lol me too, or at least related to him!
Can't believe he's defending a criminal.......
WTF is wrong with our laws......
- Thread starter Mia.Colpa
- Start date
Can't believe he's defending a criminal.......
Actually not incorrect, the person plead out the shop lifting charge that was the cause of this incident.
He could a judge who gave him a short sentence based on his cooperation with the police in another case. That case being the shopkeeper.
If a citizen sees an offence take place they have every right to pursue and detain for the authorities a suspect. The fact that the crown has withdrawn the kidnapping charge is sproff of this if there were any basis for the charges to be upheld as a matter of law they would have been carried through. There was no loack of evidence that the shopkeeper did chase down and detain him.
Another example of how limp-wristed Canadian Justice is towards criminals.
David Bagshaw, the young man who stabbed Stefanie Rengel and left her to die in the snow will not be going to adult prison anytime soon.
http://news.globaltv.com/world/Judg...gel+killer+stay+youth+jail/2183907/story.html
David Bagshaw, the young man who stabbed Stefanie Rengel and left her to die in the snow will not be going to adult prison anytime soon.
http://news.globaltv.com/world/Judg...gel+killer+stay+youth+jail/2183907/story.html
The shop lifting charge relates to something that happened at a different time so it cannot be considered relevant to the shop keeper's unlawful attack and forcible confinement of another citizen.
Do you actually comprehend this?
It is fine if you want to debate the merit of having that law, what I am asking is if you actually comprehend the law as it stands, and understand why it is that the shop lifting charge is irrelevant to the charge against the shop keeper.
Absolutely correct. 100% right.
Now what they cannot do is go around investigating violations that are not occurring right now and come up with a scheme to arrest someone they think is guilty of a crime in the past.
That is police work, and *must* be left to the police.
The kidnapping charge was bogus and I agree with the crown for withdrawing it. Kidnapping generally requires that you transport the person you have forcibly confined, generally to a third location. In this case while he WAS transported, it was merely back to the place where the incident began. It thus likely does not meet the definition of a kidnapping.
The charge of forcible confinement, however, I would expect to stand.
Right, but that is assault and forcible confinement, not kidnapping. The charges of assault and forcible confinement, I understand, are still on.
I've been away traveling for a couple days, and I'm not going to read the whole thread... but I will answer the OP's question...
What's wrong with our laws is the same thing that is wrong with the rest of our society... and that is because we have politicians that are SO OUT OF TOUCH with REAL LIFE, they do not know how to govern effectively! Politicians are the lowest form of scum on the planet. They are leeches, sucking on the "teets" of its citizens. They accomplish NOTHING, for the BILLIONS they steal from our paychecks, and again when we spend what little of it we have left. And don't give me the old Liberal verses Conservative verses NDP argument, because they are all just as guilty as the other. They have been fucking "joe citizen" (that's you and I folks) for YEARS, up the ass, and without a condom!!! And it will never get better unless there is some sort of revolution.
The system is broken folks... and they (politicians) are NOT about to change it... WHY? Because it threatens their very existence.
They continue to spend money hand over fist, as if they have a never ending stream of funds to draw from, and they do (of sorts), because we keep electing these losers to spend our money for us. How do I know this? Just listen to the "platforms" of virtually EVERY party.... They all say essentially the same thing. We are going to increase spending on x, y & z... NOT ONE OF THEM has said, I am going to STOP spending money on x, y & z.
What's wrong with our laws is the same thing that is wrong with the rest of our society... and that is because we have politicians that are SO OUT OF TOUCH with REAL LIFE, they do not know how to govern effectively! Politicians are the lowest form of scum on the planet. They are leeches, sucking on the "teets" of its citizens. They accomplish NOTHING, for the BILLIONS they steal from our paychecks, and again when we spend what little of it we have left. And don't give me the old Liberal verses Conservative verses NDP argument, because they are all just as guilty as the other. They have been fucking "joe citizen" (that's you and I folks) for YEARS, up the ass, and without a condom!!! And it will never get better unless there is some sort of revolution.
The system is broken folks... and they (politicians) are NOT about to change it... WHY? Because it threatens their very existence.
They continue to spend money hand over fist, as if they have a never ending stream of funds to draw from, and they do (of sorts), because we keep electing these losers to spend our money for us. How do I know this? Just listen to the "platforms" of virtually EVERY party.... They all say essentially the same thing. We are going to increase spending on x, y & z... NOT ONE OF THEM has said, I am going to STOP spending money on x, y & z.
