Guardian Angels anyone?

[Leafless]

I think guardian angels in big cities like Toronto and other Canadian cities would be advantageous to combat crime.

They appear to act as an extra level of security between police and regular security guards and provide a 'presence' that regular police and regular security services cannot offer.

In Toronto though there is already some controversy by Toronto police as to how guardian angels are picked and trained and to whom the patrol would be accountable to blah, blah, blah.

We already know the angels have had considerable success in cities like New York and have been a deterent to crime.

Do you think Charter rights in this country could be very detrimental to this group to act with any sense of authority as already Charter rights make it very difficult in many cases for police to prosecute?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/01...1392930-cp.html

http://www.guardianangels.org/pdf/1195.pdf

[Drea]

I think they're a great idea.

Not only do they help the police who can't be everywhere at once -- they're good role models for wannabe little gangstas who want to be "cool" and "tough". The Angels are cool, tough and they obey the law! How cool is that!

[geoffrey]

I think they're a great idea.

Not only do they help the police who can't be everywhere at once -- they're good role models for wannabe little gangstas who want to be "cool" and "tough". The Angels are cool, tough and they obey the law! How cool is that!

I never saw it that way, I guess that might be a good idea from that perspective.

If we look at the Angels from a free-market perspective, we know that when one group leaves a void in services, another will fill the gap. I think the idea that the Angels want to setup in Canada shows that we have a serious issue with a police force that doesn't have the resources it needs to do its job.

Lets hire more cops, invest more in security measures, and then we'll all be safer.

The problem with the Angels is that is it citizens taking the law into their own hands, and though I would applaud any effort to deal with crime in our streets, the police should be doing it. They have just been so shortchanged by the government that they can no longer patrol the streets on a regular basis.

[Leafless]

geoffrey

You Wrote- " The problem with the Angels is that it is citizen's taking the law into their own hands."

According to information the Angels goal is to bring all members of a community together especially those who are oppressed, disenfranchised, migrant, destitute and discriminated against.

This does not sound like vigilantism to me.

You also wrote- " Let's hire more cops, invest more in security measures, and then we'll be safer."

Really.

I thought it was the 'Charter ' that is one of the main factors not allowing and hampering police to conduct lengthly investigations to produce more evidence to properly convict.

[geoffrey]

geoffrey

You Wrote- " The problem with the Angels is that it is citizen's taking the law into their own hands."

According to information the Angels goal is to bring all members of a community together especially those who are oppressed, disenfranchised, migrant, destitute and discriminated against.

This does not sound like vigilantism to me.

You also wrote- " Let's hire more cops, invest more in security measures, and then we'll be safer."

Really.

I thought it was the 'Charter ' that is one of the main factors not allowing and hampering police to conduct lengthly investigations to produce more evidence to properly convict.

The Charter plays a role, but its status is pretty much untouchable.

I'm not saying its like vigilantism, I'm saying there should be no need if we took our public safety seriously.

[Leafless]

geoffrey

You wrote- " The Charter plays a role but it's status is pretty much untouchable. Iam not saying it's like vigilantism, I'm saying there should be no need if we took our public safety seriously."

To hire more police with our present Charter intact would probably mean more backed up courts with more cases being thrown out due to technicalities and undue delay along with the initial problem of acquiring sufficient evidence to prosecute initally due to the Charter.

The Guardian Angels could deal with this more or less at a street level bypassing the problems associated with regular police enforcement.

I am not saying this is the total solution but could be a positive alternative with it's outcome judged by performance and results.

[geoffrey]

geoffrey

You wrote- " The Charter plays a role but it's status is pretty much untouchable. Iam not saying it's like vigilantism, I'm saying there should be no need if we took our public safety seriously."

To hire more police with our present Charter intact would probably mean more backed up courts with more cases being thrown out due to technicalities and undue delay along with the initial problem of acquiring sufficient evidence to prosecute initally due to the Charter.

