Vigilante justice

[Charles Anthony]

Forget about due process.

Tranquil island abuzz following mob attack on suspected drug house

The normally peaceful New Brunswick island of Grand Manan may not have seen the last of the violence that ended in a suspected crack house being burned to the ground by a mob of so-called vigilantes.

"The rumour that's out around is that they're gonna clean the place up and this was just the start," Mayor Dennis Greene said Tuesday.

"They seem to be very determined people."

The RCMP is still investigating a four-hour street fight early Saturday morning when two groups brandishing guns, knives and baseball bats battled it out.

Officers confirmed a gang of about 50 people, mostly fishermen, attacked a smaller group of people they suspected of pushing drugs and torched their house, screaming at firefighters to let it burn.

Guelph Mercury

By-pass the bureacracy.

Mayor calls for calm after Grand Manan riot

The mayor of Grand Manan is appealing for calm after about 40 people from the New Brunswick island allegedly attacked a group of locals they suspected of dealing drugs.

"People of Grand Manan are usually a very law-abiding group," Dennis Greene said Monday. "This just shows their frustration with what's going on."

Greene said most people on the island supported those residents who reportedly attacked suspected drug dealers in the hamlet of Castalia on Friday night.

"They feel like they have done a service for the island by their actions," the mayor said.

CBC.ca

No wasting tax-payer's money.

Vigilante violence shakes serene N.B. tourist town

The mayor, who is 63 and moved to Grand Manan from another New Brunswick island, Campobello, when he was 10 years old, criticized the justice system for handing out lenient sentences to those charged with drug offences in the community.

"The police are doing a fine job but we're being let down by the justice system, which gives criminals more rights than victims," he said. "I've seen drug dealers sentenced to house arrest. Well, what do you think happens then?"

The residents, who apparently met to discuss their attack several weeks earlier, may have burned an SUV that belonged to one of the suspected dealers earlier this month -- "a message that didn't get across," Mr. Greene said.

Some members of the vigilante group were parents who suspected their children had bought drugs from the targets of the attack. Marijuana, crack, cocaine, ecstasy and prescription painkillers are all prevalent in the community, said several residents contacted yesterday, who also said they were afraid to give their names. One man referred to the targeted house as a "crack house."

The Globe and Mail

Honest and efficient justice under mob rule -- I mean, democracy.

[jdobbin]

Ah, kind of like the refreshing lynch mob that abducted a native youth in B.C. for a murder in Washington state for something he didn't do. I like when no one asks any questions first.

I wonder how they would have felt if a firefighter died fighting the fire.

[August1991]

I liked this quote from the G& M article:

"I've seen drug dealers sentenced to house arrest. Well, what do you think happens then?"

It's funny when you think about it. They're running a crackhouse so of course the judge sentences them to house arrest.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Change the drug laws. Legalize weed, its a natural substance not man made, push the rest of the dope into capital crimes turf. Life sentences for chemical manufacture, importation and distribution of non-legal recreational drugs and the hobby and harm will go away. Druggies will stick to weed.

[Moron-X]

I walk dogs as part of my occupation. Our Dog Day Care happens to be located in the homeless/Drug Addict populated side of town. I see people so messed up all day every day it gives you a new outlook on life.

Our Drug laws are so savagely weak..........Police occasionally patrol the park and move the addicts along, but more often then not they are powerless to arrest any of them. They harass bikers, bladers, other dog walkers.......

The owner of the day care has actually stopped calling the police just for that reason. Physical threats and agression are the language these people speak. Maybe the Police should Speak Up.

[August1991]

I walk dogs as part of my occupation. Our Dog Day Care happens to be located in the homeless/Drug Addict populated side of town. I see people so messed up all day every day it gives you a new outlook on life.

Because an activity is legal, that does not mean it is moral.

Justice is not black and white.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You meant to say moral to you right? I mean look at booze and all of the problems with it. How about gambling? Smokes and the tobacco industry? What about the environmental impact of gold mining? Oil production? Where is the line?

Morals cannot be regulated by law, they can only be instilled through personal belief. Those beliefs are subject to education and family environment asnd personal experience. So while it is possible to legislate, it is not possible to creat morality through legislation. Society can create laws but the public will determine whether or not they choose to obey those laws.

How many people fool around on the spouses? Infidelity it technically illegal, but when was the last time someone went to jail for it? Even when laws are made they are not always enforced.

Governments should legislate for the benefit of society as a whole. When the government begins to legislate the behavior of citizens we begin to lose of freedom. Granted that causing harm to another citizen is cause for society to act, but outside of that parameter society as a whole has no business creating guidelines for behavior.