Liberalism is what is wrong. Government creates laws. Liberals are drawn to government (because of control aspect) and they therefore create the laws that lead to more liberalism.I don't know if I have all the facts, I'm sure some of you will help me out here, lol, but this is what I know:
-owner of a store was robbed of some plants
- owner checked video surveillance and has the culprit on video
- culprit returns to the store about an hour later and store owner chases the culprit as he tries to get away, captures him, ties him up, puts him in the back of a truck until police arrives.
Now, this store owner has been charged for assault, forcible confinement, carrying a concealed weapon and kidnapping. The judge threw out the concealed weapon and kiddnapping charges but said he will go to trial for assault and forcible confinement. WTF? And to add salt to the wound, the culprit is going to testify against him and he may face a maximum of two years in jail!!!!! The culprit only got 30 days and he's out, if not soon.
This is what happened to a Toronto grocer, David Chen.
Am I missing something here? Are our laws better suited for crooks than the law abiding citizen? This sounds so bizarre.
Ok, your turn, lol.
So many posts, so little time. In a nutshell, everything Fuji says is right, and I am actually having problems believing the ignorance level in some posts about the law. Apparently we have no rights, but we can:
a) defend ourselves
b) defend others
c) defend our property and
d) intervene to stop a crime in progress by placing someone under citizen's arrest
Sounds like we can do everything we need to do. As fuji has pointed out frequently in this thread once the crime is over, it is a matter for the police. Even if you witness a crime in progress, most lawyers would advise you to dial 911 instead of trying to play Starsky and Hutch. Why? Because citizens are like most people in this thread, and don't understand the law. They don't know how to effect a legal arrest, and they expose themselves to prosecution, and may limit the crown's ability to pursue charges.
Let's assume that the shop keeper did have the legal right to place the shoplifter under citizen's arrest. Did he: a) inform him he was being placed under citizens arrest; b) inform of him of the charge for which he was being arrested; c) inform him of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel; and d) turn him over to a police officer at the earliest opportunity? Unless he did that, it was not a legal arrest. Now you may say, "but he's not a cop, he doesn't have to do that." Well, yes he does.
a) defend ourselves
b) defend others
c) defend our property and
d) intervene to stop a crime in progress by placing someone under citizen's arrest
Sounds like we can do everything we need to do. As fuji has pointed out frequently in this thread once the crime is over, it is a matter for the police. Even if you witness a crime in progress, most lawyers would advise you to dial 911 instead of trying to play Starsky and Hutch. Why? Because citizens are like most people in this thread, and don't understand the law. They don't know how to effect a legal arrest, and they expose themselves to prosecution, and may limit the crown's ability to pursue charges.
Let's assume that the shop keeper did have the legal right to place the shoplifter under citizen's arrest. Did he: a) inform him he was being placed under citizens arrest; b) inform of him of the charge for which he was being arrested; c) inform him of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel; and d) turn him over to a police officer at the earliest opportunity? Unless he did that, it was not a legal arrest. Now you may say, "but he's not a cop, he doesn't have to do that." Well, yes he does.
See Thompo, if you follow the letter of the law (which has been my point all along) the VICTIM (the shopkeeper in this case) loses his right to protect his property. Yeah yeah yeah, the thief didn't actually get around to stealing THIS time, but with photographic proof that he did previously, the shopkeeper had a pretty good idea that he was about to commit another crime.
See, the point I am trying to make is, as you stated, we SHOULD have the right to defend ourselves, our property, others etc. According to the LETTER OF THE LAW, we cannot prevent a crime from being committed. For example, someone can come up to us, demand our money, pull a knife, and according to THE LETTER OF THE LAW we have no RIGHT to defend ourself as he has yet to assault/rob/or committed any other offence against us. Telling us to give him our money? That's not against the law. Carrying a knife? Unless it is oversize that isn't against the law.
To make matters worse, according to THE LETTER OF THE LAW, he could rob rape and murder your wife right in front of you, then come back the next day and say the above, and, according to the LETTER OF THE LAW you cannot do a damn thing about it. (because, according to the LETTER OF THE LAW he has to be actually in the act of committing an offence before you can do something). Taking that one step further, you actually have to let someone stab you before you can defend yourself......
My biggest problem with this case is the fact that we, as citizens, cannot truly prevent crime, cannot actually catch criminals, even though the police can't be bothered, are too busy, or ??
