Argus Posted October 9, 2010 Report Posted October 9, 2010 It is when an hour has lapsed. No it's not. The guy returned to the scene of the crime. It's not like they got a posse together and went hunting him. 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 9, 2010 Report Posted October 9, 2010 You do not know that. He could swear out a charge. The police would have no choice in the matter. Do you think he knew this guy's name? He didn't. So it would be a complaint about shoplifting, and the police would do nothing. 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. In other words, you agree that the police would do nothing, that the police were not protecting this shop owner. First off, I understand theft is costly to retailer. I also understand that theft from employees is a huge problem, not theft from customers. Not to a small, family operated outfit. 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. Since we've both agreed the police do nothing you're saying the shop owner should have just shrugged and ignored a guy repeatedly stealing money from him and his family. I wonder if you'd do the same. I wonder if there was a guy who lived in your neighborhood who routinely broke into your house while you were away and stole your stuff what you'd do. You know it's him because people have seen him break in, and you have video of him doing it. And the police yawn in your face when you complain. When you see him hanging around on the sidewalk outside your house waiting for you to go to work are you just going to do nothing? 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 9, 2010 Report Posted October 9, 2010 He wasnt protecting his property. Can you not understand that ? Of course he was. This guy was a repeat offender. He came back to steal more. If he didn't steal more that day he would have stolen it the next or the day after. 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 9, 2010 Report Posted October 9, 2010 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. It depends on how dumb the jury is. If the jury faithfully and obediently abides by what the judge tells them then you're correct. In other words, if it's a jury full of automatons then he'd be found guilty. You do understand the origin of jury trials, right? I mean, it makes no sense to have a bunch of idiot amateurs sitting in judgment in complex trials where trained judges are FAR more able to see through the muck lawyers throw up. A trial by your peers is there so that if your peers find the law to be unjust they can simply refuse to convict. If you take that away from it then there is no reason to even have juries. Trials would be far smoother and more efficient without them. The judge could tell me anything he wanted but he can't order me to convict and there's no way in hell I would. 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 9, 2010 Report Posted October 9, 2010 (edited) Not to mention the fact that the guys prior record would likely be inadmissable thus this case would be heard on its own merits. Day Two was worse. Bennett admits to everything: yes he’s a thief and a drug dealer, yes he has a record as long as your arm, yes he had returned to the Lucky Moose to steal some more, yes he lied to police, yes he lies under oath. No, he can’t be considered a reliable witness. Yes he likes to give shop owners the finger when they confront him. Kelly McParland Edited October 9, 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 9, 2010 Report Posted October 9, 2010 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. That is not a question that will ever be put to a jury. The only question that a juror must ultimately answer to is Guilty or Not Guilty. He is not required to explain why he votes one way or the other. 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
Saipan Posted October 9, 2010 Report Posted October 9, 2010 Of course he was. This guy was a repeat offender. He came back to steal more. If he didn't steal more that day he would have stolen it the next or the day after. Not if it was my store. He would have #4 or 2 pellets in his ass and nuts (not traceable) He wouldn't be up to stealing anymore. Quote
Smallc Posted October 9, 2010 Report Posted October 9, 2010 Not if it was my store. He would have #4 or 2 pellets in his ass and nuts (not traceable) He wouldn't be up to stealing anymore. And then, you would be charged with either murder or attempted murder, depending on the outcome. Quote
Saipan Posted October 10, 2010 Report Posted October 10, 2010 And then, you would be charged with either murder or attempted murder, depending on the outcome. Based on my post here? Quote
dre Posted October 10, 2010 Report Posted October 10, 2010 It depends on how dumb the jury is. If the jury faithfully and obediently abides by what the judge tells them then you're correct. In other words, if it's a jury full of automatons then he'd be found guilty. You do understand the origin of jury trials, right? I mean, it makes no sense to have a bunch of idiot amateurs sitting in judgment in complex trials where trained judges are FAR more able to see through the muck lawyers throw up. A trial by your peers is there so that if your peers find the law to be unjust they can simply refuse to convict. If you take that away from it then there is no reason to even have juries. Trials would be far smoother and more efficient without them. The judge could tell me anything he wanted but he can't order me to convict and there's no way in hell I would. The judge wont tell you whether or not to convict but he will give you a set of instructions on what basis you are deliberating on and if you dont follow those intructions you can be booted off the jury or held in contempt of court. The jurors in this case would NOT be ruling on whether or not its illegal to detain someone in that manner.... the legislature decides that. The jurors will simply be ruling on whether the prosecution has proven that the act in question did in fact happen. A trial by your peers is there so that if your peers find the law to be unjust they can simply refuse to convict. This is just patently false. Juries are not there to decide if a law is unjust or not. They are there to decide if adequate evidence was presented to prove you are guilty. Its totally normal for a jury to return a guilty verdict even if they dont personally support the underlying law. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted October 10, 2010 Report Posted October 10, 2010 This is just patently false. Juries are not there to decide if a law is unjust or not. They are there to decide if adequate evidence was presented to prove you are guilty. Its totally normal for a jury to return a guilty verdict even if they dont personally support the underlying law. It is no doubt true that juries have a de facto power to disregard the law as stated to the jury by the judge. We cannot enter the jury room. The jury is never called upon to explain the reasons which lie behind a verdict. It may even be true that in some limited circumstances the private decision of a jury to refuse to apply the law will constitute, in the words of a Law Reform Commission of Canada working paper, "the citizen's ultimate protection against oppressive laws and the oppressive enforcement of the law" (Law Reform Commission of Canada, Working Paper 27, The Jury in Criminal Trials (1980)). R vs Morgentaler, SC Chief Justice The Supreme Court more recently issued a decision, R. v. Krieger 2006 SCC 47,[21] which confirmed that juries in Canada have the power to refuse to apply the law when their consciences require that they do so. Within this decision, it is stated that "juries are not entitled as a matter of right to refuse to apply the law — but they do have the power to do so when their consciences permit of no other course." 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 10, 2010 Report Posted October 10, 2010 This is just patently false. Juries are not there to decide if a law is unjust or not. They are there to decide if adequate evidence was presented to prove you are guilty. Its totally normal for a jury to return a guilty verdict even if they dont personally support the underlying law. You just negated the very concept of "common law"! The jury serves as a "panel of peers" and represents the People. I don't know for sure if you are right or wrong but if you are right we have drifted so far from the idea of "justice for the people" that juries have become mere accountants, trained to stamp Yea or Nay on what a judge would have decided anyway! 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."