Morals are largely a construction of religious dogma. As such they are very rigid and secular. In todays democracy and multicultural society the lines of morality become blurred and legislators are challenged to strike a balance. Unfortunately for citizens the easy way out is to legislate morality which serves the political purpose of dividing society into the very lines they wish to remove in multiculturalism.

The time has come to understand that in fact things are far more complicated than our antiquated political system is capable of dealing with. Society has changed over the years with advances in education and communications. We have evolved beyond the restrictive confines of the current political system. Economic models are revised almost daily to incorporate the advances within our consumer society. Time marchs on oblivious to the morals of society, situations change. The entire question of morality is divisive in nature and counter productive in a political sense.

We need to revise our terminology somewhat and choose to use the word ethical instead of moral. At least then the government can address the root cause of the problem which is situational ethics.

[Charles Anthony]

Governments should legislate for the benefit of society as a whole. When the government begins to legislate the behavior of citizens we begin to lose of freedom.

Give me an example (either real or hypothetical) of how a "government" can legislate for the benefit of society but NOT legislate the behavior of citizens.

[Michael Hardner]

Infidelity it technically illegal

Infidelity is ILLEGAL ? Really ?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Hardner,

Infidelity is ILLEGAL ? Really ?

In some backwards places it is...

from...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery

In many jurisdictions (e.g, Austria, Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan), adultery is still illegal. In the United States, laws vary from state to state. For example, in Pennsylvania, adultery is technically punishable by 2 years of imprisonment or 18 months of treatment for insanity (for history, see Hamowy). That being said, such statutes are typically considered blue laws, and are rarely, if ever, enforced.

In Canadian law, adultery is defined under the Divorce Act. Though the written definition sets it as extramarital relations with someone of the opposite sex, the recent change in the definition of marriage gave grounds for a British Columbia judge to strike that definition down. In a 2005 case of a woman filing for divorce, her husband had cheated on her with another man, which the judge felt was equal reasoning to dissolve the union.

[geoffrey]

Change the drug laws. Legalize weed, its a natural substance not man made, push the rest of the dope into capital crimes turf. Life sentences for chemical manufacture, importation and distribution of non-legal recreational drugs and the hobby and harm will go away. Druggies will stick to weed.

All natural substances are good for you? Of course they are, how silly of me. I'm going to go take some of my hemlock and breath in some smoke from a forest fire. All natural man, you should try some!

Saying weed is natural so it should be legal is about the worst argument for legalisation I've heard yet.

[Wilber]

How many people fool around on the spouses? Infidelity it technically illegal, but when was the last time someone went to jail for it? Even when laws are made they are not always enforced.

I don't think so but the penalty is often much greater than most sentences for dealing drugs.

[GostHacked]

Change the drug laws. Legalize weed, its a natural substance not man made, push the rest of the dope into capital crimes turf. Life sentences for chemical manufacture, importation and distribution of non-legal recreational drugs and the hobby and harm will go away. Druggies will stick to weed.

All natural substances are good for you? Of course they are, how silly of me. I'm going to go take some of my hemlock and breath in some smoke from a forest fire. All natural man, you should try some!

Saying weed is natural so it should be legal is about the worst argument for legalisation I've heard yet.

Poison Ivy is bad for you but I don't see it being illegal. It's natural. Weed is a plant, unlike your geneticly modified corn. or whatever you really want to call it now. There is a whole other thread dedicated to weed and its cons and pros. Not all natrual substances are good for you, but weed is not as harmful as tobacco.

Simple reverse psychology. Make is accessable and the novelty of being bad wears off. Simple as that. You might find that the drug use drops.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Governments should legislate for the benefit of society as a whole. When the government begins to legislate the behavior of citizens we begin to lose of freedom.

Give me an example (either real or hypothetical) of how a "government" can legislate for the benefit of society but NOT legislate the behavior of citizens.

Environmental Laws, Labour Laws, the list is nearly endless. These laws regulate business and industry which dictate the behavior of non living legal citizens. Living citizens are natural people who are regulated by criminal and civil laws. That legislation that is relevant to them retains the spotlight yet detracts from their freedoms. Once again I will state that human beings should be free to act in a manner of their own choosing. The only restriction to humans beings should be that causing harm to others is an infraction of the other humans individual or civil rights that is declared punishable by legal authority.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Change the drug laws. Legalize weed, its a natural substance not man made, push the rest of the dope into capital crimes turf. Life sentences for chemical manufacture, importation and distribution of non-legal recreational drugs and the hobby and harm will go away. Druggies will stick to weed.

