August1991 Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) The key point in the following story is that no bureaucrat or politician, no State employee (no detective, no nurse, no psychologist, no guard) will suffer anything in anyway, regardless of what they did. The modern State misdirects incentives. The 27-year-old man charged with second-degree murder after another man was stomped to death at the Edmonton Remand Centre has been found not criminally responsible. Justin Somers, a diagnosed schizophrenic from Fort McMurray, Alta., was placed in a cell with Barry Stewart in May 2011. Stewart, 59, was serving a two-day sentence for failing to pay fines for riding on the LRT without paying a fare and jaywalking. Somers was in jail for drinking, which breached bail conditions on unrelated charges.'He was a piece of meat being thrown into a lion’s cage.'—Melissa Carson, Barry Stewart's niece. “He was there for fines. He lost his life over fines,” said Stewart's niece, Melissa Carson, outside the courthouse Tuesday. CBC If you're a politician, if you work for the State, if you marry a politician or a bureaucrat, you have access to protection, other people's money. You are protected. Is it any wonder that State employment is attractive? Heck, if I were a woman, I'd want to marry a Trudeau too. Edited March 14, 2013 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 This post is nonsensical gibberish. State employees? Yikes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) This post is nonsensical gibberish. State employees? Yikes. Gibberish? It's all about bureaucratic contacts. Welcome to the future. Edited March 14, 2013 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortlived Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Yes I agree people are suppose to be assessed for mental condition, and people who are mentally unstable should be kept in PC away from stable prisoners. The mere fact this person was put in jail for fines rather than hard labour is evident of the stupidity of the justice system in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 This post is nonsensical gibberish. State employees? Yikes. Exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Exactly If the state forces someone to be in a cell, the state is responsible for ensuring the cell is a safe place to be. The state clearly made no such effort in this case, and as a result this man lost his life. But how do you punish the state? You can't. How do you or should you punish the idiot in the jail who put a guy into a cell with a crazy man? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortlived Posted March 15, 2013 Report Share Posted March 15, 2013 (edited) If the state forces someone to be in a cell, the state is responsible for ensuring the cell is a safe place to be. The state clearly made no such effort in this case, and as a result this man lost his life. But how do you punish the state? You can't. How do you or should you punish the idiot in the jail who put a guy into a cell with a crazy man? You'd have to look at the policies in place, its not the guy who put him in there, but it is the person who told him to put him in there and if it was legitimate to do so. People make mistakes, sometimes lots of them. The guy didn't necessarily have the intent to to have the violent drunk kill the jay walker, I would be suprised if this were the case (and I have a very negative view of police ethics in general). None the less the screening policies before incarcerating someone should be there, I'd wonder though why all their holding cells were full, or why a jay walker was in a cell at all. I'd be asking why a jay walker was remanded into custody. Its the judge that f'ed up, or the legislators. It is ludicrist to remand a jay walker into custody, since keeping them there would cost more than the ticket, which is arbitrary in the first case. (arbitrary confinement is unconstitutional it is laid out in section 9 of the charter of rights and freedoms - where civil offences would not be sufficient to arbitrarily confine someone which a bylaw fine is clearly civil in nature since bylaws are non-criminal in nature, thus confinement for something which is noncriminal in nature is clearly arbitrary and unethical) It would have served justice better to have stripped him down to his underware and dropped him off at a homeless shelter or something. Or get some labour out of the guy, nothing like old fashioned slavery never hurt noone. Canada was founded by kidnapped and indentured servants afterall, "it's part of our heritage." If not for the alchohol psychotic jail mates, it would seem like Canada was getting soft on crime and restitution. Or well retribution, but not restitution there would be a negative restitution by remanding into custody, and lets get real there is no need to punish someone for crossing a road. I can understand public endangerment or obstructing traffic, But no, jaywalking isn't a criminal, it is people who use cars and ask for the government to limit the pedestrians ancestorial mobility rights that are corrupt. Deprivation without need is immorality. Although jaywalking 'isn't a crime' and any society that fines people for using a right of way is a corrupt society, any 'fines should be able to be worked off, it makes no sense to just keep people locked up, it is ill mentality for that type of people to be administering the justice system, but thats the way it is. Its the legislators fault for making jaywalking an offence that can in anyway result in incarceration. Canada has erred in americanizing its pedestrian road use, rather than stick to the motherland The United Kingdom does not formally describe priority regulations for drivers and pedestrians at road junctions or other locations, except with respect to marked Zebra, Pelican, and Puffin crossings, where motorists are required to give way to pedestrians under defined conditions.