Would he have faced ANY consequence for his illegal actions at all? Guyser, it sure sounds like you prefer that victims just lie there and bleed quietly. If the police do nothing then that's just too bad! Making your own videotape that police can later ignore is hardly a solution. I believe that the State has obligations to its citizens. If it doesn't fulfill them then citizens have less obligation to the State! You believe wrong in thinking the state is obligated to protect its citizens.(if in fact thats what is extrapolated from your sentence) I dont think victims should lie there. Defend your property , but an hour later dont go looking to dole out your own justice . Defend yourself all you want, while youre being beat up etc, but if you wait an hour and then go vigilante on the perp, you have commited and crime. Quote
guyser Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 For Pete's Sake, guyser! The guy had waited an hour and then returned intending to rob again! He admitted that in open court! He didnt "rob" anyone, either then nor an hour later. Theft yes. Anyhow.... I know that an hour passed. But he didnt rob him again. Had he let the guy steal from him and immediately put his hands on him to deliver him to the police then this would not be news. Geez, what do you expect? When he came back do you think the shopkeeper should have apologized, kissed the man's ass and then handed him some loot for free? Stick with the facts Wild Bill. But now that you mention it, it sure would have been cheaper. Quote
guyser Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 (edited) That your suggestion he call the police would have served no purpose whatsoever. Ah, but that is incorrect. The call, and the complaint would be logged . At some point all the evidence would weigh down our perp when caught. The police put virtually no priority on shoplifting. They do not even investigate it. Even if he walked into the police station with the video they would have done nothing, would not have viewed the tape, would not have assigned it to a detective. This is why 2/3rds of people don't bother to report crimes to the police. You do not know that. He could swear out a charge. The police would have no choice in the matter. Now would they make it a priority? I have my doubts. The cops probably would have to trip over the guy for them to catch him. I don't think you really get what theft means to small retailers. The big outfits just shrug it off and increase prices to cover their losses. Small outfits either pay huge insurance bills with high deductibles, or just eat the loss themselves. This guy wasn't stealing from a business. He was stealing - repeatedly - from this man, who was not wealthy to begin with. First off, I understand theft is costly to retailer. I also understand that theft from employees is a huge problem, not theft from customers. Secondly, Insurance has no bearing on this matter whatsoever. His deductible could be $50 and that is more than the theft.His deductibles are for property and liability losses , not mysterious disappearances such as this. He was stealing, repeatedly, but that is seperate from the fact an hour later he duct taped bound and threw the guy in the van.Its not relevant. Edited October 8, 2010 by guyser Quote
Wild Bill Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 You believe wrong in thinking the state is obligated to protect its citizens.(if in fact thats what is extrapolated from your sentence) We have a totally different idea of why we consent to be governed, Guyser! My understanding is that centuries ago in Britain arose the idea that justice belonged to the King! Before that it was an individual affair of personal duels, vigilante justice and clan wars. A fair trial was an unknown concept! By putting justice in the realm of the Crown citizens could no longer take the law into their own hands. Courts and lawyers were established. Sheriffs and later police were established. Instead of blood feuds we had civil torts. The people accepted this system because the Crown had far greater resources than most ordinary people. True, the rich sometimes get away with more over the poor but still, the poor had a far greater chance than ever before. What was most important was that justice was public! Criminals were seen to be apprehended, convicted and sentenced to terms that appeared appropriate to the mores of the common man. The concept spread from Britain to other democracies, to the point where in some countries citizens voluntarily accepted giving up the bearing of arms for their personal defense to the State, who again with its greater resources could be expected to do a better job. No system is perfect but if a country's system begins to look as if it no longer takes its role of administering justice as seriously as it should then disrespect begins to flower. Many countries make the mistake of taking the cheap shot, of pouncing on the victim if he tries to look after himself in the State's absence. This only furthers disrespect! The concept of "consent to be governed" is one of the oldest in our civilization, Guyser. If it fails then that leads to anarchy! Surely no one wants that! 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 We have a totally different idea of why we consent to be governed, Guyser! I think we have the same ideas. The application however is different. No system is perfect but if a country's system begins to look as if it no longer takes its role of administering justice as seriously as it should then disrespect begins to flower. Many countries make the mistake of taking the cheap shot, of pouncing on the victim if he tries to look after himself in the State's absence. This only furthers disrespect! The concept of "consent to be governed" is one of the oldest in our civilization, Guyser. If it fails then that leads to anarchy! Surely no one wants that! We consent to be governed but the Police have no legal obligations to defend for us. Disrespect is rampant already. The police have become political pawns and economical pawns and have put themselves in shit town due to this. I can hammer the cops far more than the average guy does because of what I see as stupidity from police brass. We have....... -long weekend blitzes that serve no real end gain except for revenue to the Province -laws passed (3 day suspensions,racing laws et al) that are used for revenue generation not safety -endless piling on laws that serve no purpose but to lend credence that they are doing something -cops getting off scott free on their own discretions, be it the HTA or criminal code violations. If you feel the administration of justice is waning, remember this, both the shopkeeper and the thief were charged. Separate incidents, separate charges. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Armchair critics don't seem to understand the perspective of a small store owner, strugglng to make ends meet....who has seen this sleezebag steal from him several times - as well as from other shop owners in the neighbourhood......who sees nothiing being done about it....when is enough enough? Imagine it was YOUR store and you were eking out $35K a year. Imagine this scum calling you a Chinese f*****. It should be our justice system on trial here - for letting someone with 43 convictions continually get off with a slap on the wrist......and that's only for the times that he was actually CAUGHT. This guy has probably thieved hundreds more times. What if it was your store? What if you had called the cops many times and saw nothing done? If we don't clean up our sentencing for career criminals, there will be more Mr. Chens out there. Quote Back to Basics
Alta4ever Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." – Voltaire "If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law." – Winston Churchill 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
Alta4ever Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Armchair critics don't seem to understand the perspective of a small store owner, strugglng to make ends meet....who has seen this sleezebag steal from him several times - as well as from other shop owners in the neighbourhood......who sees nothiing being done about it....when is enough enough? Imagine it was YOUR store and you were eking out $35K a year. Imagine this scum calling you a Chinese f*****. It should be our justice system on trial here - for letting someone with 43 convictions continually get off with a slap on the wrist......and that's only for the times that he was actually CAUGHT. This guy has probably thieved hundreds more times. What if it was your store? What if you had called the cops many times and saw nothing done? If we don't clean up our sentencing for career criminals, there will be more Mr. Chens out there. Do forget the shop owners in this area have had to pool money to bring in a security company because the police do not respond to their complaints. "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. Note the irony of todays liberals contradicting the very philosophical teachings of the man that classical liberalism was based on. 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
dre Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 (edited) For Pete's Sake, guyser! The guy had waited an hour and then returned intending to rob again! He admitted that in open court! Geez, what do you expect? When he came back do you think the shopkeeper should have apologized, kissed the man's ass and then handed him some loot for free? 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. In the case of detaining a shoplifter theres all kinds of rules you have follow. There limitations to how long you can hold them, and how you are allowed to restrain them. In the case of using personal restraints ropes, cuffs, tape, wire, zip ties, zap straps etc you have to be even more carefull. Even the POLICE are only allowed to use a few approved such methods. A safer method would be to lock them in a small room... thats a better solution. Edited October 8, 2010 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Alta4ever Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 (edited) 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. In the case of detaining a shoplifter theres all kinds of rules you have follow. There limitations to how long you can hold them, and how you are allowed to restrain them. In the case of using personal restraints ropes, cuffs, tape, wire, zip ties, zap straps etc you have to be even more carefull. Even the POLICE are only allowed to use a few approved such methods. A safer method would be to lock them in a small room... thats a better solution. 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. Edited October 8, 2010 by Alta4ever 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
Alta4ever Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 This is proof that in Canada we have no justice system, just a legal system. 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
GostHacked Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 BS holding the criminal until the authorities arrive is completely appropriate. That falls under a citizens arrest does it not? Is that legitimate here? Violate my rights and I will take you down. Victims almost have no way to retaliate because the justice is a sham in these types of crimes. Quote
Shwa Posted October 8, 2010 Report Posted October 8, 2010 Interesting story from the Star. I would going to post a separate thread, but "Justice canadian style" still sounds about right. No right to lawyer during questioning, says top court OTTAWA—The American Miranda rule that gives a suspect the right to have a lawyer present during questioning has no place here, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday.In three related decisions, a sharply divided court fine-tuned the rules on suspects’ right to counsel. In the main case, the justices ruled 5-4 that the Charter of Rights does not confer a right to have a lawyer present during interrogation. That means Miranda, a staple of TV cop shows where lawyers whisper to their clients while detectives ask questions, does not apply. The court also held that suspects have no right to interrupt an interrogation to consult again with a lawyer except in some limited circumstances. They said that while suspects generally have the right to a lawyer of their choice, they must accept another if they cannot contact their own within a reasonable time. But it is not as bad as it seems... Quote
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.