Peterborough store clerk charged following confrontation with baseball bat-wielding robber: police

[Leimonis]

given the circumstances I would not give him a record(conditional discharge).

I'd bet good money that this guy is not getting a discharge. It'll be all or nothing.

 

[Knuckle Ball]

The clerk is probably guilty but perhaps he can be let off with a light sentence?

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

His injuries must have been pretty bad for the medics to airlift him all the way to Toronto

 

[MarcoHardOnFire]

Once the clerk had the bay and the robber was out of the store, The clerk should have locked the store doors and called the police.

Anything beyond that, is assault. Not hard to figure out. The clerk was pissed, rightly so but pissed off does not give way for retaliation.

The charges for both are correct.

Well, if the police were capable of protecting us from violent robbery, or the courts were capable of reforming or removing criminals, I’d say you have a point. Unfortunately, neither are able to do their intended function effectively anymore, so to hell with them.

 

[wigglee]

Once the clerk had the bay and the robber was out of the store, The clerk should have locked the store doors and called the police.

Anything beyond that, is assault. Not hard to figure out. The clerk was pissed, rightly so but pissed off does not give way for retaliation.

The charges for both are correct.

If he had let the guy run away he may never have been caught. I think the instant karma was well deserved. The thief hit him with the bat. The clerk got the bat away from him and pursued the thief to make sure he didn't get away. The question of reasonable force is a tricky one. If I hit him once and hope that will cause him to submit and wait for the police, he may just get up and attack me with a knife or something else. For once the scumbag got what he deserved and I'm glad he did. The clerk is a hero to me.

 

[Jenesis]

Well, if the police were capable of protecting us from violent robbery, or the courts were capable of reforming or removing criminals, I’d say you have a point. Unfortunately, neither are able to do their intended function effectively anymore, so to hell with them.

How are police suppose to protect this clerk? They can not be all places at once.

It is not the police’s job to reform criminals either. That is a whole other department. Police are there to uphold laws already created.

You can have this opinion but the law it is clear on this. It sucks, I get it but this is the reality.

If he had let the guy run away he may never have been caught. I think the instant karma was well deserved. The thief hit him with the bat. The clerk got the bat away from him and pursued the thief to make sure he didn't get away. The question of reasonable force is a tricky one. If I hit him once and hope that will cause him to submit and wait for the police, he may just get up and attack me with a knife or something else. For once the scumbag got what he deserved and I'm glad he did. The clerk is a hero to me.

In the eyes of the law, he assaulted the robber. The robbery was over when the he left the store. The danger was over when he left the store. Legally, self defence ends at that point.

I’m only speaking legally here. You have to leave your emotions out of it.

 

[richaceg]

in fairness we don't know how necessary or unnecessary the beating was. Aggravated assault is the most serious form of assault short of actually causing death.
If I was a juror I'd be seriously considering acquitting, unless it would be very obvious that the clerk beat the shit out of the guy way after he stopped resisting or escaping. I hope we can agree that there is no right to maim a guy for educational purposes.

What? We no longer can use the excuse "i beat him up to stop future robberies and assault"?

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

In the eyes of the law, he assaulted the robber. The robbery was over when the he left the store.
The danger was over when he left the store. Legally, self defence ends at that point

No, he has been CHARGED with assault. He hasnt been convicted yet.
For all we know the clerk wanted to retrieve some stolen items and the thief assaulted the clerk, which in turn meant he had to defend himself.

You jump to conclusions very quickly. Always wait until all the evidence is out

 

[Jenesis]

No, he has been CHARGED with assault. He hasnt been convicted yet.
For all we know the clerk wanted to retrieve some stolen items and the thief assaulted the clerk, which in turn meant he had to defend himself.

You jump to conclusions very quickly. Always wait until all the evidence is out

Clearly I am going based solely on the info at hand Philly, don’t get your panties all twisted.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Clearly I am going based solely on the info at hand

Yes, I can tell.

Remember this murder charge: https://nationalpost.com/news/milton-man-charged-second-degree-murder-home-invasion
It was dropped when more evidence came out: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ali-mian-milton-charges-dropped-murder-1.6923046

For all we know this Peterborough clerk was acting in self-defense, but you have already convicted him

 

[Jenesis]

Yes, I can tell.

Remember this murder charge: https://nationalpost.com/news/milton-man-charged-second-degree-murder-home-invasion
It was dropped when more evidence came out: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ali-mian-milton-charges-dropped-murder-1.6923046

For all we know this Peterborough clerk was acting in self-defense, but you have already convicted him

I haven’t convicted him. I have said that based on what has been reported so far, the law would deem it an assault. Nothing more, nothing less.

I’m correct there because based on the law, he was charged. Now based on other laws, he may have those dropped but as of now, the law says, based on the info given, he is charged with aggravated assault. It is the right charge.

Sorry Philly but you are reading way more into this then there is.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

in fairness we don't know how necessary or unnecessary the beating was

Finally someone with an intelligent post ^^^^

Clerk couldve gotten mad, acted out of revenge and gave the thief a beating cause he felt like it.
In that case he's guilty of assault and should be convicted.

Or......he chased the thief down, the thief fought back, and the clerk had to defend himself.
In that case he should be acquitted.

 

[Leimonis]

No, he has been CHARGED with assault. He hasnt been convicted yet.
For all we know the clerk wanted to retrieve some stolen items and the thief assaulted the clerk, which in turn meant he had to defend himself.

You jump to conclusions very quickly. Always wait until all the evidence is out

if I were to bet I'd say that the evidence will be bad for him but the jurors will be good and the Crown will not be able to get all 12 of them on their side as some will prove stubborn and won't convict no matter what.

 

[Jenesis]

Any scenario where the clerk chased the robber out of the store is a case that self defence can’t be used.

 

[MayorQuimby]

Canada is based on the idea that only the state should have a monopoly on violence. Thus, Canada doesn't have stand your ground or Castle Doctrine laws like the USA.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Any scenario where the clerk chased the robber out of the store is a case that self defence can’t be used

Sure you can chase after someone to make a citizen's arrest after they just robbed you (or tried to).

You just cannot beat them with a baseball bat unless its in self-defense

 

[Redbag]

Canada is based on the idea that only the state should have a monopoly on violence. Thus, Canada doesn't have stand your ground or Castle Doctrine laws like the USA.

In Canada only the state should have a monopoly on posting images of crime suspects on media, if a crime victim does they risk being charged for violating the suspects privacy.

Canadian police warn that posting videos of alleged package thieves could be ‘violation' of their privacy

A provincial police officer, Lt. Benoit Richard warned Canadian citizens against posting video footage of alleged porch thefts, because it could violate the thieves' privacy.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Leimonis]

Canada is based on the idea that only the state should have a monopoly on violence. Thus, Canada doesn't have stand your ground or Castle Doctrine laws like the USA.

I don't think either of those would help though

 

[Leimonis]

In Canada only the state should have a monopoly on posting images of crime suspects on media, if a crime victim does they risk being charged for violating the suspects privacy.

Canadian police warn that posting videos of alleged package thieves could be ‘violation' of their privacy

A provincial police officer, Lt. Benoit Richard warned Canadian citizens against posting video footage of alleged porch thefts, because it could violate the thieves' privacy.

www.foxnews.com

this is bullshit and I cannot believe anyone could be in trouble for video recording in a public space. This cop is full of shit.

 

[Paprika]

this is bullshit and I cannot believe anyone could be in trouble for video recording in a public space. This cop is full of shit.

Remember the cop is not the law.

I'm sure thieves who steal packages are extremely wealthy people who will definitely sue others for defamation.