All natural substances are good for you? Of course they are, how silly of me. I'm going to go take some of my hemlock and breath in some smoke from a forest fire. All natural man, you should try some!

Saying weed is natural so it should be legal is about the worst argument for legalisation I've heard yet.

Who said taking drugs was good for you? I certainly didn't. The harm from drugs is realized on two fronts, one is an individual harm the second is the harm to society. On an individual level, weed causes loss of memory and motivation. It impairs judgement and to a small degree coordination. Having said this the drug itself is far more safe than booze. Unless you smoke as much weed as tobacco it is safer than cigarettes. The harm to society with weed is very limited, but that cannot be said about hard drugs.

The main problem with weed is that it is not regulated because it is outside of the law. Vendors target kids to get them hooked and provide a nice little underground revenue stream for them selves. Make it legal and sell it in a regulated environment requiring age restrictions the same as booze and cigarettes. Make selling to minors a capital offense and you will scare off the dealers from selling to children.

The thing to do is address the problem and get it under control, as long as it is illegal it is effectively out of control and nothing can be done to stop the trade or fix the problems.

[FTA Lawyer]

I liked this quote from the G& M article:

"I've seen drug dealers sentenced to house arrest. Well, what do you think happens then?"

It's funny when you think about it. They're running a crackhouse so of course the judge sentences them to house arrest.

As usual, everyone in the media only reports the cases that seem to be outrageous and in support of their agenda (such as to slam the justice system for being lenient or absurd in giving out conditional sentences). Did anyone hear about my case (other than me talking about it on this board) where the first-time marijuana grower was refused a conditional sentence on the basis that she was a home-body that committed her offence in the home, so sentencing her to house arrest would not be appropriate?

No house arrest for home-based marijuana grower...Where's the Media?

Of course not...because it doesn't incite outrage or give ammo to ridicule our justice system.

Here's what the Alberta Court of Appeal had to say:

It is manifestly dangerous to the community to sentence to house arrest a person convicted of operating a home-based commercial marihuana growing operation, who persists in obtaining and using marihuana. Conditions are not effective to deter those who refuse to obey the law.

Just remember, for every case that gets air-time there are literally tens of thousands that just grind their way through the system. Can they all be absurd and outrageous? Think about it.

FTA

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear FTA Lawyer,

As usual, everyone in the media only reports the cases that seem to be outrageous and in support of their agenda (such as to slam the justice system for being lenient or absurd in giving out conditional sentences).... Of course not...because it doesn't incite outrage or give ammo to ridicule our justice system....Just remember, for every case that gets air-time there are literally tens of thousands that just ...

Thank you, Mr. Wet Blanket. I do believe that you are correct, the 'tens of thousands' represent the mundane, that the rest of the 'masses' often use 'media' to escape from.

The few are the sensational and often the sordid, but the few sell.

[FTA Lawyer]

Dear FTA Lawyer,

As usual, everyone in the media only reports the cases that seem to be outrageous and in support of their agenda (such as to slam the justice system for being lenient or absurd in giving out conditional sentences).... Of course not...because it doesn't incite outrage or give ammo to ridicule our justice system....Just remember, for every case that gets air-time there are literally tens of thousands that just ...

Thank you, Mr. Wet Blanket. I do believe that you are correct, the 'tens of thousands' represent the mundane, that the rest of the 'masses' often use 'media' to escape from.

The few are the sensational and often the sordid, but the few sell.

Hey, I'm all for good stories about crazy criminals or wacky judges or strange lawsuits etc. It's not that I can't see the entertainment value.

The problem I have is when each of these stories gets portrayed as just the latest in a never-ending list of a pathetic and failing justice system...as though these cases are the rule and not the exception.

It does a disservice to the public.

FTA

[Charles Anthony]

Give me an example (either real or hypothetical) of how a "government" can legislate for the benefit of society but NOT legislate the behavior of citizens.

Environmental Laws, Labour Laws, the list is nearly endless. These laws regulate business and industry which dictate the behavior of non living legal citizens. Living citizens are natural people who are regulated by criminal and civil laws.

What you are saying makes no sense.

Your outlook on legislation seems to apply to cars or trucks without drivers.

Business and industry exist only with human beings doing something.