[1] Elsewhere, the Highway Code relies on the expectation that pedestrians in the process of crossing at (unmarked) road junctions receive priority, as a matter of common law. British society has survived so why would Canada be any different? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6251431.stm Canada is suppose to be a free society, how can the disgrace of jaywalking continue, it has killed someone, can't we learn from our mistakes and do the right thing! (It violates the common law) Edited March 15, 2013 by shortlived Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 ...Canada has erred in americanizing its pedestrian road use, rather than stick to the motherland Yes...such a pity....as Canadians also drive on the right side of the road unlike in the motherland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) If the state forces someone to be in a cell, the state is responsible for ensuring the cell is a safe place to be. The state clearly made no such effort in this case, and as a result this man lost his life. But how do you punish the state? You can't. How do you or should you punish the idiot in the jail who put a guy into a cell with a crazy man? This strikes me as the key question. How do we, simple citizens, make State bureaucrats accountable? The British Magna Carta restricted the monarch. The French Revolution eliminated the monarch, and the US Constitution restricted the State. ----- How do we protect ourselves against State bureaucrats? Edited March 16, 2013 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) This post is nonsensical gibberish. State employees? Yikes. If you understand how the system works, you win. And when it is a question of State bureaucrats, money is not the currency. Marry or sleep with a "Trudeau" is probably a good start. Otherwise, I'd advise knowing/sleeping with someone in the State health bureaucracy. Edited March 16, 2013 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Although jaywalking 'isn't a crime'... I disagree. Jaywalking is a crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 If you understand how the system works, you win. And when it is a question of State bureaucrats, money is not the currency. Marry or sleep with a "Trudeau" is probably a good start. Otherwise, I'd advise knowing/sleeping with someone in the State health bureaucracy. You seem to be saying that someone who is 'connected' wouldn't have ended up in that cell. That's probably true, but why use this case to illustrate your point ? This case is more correctly an example of little things not being done right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortlived Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) I disagree. Jaywalking is a crime. Not its not, there are no victims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime We don't need government to police our morality as it applies to ourself. We don't need the state in the crossings of the roadways. There is no place for the state in the footpaths of the nation. Jaywalking is not a crime, it is a nuisance --- to pedestrians whose ancestorial rights, and priveleges are infringed by police and bylaw officers, and at worst courts and alchoholic psychopath executioners. Edited March 16, 2013 by shortlived Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Not its not, there are no victims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime Your link has the word 'crime' in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortlived Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Your link has the word 'crime' in it. Yes and un-smart has the word smart in it, what is your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Yes and un-smart has the word smart in it, what is your point? Somebody states that jaywalking isn't a crime, and you respond by posting a link called 'victimless crime'. Do you not see my point ? You've lost the argument for yourself. Victimless crime is a crime. If it isn't, then you need to explain why not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 You seem to be saying that someone who is 'connected' wouldn't have ended up in that cell. That's probably true, but why use this case to illustrate your point ? This case is more correctly an example of little things not being done right. Most people, connected or not, would not have ended up in that cell. Nobody goes to jail for jaywalking. The charge of riding transit without paying might be a clue... I saw hobos and vagrants and panhandlers get busted for that more than once, when I lived in Edmonton. Most people could pay the fines for these offenses out of pocket, and would prefer to do so than spend 2 days in jail. That's speculation, of course, but in trying to figure out how somebody ends up in jail for jaywalking and an unpaid ride on the LRT, that's the answer I come up with. Dude was a bum. That's not to say what happened to him is any less tragic. But I think it gets at what the mentality of the staff at the remands center might have been. We've got one scruffy looking dude, we've got another scruffy looking dude, we're short of space, they can share a cell. Obviously having "connections" would help in any situation. But to August's point, you don't need to be married to a Trudeau to avoid doing jail time for jaywalking. I strongly suspect here that the issue is more along the lines of how the law deals with "the dregs of society". I live near what passes for downtown in this town, and often see police interacting with people who look like vagrants. They approach them and make conversation for no reason other than to let them know they're being watched. You don't have to marry a Trudeau to avoid this kind of attention, you just have to look like you have a place to live. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortlived Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) Somebody states that jaywalking isn't a crime, and you respond by posting a link called 'victimless crime'. Do you not see my point ? You've lost the argument for yourself. Victimless crime is a crime. If it isn't, then you need to explain why not. Ok now you are just dumber trolling. Go to the link read it. You are commenting on something you don't even know the meaning of. You are being obtuse. Try knowing what you are talking about before you talk about it. By its nature any "real crime" has an injury. crime n. a violation of a law in which there is injury to the public or a member of the public ... Canada is a free society so Canada shouldn't be limiting my freedom outside the bounds of fundamental justice. we don't need a morality police to tell us what we can do with our own bodies. Jaywalking laws violate the common law and ancestorial mobility rights and right of way. Their very nature is unconstitutional. There is no justifiable purpose for jaywalking laws, the law is junk, and unconstitutional. Having the law has no effect on pedestrian-vehicle collisions per capita globally, its just an unjust money grab by the government. What I've found while travelling is countries without the stupid law have much more capable and savy road crossers and better drivers. Plainly jaywalking is so commonplace I find it doubtful a jury of pedestrians would find moral or crminal fault in a road crosser. Its not a crime to cross the road. Isn't this strange it seems the reverse is true jaywalking leads to more pedestrian deaths and injuries and makes roads unsafe, because people cross or don't cross and noone knows drivers think sharing the road with anyone whether on bike or two or four legs is fair game for a hit and run. That is the problem, these laws create victims, anyone not in a car. US vehicle car deaths and injuries approx. 5000 pedestrian deaths / year 75000 pedestrian injuries /year http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-car-deaths-fall-but-cyclist-and-pedestrian-tolls-rise-8405280.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/30/road-deaths-fall-record-low Wow isn't that something... Britain has massively fewer pedestiran deaths than the US... something like 1000% less .. and wow the US has Jaywalking laws and the UK doesn't.. hmm what system is working better? Hmm? Edited March 16, 2013 by shortlived Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 Jaywalking laws violate the common law and ancestorial mobility rights and right of way. Their very nature is unconstitutional. There is no justifiable purpose for jaywalking laws, the law is junk, and unconstitutional. Dime store lawyer. You need to get out more and put down the Readers Digest Law Made Easy book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortlived Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) Dime store lawyer. You need to get out more and put down the Readers Digest Law Made Easy book. Ok keep sending jaywalkers to jail for their execution. (sarcasm - had to be added) Jay walking ain't a crime. It is a money grab, if it were a crime people would be getting criminal records. You don't get a criminal record for jaywalking. "A Jaywalking ticket is a Civil Citation. Civil matters do not appear on a Criminal Records Check." Its a money grab and someone was brutally murdered over this bs. Bring back hard labour. Edited March 19, 2013 by shortlived Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 Ok keep sending jaywalkers to jail for their execution. (sarcasm - had to be added) Jay walking ain't a crime. It is a money grab, if it were a crime people would be getting criminal records. You don't get a criminal record for jaywalking. Its a money grab and someone was brutally murdered over this bs. Bring back hard labour.[/size] Well for starter he did not go to jail for jaywalking. But you knew that already. Most tickets are a cash grab, pretty much always were . Hard labour? Huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 My question is did the poor, innocent fair evader somehow instigate the attack by being a smart-ass or trying to bully the crazy-man? Lots we don't know about this story, as is so often the case in these discussions. But it does add lots of potential for wild speculation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 My question is did the poor, innocent fair evader somehow instigate the attack by being a smart-ass or trying to bully the crazy-man? Lots we don't know about this story, as is so often the case in these discussions.Uh....we do know, and it was posted in the link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 Uh....we do know, and it was posted in the link. Sorry about that. I've been away from the site for a while and missed the subtle little blue "CBC". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 Sorry about that. I've been away from the site for a while and missed the subtle little blue "CBC". Not a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.