The Guardian Angels could deal with this more or less at a street level bypassing the problems associated with regular police enforcement.

I am not saying this is the total solution but could be a positive alternative with it's outcome judged by performance and results.

Well, lets bring 'em on. And fix the rest of our justice system while we are at it.

What do the police think about these guys?

[Leafless]

geoffrey

You wrote- " What do the police think about these guys."

The two links I provided in the opening post gives some of that info.

Toronto police Chief Blair said " The issue is are the Angels committed to public safety" and there was concern that their presence could incite further violence.

I find this quite unusual as that with the increase of violence in larger cities like Toronto a group like the Angels with a proven track record in cities like New York would be a welcome addition.

But lack of interest in this topic indicates otherwise.

Maybe some Canadians are just slow at recognizing uncontrolled crime and try to avoid the issue completely.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Leafless,

When the Calgary Sun ran an article (a few weeks ago) about the Guardian Angels thinking of starting a 'chapter' in Calgary, I immediately wrote to them asking them to come. While our mayor said that they would be 'redundant', I heartily disagree and feel that their presence would be a welcome one.

My wife and I own a business in one of the worst neighbourhoods in Calgary, where crack-cocaine use and other criminal activity can be seen on a daily basis. The police have basically admitted that their hands are tied, and are unable to do anything that would actually produce results. The last time I called 911, (to report about 8 people smoking crack on the front steps of our business, so that our customers could not even get in the building. the time was about 5:00 pm) the police did not even show up at all. I called back about 25-30 min later, and they thanked me because they were then able to 'cancel the call'.

I had also put together a CD of digital photos taken out our front door, showing crack use, selling drugs, and assaults in progress, including dealer vehicles and license plates, about 130 pics in all. The police never came to get it, so I gave it to Global News...they ran the story and used some of those pics on TV.

I have been warned by the police (via the Calgary Sun) not to 'take vigilante action', but what am I to do? Writing the Guardian Angels seemed like a good idea, but as of yet I have heard nothing back.

[geoffrey]

Dear Leafless,

When the Calgary Sun ran an article (a few weeks ago) about the Guardian Angels thinking of starting a 'chapter' in Calgary, I immediately wrote to them asking them to come. While our mayor said that they would be 'redundant', I heartily disagree and feel that their presence would be a welcome one.

My wife and I own a business in one of the worst neighbourhoods in Calgary, where crack-cocaine use and other criminal activity can be seen on a daily basis. The police have basically admitted that their hands are tied, and are unable to do anything that would actually produce results. The last time I called 911, (to report about 8 people smoking crack on the front steps of our business, so that our customers could not even get in the building. the time was about 5:00 pm) the police did not even show up at all. I called back about 25-30 min later, and they thanked me because they were then able to 'cancel the call'.

I had also put together a CD of digital photos taken out our front door, showing crack use, selling drugs, and assaults in progress, including dealer vehicles and license plates, about 130 pics in all. The police never came to get it, so I gave it to Global News...they ran the story and used some of those pics on TV.

I have been warned by the police (via the Calgary Sun) not to 'take vigilante action', but what am I to do? Writing the Guardian Angels seemed like a good idea, but as of yet I have heard nothing back.

Didn't know you were from our fine city TLFB. I can imagine your distress with having these people out front of your business all the time, I imagine it costs you alot of a money. Up by Forest Lawn by any chance?

Generally, I'd say that the Angels aren't needed in Calgary. Our downtown is very safe, I've got no problem with walking to the car after work or any concerns about most of the bars (of course you have crapshoots like the Back Alley and what not, but its not hard to just avoid them). There are a few areas, like the Cecil area and up in Forest Lawn that I wouldn't be hanging around at after dark, but generally, at least near the Cecil, its only troublemakers that are there so it doesn't really impact most others.

Your concerns are valid though, and yet its difficult to describe any sort of solution to the problem. What would the Angels do about it? Not really that much, their hands would be tied just the same.