Any legislation that you make directed at inanimate objects will require a citizen to change behavior. A "business" or an "industry" does not act without the control of humans. Likewise, changing the performance and accountability of a "business" or an "industry" requires impositions upon humans.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I like your analogy. It is only that I believe the government is doing just that, "legislation seems to apply to cars or trucks without drivers". There is a lack of accountability for the law makers here. They are not acting in the interests of society as much acting in accordance with the special interest groups that have access to legislators. The real question here is whether or not individual freedom is subject to the approval of a society who renders judgements based once again on special interests.

Laws that are created should be equally applied to all citizens. Yet the citizens making decisions in the business world are not held accountable in the same manner as others. These individuals hide behind their legal citizen corporate employer and are basically immune from laws that apply to natural citizens. You can't put a company in jail. In the same manner legislators are not accountable from there errors in judgement in any legal manner either.

The point I am trying to make is that the interest of the individual and that individuals personal freedom are being subjected to the judgement of society without cause. The regulation of behavior is only relevant when it becomes an endangerment to society. Until that clear and present danger is manifested by an individual society is in fact infringing upon the right of that individual in its attempts to regulate an individuals behavior.

Our government and our politics are being guided by other than individual representations. Our society is composed of individuals and yet these individuals have found little democracy and little empowerment.

Perhaps I have been up too long, these 20 hour work days are a killer.

[Charles Anthony]

Laws that are created should be equally applied to all citizens. Yet the citizens making decisions in the business world are not held accountable in the same manner as others. These individuals hide behind their legal citizen corporate employer and are basically immune from laws that apply to natural citizens.

Correct.

That is how to focus change in legislation.

[geoffrey]

Laws that are created should be equally applied to all citizens. Yet the citizens making decisions in the business world are not held accountable in the same manner as others. These individuals hide behind their legal citizen corporate employer and are basically immune from laws that apply to natural citizens.

Correct.

That is how to focus change in legislation.

Not really. A corporation always has shareholders at the end of the day. A fine to the corporation is a fine to the shareholders.

We've seen countless execs go to prision lately because of unethical behavior. You can't hide behind a corporation anymore.

[Charles Anthony]

from

blueblood's Crack House Torched thread

If the RCMP knew it was that much of a problem in the community, the house should have been raided by the cops in the first place and this mess might have been averted. This might set a dangerous precedent in small town Canada.

I agree. It might set a dangerous precedent and dis-incentive for crack-dealers to do business.

It will be very interesting to see how the courts rule on the local vigilante's claim that they acted in self-defense.

From the reports, this is my attitude:

1) Foremost, this event demonstrates what happens when the "government" monopoly on security and policing is inactive despite its illusion of being reliable.

2) The concept of "self-defense" is unclear at best and generally, meaningless in practice.

3) The crack-dealers should have known better.

Who is right and who is wrong? In my opinion, the local vigilantes are in the wrong.

Is this event democratic? In my opinion, yes.

I want to know: why did the RCMP not intervene to prevent the crime?

[geoffrey]

I want to know: why did the RCMP not intervene to prevent the crime?

I saw a documentary on crazy James Rosko (the guy that murdered the four Mounties at Mayerthorpe) and it quoted a guy that said the RCMP told him to shoot him himself, just make sure Rosko was on his property. This was after the guy's wife was being stalked and the RCMP had it's hands tied by ridiculous legal crap.

I'm sure there are lots of cops out there that feel their hands are tied by our weak criminal justice system. I wouldn't doubt it if the RCMP saw this as a good thing for the community, a crackhouse they'd like to shut down, but weren't able to because of some ridiculous regulation. They may have turned a blind eye that night?

[Charles Anthony]

Will you be that happy when someone mistakes your house for the "other " one?

By what right should the police hold the exclusive power?

This might set a precedent for more vigilante justice. None of them were convicted of assault.

4 of 5 men found guilty in riot on Grand Manan

The four men, along with a fifth who was found not guilty, said they acted in self-defense when they torched the house of a suspected drug dealer in July.

They were convicted Saturday of an assortment of weapons and arson charges after a two-week trial in St. Andrews that tested the merits of self-defense and vigilante justice.

--- SNIP ---

Foster was found guilty of inappropriate storage of a firearm; Lambert was convicted of possession of a flare gun for a purpose dangerous to the public peace; and Small and Bainbridge were found guilty of arson.

--- SNIP ---

The jury also heard from Royal Canadian Mounted Police Constable Terry Pomeroy, who said police were in the process of setting up an undercover sting targeting Ross and other suspected dealers.

--- SNIP ---

Residents believed the police were spending too much time controlling them instead of nabbing people they believed to be drug dealers.

Boston.com

It is hard to tell whether their claim of self-defense was accepted.