As I've quoted before: you can convolute the wording all you want, but you cannot change the concept behind the law (which SHOULD be that if we are a victim of a crime, and the perpetrator comes back for more, we should be able to defend ourselves, detain them, and turn them over to the police).
tboy, I'm not even going to bother, because you've just demonstrated you are completely ignorant of both the letter and spirit of the law.
Fuji has explained what the law is, several times, and why it's good the law is what it is. He deserves our applause for his patience, and for being so clear about the difference between right and wrong.
And yet still most of the posters keep coming back with, "we must have the right to kill to protect our property", "I can't wait for your wife to get raped", and so on.
How many people are there in political power, who think like some of the nutters on this board? How on earth does Canada ever hang onto laws based on proper principles of justice and human rights?
Can you imagine what Canada would be like if tboy or cycleguy were entrusted with public office?
And yet still most of the posters keep coming back with, "we must have the right to kill to protect our property", "I can't wait for your wife to get raped", and so on.
How many people are there in political power, who think like some of the nutters on this board? How on earth does Canada ever hang onto laws based on proper principles of justice and human rights?
Can you imagine what Canada would be like if tboy or cycleguy were entrusted with public office?
You can keep saying the shopkeeper was the victim until you're blue in the face but it ain't so, he's the perp in this case. In the PREVIOUS case, the case of shoplifting, he was the victim. There are TWO cases here: Case one, a shoplifting. Case two, an assault and forcible confinement.
At any rate you are wrong in your point above: The shopkeeper has NOT lost his right to protect his property.
The shop-keeper is entitled to decide who is and isn't allowed on his property and can tell the guy he is no longer welcome and then forcibly remove him (not confine him) if he wanders onto the property again. Moreover if he catches the guy in the act of stealing he can arrest him.
Seems to me the shop-keeper has EVERYTHING HE NEEDS to protect his property.
Who gets to decide what is and isn't proof?
You keep saying this video proves it but I call bullshit, store videos are pretty crappy. It could be somebody else that just looks similar. There could be context missing not shown on the video--you don't necessarily see the whole transaction on the video.
Is your "right" to "protect your property" so absolute that it trumps everybody else's most fundamental freedoms?
If someone looks at your car funny is that "proof" that they are going to steal it? You should be allowed to shoot them dead just for a funny look, no? After all you KNEW they were going to steal it. You were so SURE.
There is a damn good reason why we don't let ordinary citizens take away other people's most fundamental freedoms just because they think they have proof of a crime.
Do you even acknowledge this?
I'm pretty sure you are planning to break into my house. I happen to believe I have proof of this. I am going to hunt you down and kill you to make sure you don't do it.
Is that rational?
If you're leaving it up to ME to decide, well, maybe a judge will slap my wrist for not having good enough proof--but hey, you won't care, you'll be dead by then.
Leave the police work to the police.
In fact you DO have that right. You just don't have the right to do it PRE-EMPTIVELY based on nothing more than mere SUSPICION.
The police are allowed to arrest people on suspcion (they call them "suspects"). You are not, no matter how good you think your proof is.
You ARE, however, entitled to defend your property againts ACTUAL crimes. Not suspected crimes, actual, real, honest to god crimes unfolding right in front of your face--the law does in fact give you the power to do that.
So your bullshit about not having that right is just hyperbole. It is not the right to protect your property you lack, it is the right to use pre-emptive violence based on your paranoid suspicions that you lack.
Who says the guy was going to steal when he came back the second time? Maybe this time around he was just going to buy something--YOU HAVE NO PROOF of what he was going to do.
You are wrong. In that case a crime has been committed right in front of your face and you're entitled to perform a citizens arrest if you are able.
It's not a suspcion that a crime is being committed, the knife is right there, the demand has been uttered in your prsence, it's happening right now in front of you--you can act.
In this case you CANNOT perform a citizens arrest. YOU MIGHT HAVE THE WRONG GUY.
You can however call 9-11, collect as much evidence as you can, and I can guarantee you in a case as serious as that the police will respond, not like they're too busy because they are dealing with shoplifters... they're too busy dealing with shit like this to chase the shoplifters, in a case such as you have described there will be several officers assigned FULL TIME to the case.
This isn't quite right. You can prevent crimes. You can actually catch criminals. It just has to be something you directly witness at that moment.
As for investigative work, tracking down and arresting suspects, that is for the police.
Your issue that "the police can't be bothered" is a gripe you should take up with the chief of police, you should not go aorund removing other citizens most fundamental freedoms because you think the police aren't doing their job.