I wish you luck on solving your problem at your business though.

[Leafless]

theloniusfleabag

You wrote- " The police have actually admitted their hands are tied, and are unable to do anything that would actually produce resuls."

It's buck passing from police departments to politicians on this issue.

If you ask me it's a slow slide into complete chaos without anyone assuming any responsiability concerning anyone's else's actions for the deteriating conditons relating to law and order.

Concerning your interest in the Angels, I also have not heard any progress concerning their movement outside of the rather stale links that I provided.

Hopefully something will develop.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Leafless,

If you ask me it's a slow slide into complete chaos without anyone assuming any responsiability concerning anyone's else's actions for the deteriating conditons relating to law and order.

To this I can only say 'Amen".

I find it across the entire range of society, though, not just with criminal activity. It is like society is becoming a big game of "dodge the responsibility", while expecting more and more 'freedom'.

It's buck passing from police departments to politicians on this issue.

I disagree here, I think it may actually be the other way around. The police have told me some of the problems they face, such as being reluctant to search people because of rampant accusations of 'sexual abuse/misconduct' to breaching the right to undue search&siezure. Further, they have told me that without proper sentencing, most people they bust are back on the streets before they are finished their paperwork.

I think the problem lies with our 50-50 jail spaces (one goes in, one has to come out), as Canada hasn't built any new maximum security prisons, and only one new medium security prison in something like 25 years.

I do not envy the police at all.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear geoffrey,

but generally, at least near the Cecil, its only troublemakers that are there so it doesn't really impact most others.

I am right by the Cecil, and the Fabulous Drop-Out centre ("Sheltering people from the consequences of their own bad decisions since 1960") I have seen junkies shoot up, people defacating on the sidewalk, people smoking crack from 2 feet away, vicious beatings and the occasional dead body. Mostly all in broad daylight. I can only imagine what goes on at night, but this morning I had to clean up a considerable amount of blood off my front steps before customers arrived.

What would the Angels do about it? Not really that much, their hands would be tied just the same.

Their power lays in their presence, criminals don't like attention (apart from the few that crave it).

[geoffrey]

I am right by the Cecil, and the Fabulous Drop-Out centre ("Sheltering people from the consequences of their own bad decisions since 1960") I have seen junkies shoot up, people defacating on the sidewalk, people smoking crack from 2 feet away, vicious beatings and the occasional dead body. Mostly all in broad daylight. I can only imagine what goes on at night, but this morning I had to clean up a considerable amount of blood off my front steps before customers arrived.

Is this a food place? I might have to stop by for a bite if so, support your business, I only work about 6 blocks away. Although I might have to bring my Kirpan to defend myself.

Their power lays in their presence, criminals don't like attention (apart from the few that crave it).

I find most crackheads and druggies in general aren't really criminals. They are mentally defective. Attention won't matter to them either, they shoot up in the streets in broad daylight. They have no dignity, I don't know if they really would care?

[Riverwind]

I find most crackheads and druggies in general aren't really criminals. They are mentally defective.

No, they are addicts with a disease that needs treatment. The only thing that seperates drug addition from other diseases is the fact that many addicts irrationally refuse to accept the advice of doctors once they have been diagnosed (just like a heart attack patient who keeps smoking or does not change their diet).

What addicts need are an extremely strong incentive to take the doctors advice (i.e. go to rehab for several months). The court system could do this with some elightened laws. For example, if someone is convicted of a crime and claims that drug addition was the cause then they have two choices: 5 years hard time in federal prison or 1 year admission to a secure rehab facility. If they go to the rehab facility they must follow the rules (i.e. no drug use). If they break the rules (no second chances) then they go to jail for 5 years.

I think many addicts will be able to clean up if presented with those options. And if they don't clean up then they are out of circulation for 5 years so either way society wins.

[geoffrey]

I find most crackheads and druggies in general aren't really criminals. They are mentally defective.

