WTF is wrong with our laws......

[cyberboy81]

Try being a landlord in Ontario, if your tenants know the laws they can basically live in your house 6 months rent free and you have to keep them comfortable or you get charged. After that its basically impossible to retrieve your money without spending more on lawyers then they owe you in the first place. Its really crazy world we live in and you start realizing that once things start happening to you that involve judicial system.

 

[minminlover333]

Very confused

agree with 2floor

 

[moresex4me]

If he was known to the owner then the owner ought to be able to help the police catch him. End of story.

What the owner COULD do is watch this guy very carefully, hide somewhere, and catch him right in the act of stealing. If he had done that, he would not have been charged.

Except the guy was coming back into the store to steal more, again. So he stopped him before he could, the guy took off, etc.

 

[69Shooter]

The law is stupid in this case.

A lot of laws are "stupid" when applied to specific situations as it would be impossible to write laws that accounted for every conceivable case. The "general" notion that enforcing laws and arresting people should be left to the authorities is, in fact, a very sensbile law.

 

[moresex4me]

A lot of laws are "stupid" when applied to specific situations as it would be impossible to write laws that accounted for every conceivable case. The "general" notion that enforcing laws and arresting people should be left to the authorities is, in fact, a very sensbile law.

It is, but so is the right to protect your property. What bothers me most about this case is the Crown pled the guy down to 30 days, despite repeated offences, and are going so hard after the store owner. Plus they dropped the felony charges, which would have resulted in a jury trial, knowing that no jury will convict the store owner. It's now up to a judge who will more likely view this dispassionately and with a strict view to the law, not justice.

In this particular case, there seems to be a lack of just that: justice.

 

[69Shooter]

It is, but so is the right to protect your property. What bothers me most about this case is the Crown pled the guy down to 30 days, despite repeated offences, and are going so hard after the store owner. Plus they dropped the felony charges, which would have resulted in a jury trial, knowing that no jury will convict the store owner. It's now up to a judge who will more likely view this dispassionately and with a strict view to the law, not justice.

In this particular case, there seems to be a lack of just that: justice.

I was actually agreeing with your point! Something seems to be out of place with this case and the way that it is being handled.

 

[moresex4me]

I was actually agreeing with your point! Something seems to be out of place with this case and the way that it is being handled.

I hate to say it, but I believe the guy was homeless and the left-wing-nuts at City Hall may have had something to do with this. To me, it's inexplicable how this goes to trial. It really is, especially since no one was really hurt. This is not a case of vigilantism, but a case of a property owner protecting his property.

 

[fuji]

Except the guy was coming back into the store to steal more, again. So he stopped him before he could, the guy took off, etc.

How do you know he was coming back to steal more?

You may have your reasons to suspect it, maybe very good reasons to suspect it, but you certainly don't know it, and neither does the store owner. That is just speculation.

You can't go around manhandling and assaulting people because of speculation.

 

[fuji]

In this particular case, there seems to be a lack of just that: justice.

I disagree. The crown should make an example out of this store owner so that the message gets through to others that you cannot play cop.

I believe he was ignorant of the law and meant well, so a suspended sentence is in order--he is presumably a low risk to reoffend, now that he knows the law.

Were the crown to drop the case though we would see all sorts of abuses perpetrated against all sorts of people by store owners who thought they could deputize themselves.

 

[moresex4me]

How do you know he was coming back to steal more?

You may have your reasons to suspect it, maybe very good reasons to suspect it, but you certainly don't know it, and neither does the store owner. That is just speculation.

You can't go around manhandling and assaulting people because of speculation.

The sun rises every day. I don't think it unreasonable for me to expect it to rise tomorrow. Yes, it may not. But it is still reasonable for me to assume it is going to.

This guy was well-known for stealing plants in the area and selling them for $2 on the street. He had stolen from the store before. He had never bought anything from the store. He had stolen earlier that day. He's now coming back to the store, after the owner had seen the video tape showing his earlier theft. Is it that unreasonable for the owner to expect him to repeat his crime?

I do agree that he should have called the police and let them deal with it. But to lay charges, plea-bargain the real criminal down to nothing in exchange for testimony, and take this to court, in this particular case, with these particular circumstances? When no one was hurt? Really? Do you think that's reasonable, or justice?

 

[onehunglow]

It is, but so is the right to protect your property. What bothers me most about this case is the Crown pled the guy down to 30 days, despite repeated offences, and are going so hard after the store owner. Plus they dropped the felony charges, which would have resulted in a jury trial, knowing that no jury will convict the store owner. It's now up to a judge who will more likely view this dispassionately and with a strict view to the law, not justice.

In this particular case, there seems to be a lack of just that: justice.

Personally i believe the Crown is purposely going down hard on the store owner to send a message to anyone who might have the same idea.