ironstone Posted October 10, 2010 Report Posted October 10, 2010 http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/10/02/peter-kuitenbrouwer-david-chen-%E2%80%94-big-anger-in-little-china/ In all probability, those convictions don't account for the times he was charged and acquitted for lack of evidence. "Oh Canada, you stand on guard for me" is what career criminal Bennett must be thinking. Somewhere in our criminal justice system handbook, you will find the answer under "rehabilitation". Correct me if I'm wrong,but "rehabilitation" comes after the crime has been committed does it not? Quote Beware the Brookfield industrial complex...
ironstone Posted October 10, 2010 Report Posted October 10, 2010 Someone has mentioned this previously in here:Anthony Bennett, 52, the man Mr. Chen caught, has been convicted 28 times, in Ontario and British Columbia, starting in 1976, mainly of theft, possession of cocaine and trafficking in narcotics. On each offence, he served a few days in prison. This man is a career criminal obviously.He has been in and out of prison many times and has clearly not been rehabilitated.For those of you opposed to the current governments desire for tougher sentencing,please explain how society would be worse off if career criminals actually spend serious time behind bars? Quote Beware the Brookfield industrial complex...
Argus Posted October 10, 2010 Report Posted October 10, 2010 (edited) This man is a career criminal obviously.He has been in and out of prison many times and has clearly not been rehabilitated.For those of you opposed to the current governments desire for tougher sentencing,please explain how society would be worse off if career criminals actually spend serious time behind bars? How about if we'd just deported him way back when? How about if we reform immigration to not let people like him into the country in the first place? Oh no, we can't do that! That would be, uhm, racist! Edited October 10, 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
capricorn Posted October 10, 2010 Report Posted October 10, 2010 Correct me if I'm wrong,but "rehabilitation" comes after the crime has been committed does it not? Well yes, that's the expectation. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Smallc Posted October 10, 2010 Report Posted October 10, 2010 You just negated the very concept of "common law"! Common law, also known as case law, is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law,[1] on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law Quote
Mr.Canada Posted October 10, 2010 Report Posted October 10, 2010 There should be a plea bargain here anyways, provided the shopkeeper has a clean record. They should cut him some slack. Only after the lawyers have had enough of watching their faces jabbering on television...hehe. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Saipan Posted October 10, 2010 Report Posted October 10, 2010 The reasonable expectation should be anything from five lashes up to a noose, depending on crime. Why it's always the public that is punished - by taxes to house, feed and entertain the criminals? Quote
Mr.Canada Posted October 10, 2010 Report Posted October 10, 2010 The reasonable expectation should be anything from five lashes up to a noose, depending on crime. Why it's always the public that is punished - by taxes to house, feed and entertain the criminals? Can you please elaborate? I don't understand what you're getting at Saipan. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Saipan Posted October 10, 2010 Report Posted October 10, 2010 Can you please elaborate? I don't understand what you're getting at Saipan. I thought it couldn't be simpler. Why, for example, should taxpayer feed and house some petty criminal when 10 lashes would do the "rehabilitation" and cost next to nothing. Same with dangerous murderer who will never reofend after he's hanged. And save the millions spend on new prisons. Quote
Wild Bill Posted October 10, 2010 Report Posted October 10, 2010 Common law, also known as case law, is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law,[1] on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law As usual, you completely miss my point! You have given a modern definition of 'common law' as a PROCESS! I was referring to the very origin of common law, as it began in medieval Britain centuries ago. I find the fact that you instantly took it to mean a process rather revealing... 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."
Smallc Posted October 10, 2010 Report Posted October 10, 2010 As usual, you completely miss my point! You have given a modern definition of 'common law' as a PROCESS! I was referring to the very origin of common law, as it began in medieval Britain centuries ago. I find the fact that you instantly took it to mean a process rather revealing... Common law is what it is. Your private definition is meaningless. Quote
Wild Bill Posted October 10, 2010 Report Posted October 10, 2010 Common law is what it is. Your private definition is meaningless. Interesting. You genuinely can't see it! As Spock would say, "Fascinating!" 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."
Smallc Posted October 10, 2010 Report Posted October 10, 2010 Interesting. You genuinely can't see it! As Spock would say, "Fascinating!" ! 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.