No, they are addicts with a disease that needs treatment. The only thing that seperates drug addition from other diseases is the fact that many addicts irrationally refuse to accept the advice of doctors once they have been diagnosed (just like a heart attack patient who keeps smoking or does not change their diet).

What addicts need are an extremely strong incentive to take the doctors advice (i.e. go to rehab for several months). The court system could do this with some elightened laws. For example, if someone is convicted of a crime and claims that drug addition was the cause then they have two choices: 5 years hard time in federal prison or 1 year admission to a secure rehab facility. If they go to the rehab facility they must follow the rules (i.e. no drug use). If they break the rules (no second chances) then they go to jail for 5 years.

I think many addicts will be able to clean up if presented with those options. And if they don't clean up then they are out of circulation for 5 years so either way society wins.

Thats interesting Spar, I somewhat agree.

We are hopefully talking about drug users though. I think traffickers and dealers need real prision time, as I feel these crimes are business crimes and not drug abuse.

[Riverwind]

I think traffickers and dealers need real prision time, as I feel these crimes are business crimes and not drug abuse.

The traffickers that need to be in jail usually do not use the drugs they pedal so they would not be eligible.

[margrace]

I think traffickers and dealers need real prision time, as I feel these crimes are business crimes and not drug abuse.

The traffickers that need to be in jail usually do not use the drugs they pedal so they would not be eligible.

Best idea I have heard so far. But you know what the protest will be, costs too much. Basic fact is that people prefer to see others jailed gives them a high.

[Leafless]

Sparhawk

You wrote- " The only thing that separated drug addiction from other diseases is the fact many addicts refuse to accept the advice of doctors once they have been diagnosed (just like a heart attack patient who keeps smoking or does not change their diet.)"

I cannot not believe anyone could make a comparison with consuming a mind altering banned substance and someone who smokes after heart surgery.

There is no comparison as you are breaking the law initially by consuming a banned illegal substance and then further committing crime probably to support that drug addiction or to support their lifestyle whatever that might include.

[Drea]

Sparhawk

You wrote- " The only thing that separated drug addiction from other diseases is the fact many addicts refuse to accept the advice of doctors once they have been diagnosed (just like a heart attack patient who keeps smoking or does not change their diet.)"

I cannot not believe anyone could make a comparison with consuming a mind altering banned substance and someone who smokes after heart surgery.

There is no comparison as you are breaking the law initially by consuming a banned illegal substance and then further committing crime probably to support that drug addiction or to support their lifestyle whatever that might include.

I agree with the comparison. I'm a smoker. Addiction is addiction no matter if the substance is legal or not.

Doctor tells you "You are going to die if you keep ingesting such and such substance". Does it really matter if said substance is legal or not?

The absolute best way to curb addiction is to never start ingesting addictive substances in the first place. Sadly, many people are addicted because it's a coping mechanism.

I am exactly like the addicted heroin user -- I absolutely must have my cigs -- he absolutely must have his heroin. There's no difference in the actual addiction itself. Because a substance is legal or illegal doesn't change the fact that the person is addicted to it. A drug user will get his drugs somehow -- a smoker will get their cigs somehow (even if it's 5 am and 7/11 is 50km away and yah gotta hitch-hike to get there!) LOL

I laugh, but it's not really funny at all -- I wish I'd never tried that first cig, and I'd be willing to bet that 99% of addicted drug users wish they would've never tried that first hit.

I like the idea of forced re-hab, but not an automatic 5 years for falling off the wagon. Addiction is a physical/mental problem that needs to be addressed. Throwing a person in jail for 5 years because they aren't able to cope with quitting is barbaric IMO.

[Riverwind]

I cannot not believe anyone could make a comparison with consuming a mind altering banned substance and someone who smokes after heart surgery.