 

[fuji]

The sun rises every day. I don't think it unreasonable for me to expect it to rise tomorrow. Yes, it may not. But it is still reasonable for me to assume it is going to.

Sure. So what?

This guy was well-known for stealing plants in the area and selling them for $2 on the street. He had stolen from the store before. He had never bought anything from the store. He had stolen earlier that day. He's now coming back to the store, after the owner had seen the video tape showing his earlier theft. Is it that unreasonable for the owner to expect him to repeat his crime?

Sure, it sounds like a reasonable suspicion.

Not sure what your point is.

I do agree that he should have called the police and let them deal with it.

Absolutely, and with the evidence above, it sounds like you would likely get a conviction.

But to lay charges, plea-bargain the real criminal down to nothing in exchange for testimony, and take this to court, in this particular case, with these particular circumstances? When no one was hurt? Really? Do you think that's reasonable, or justice?

It is absolutely right and just. We are talking about the conditions under which you can violate an individual's right to security of person, freedom of movement. To place someone under physical restraint is one of the most, if not the most, severe infringements of an individuals' rights that I can possibly imagine.

We must have very, very strict rules around when and who can use force against another individual, when and who and how such fundamental freedoms can be revoked.

Even the police do not have such arbitrary powers of arrest by no means, by no means whatsoever, should we accept a society in which any individual, based on nothing more than their own suspicions, can go around assaulting and confining other individuals.

Nothing could be more important than making an example out of this guy so that the message to all citizens is clear:

You cannot, ever, use force against another individual unless they are actually committing a crime right in front of your eyes that very moment.

Any other use of force must follow strict protocols of which the average person is ignorant. There is a reason we send police to training for so long as we do: So that they know when it is and is not appropriate to use force.

 

[Anynym]

All charges should be dropped against the store owner, immediately.

I heard recently that two of the four charges have been dropped, but I have not heard which two charges are still being prosecuted.

Regardless, this shop owner acted as all citizens should: to protect the life and property of all. We do not live in a Police State (yet), and the Police are supposed to support all citizens.

 

[fuji]

All charges should be dropped against the store owner, immediately.

You don't believe in the rule of law, then?

Regardless, this shop owner acted as all citizens should: to protect the life and property of all.

So you support vigilante justice?

 

[Malibook]

This poor guy could be in trouble if the Crown can find 12 Fujis to put on the jury.

I think the guy will be fine facing 12 average peers though.

 

[moresex4me]

This poor guy could be in trouble if the Crown can find 12 Fujis to put on the jury.

I think the guy will be fine facing 12 average peers though.

Crown dropped the felony charges, therefore no trial by jury, judge only. They probably felt they could not find a jury that would convict this guy.

 

[fuji]

Crown dropped the felony charges, therefore no trial by jury, judge only. They probably felt they could not find a jury that would convict this guy.

Perhaps because on review it was not a case of kidnapping?

The defense can argue that the charges of forcible confinemnt are inappropriate due to it being a valid citizens arrest. It wasn't a valid citizens arrest in my opinion, but the defense can try and argue that.

The kidnapping charge can be fought in many other ways, by, for example, pointing out that he was confined where he was found (or where the chase began) awaiting police. In a case of kidnapping I would ordinarily imagine that the individual would be transported to a third location and held there secretly, the police would not be called, and so on.

Forcible confinement is a much lower standard, and is plainly met in this case if there were in fact no grounds for a citizens arrest.

The police brought the kidnapping charge because he was transported in a van, but because he was transported back to where the chase began presumably the crown does not see that as sufficient to meet the standard a judge/jury would expect in a kidnapping charge.

 

[Hadrian]

Yes, you CAN take the law into your own hands to protect yourself or your property.

The law states you may take reasonable measures not "take the law into your own hands"

 

[fuji]

This poor guy could be in trouble if the Crown can find 12 Fujis to put on the jury.

I think the guy will be fine facing 12 average peers though.

I think you will find that the judge will properly educate the jury on what is or is not a violation of the law, provide the jury some direction on what facts to consider, and make sure the jury understands well which facts, if true, result in a finding of guilt.

My guess is that a properly educted jury will apply the law and make their decision based on whether or not the facts of the case fit the definition of the crime.

I would expect any jury in this case to recommend a suspended sentence, and I would equally expect any judge to hand down exactly that.

 

[Hadrian]

I empathize with the shop keeper.

However, there was only evidence for just 1 incident it seems, so you can't take the guy down on suspicion or past offences, unfortunately.

Just like you can't shoot an axe murderer who you see without axe in hand walking in your back yard.

I would've told the plant thief that if I see him again I'd call the cops (or maybe threaten him out of view - give him the 'ol Joe Pesci scare).

I would also barr him from entry.

We have to respect the law. It might save yourself from wrongful arrest or conviction in some future and unrelated incident.

As usual Mr President is the voice of reason!