Nicotine and alcohol are legal mind altering, addictive substances. In fact, a nicotine is more addictive than heroin and much harder to quit. There is no difference between the mental state of a drug addict who refuses to quit and a smoker who refuses to quit. If tobacco was illegal you would likely see smokers committing crimes to get their 'fix'.

There is no comparison as you are breaking the law initially by consuming a banned illegal substance and then further committing crime probably to support that drug addiction or to support their lifestyle whatever that might include.

Addicts commit the crimes because the are 'addicted' and will continue to commit crimes until they clean up. Putting a addict in jail will simply cost the taxpayer a lot of money until the addict gets around to killing themselves. A better solution is to get the addict to clean up and this requires a combination of rehab and serious consequences for not cleaning up.

The current system which hands out little or no jail time for minor drug related offenses is not good enough. I am suggesting handing out 5 year mandatory minimums for drug related offenses unless the addict chooses to clean up. It is a 'real carrot and big stick' approach that would be much more effective at eliminating drug related crimes in the long run.

[Riverwind]

I like the idea of forced re-hab, but not an automatic 5 years for falling off the wagon. Addiction is a physical/mental problem that needs to be addressed. Throwing a person in jail for 5 years because they aren't able to cope with quitting is barbaric IMO.

You can't have one without the other. Rehab only works if addicts take it seriously. They will not take it seriously unless there are serious consequences for not cleaning up. Slapping them on the wrist and giving them probation based on promises to try and clean up is the approach we use today and it most definitely does not work in most cases.

[Drea]

I like the idea of forced re-hab, but not an automatic 5 years for falling off the wagon. Addiction is a physical/mental problem that needs to be addressed. Throwing a person in jail for 5 years because they aren't able to cope with quitting is barbaric IMO.

You can't have one without the other. Rehab only works if addicts take it seriously. They will not take it seriously unless there are serious consequences for not cleaning up. Slapping them on the wrist and giving them probation based on promises to try and clean up is the approach we use today and it most definitely does not work in most cases.

Jail is most certainly not the place for an addict. Prisons are not drug-free. A better solution would be to lock the addict into a padded cell for 12 months. Give them food, the internet, books, education, whatever...

Criminals learn how to be better criminals in prison. Prison doesn't rehabilitate anyone.

I wish I could opt into a "padded cell" situation -- I could clean up my drug (nicotine) habit without killing anyone in the process!

[Riverwind]

Jail is most certainly not the place for an addict. Prisons are not drug-free. A better solution would be to lock the addict into a padded cell for 12 months. Give them food, the internet, books, education, whatever...

That is what I meant by a secure rehab facility. The trouble with prisons today is they are supposed to be drug free but aren't. The only way to ensure that a secure rehab facility is drug free is to have a place to put people that bring drugs in - prison is the only practical option. In other words, the jail is a last resort and addicts only get put there to protect other people (i.e. other addicts in the rehab center) from their unwillingness to clean up.

[Leafless]

Sparhawk

You wrote- " In fact nicotine is more addictive than heroin and much harder to quit. There is no difference between the mental state of a drug addict who refuses to quit and a smoker who refuses to quit. If smoking was illegal you would probably see smokers committing crimes to get their 'fix'."

Most smokers can perform normally, hold a job, raise a family etc., unlike a heroin or other drug dependent addict who probably started just because they like to feel high for many reasons or is just plain irresponsible.

I smoked for many years myself and quit cold turkey and like many others I talked to endured the only real symptom which seems to be higher degree of hyperactivity (temporary) which is the real reason many smokers smoke to keep themselves feeling subdued thinking you are more relaxed.

But anytime I felt the need for another cigarette I just thought of all that tax money I was generating and that really killed the urge.

I have read articles where smokers killed over a package of cigarettes so I imagine many do commit crime to obtain cigarettes just like some people do to in a state of hunger to obtain food.

But the controversy in this issue focuses on the 'the legality of the action' one is legal and the other is not.

There is no way you can justify an addiction when it comes down to abusing an illegal and banned substance and no way can this justify criminal activity.