Justice in the courts? BS

[sanctus]

So the question is, where does a reasonable person draw the line on the use of force in detaining criminals? Especially when there is no clear and pressing danger of life or limb for those using the force.

Clearly they over-reacted.HOWEVER, having said that, I cannot help but stay with my original point that if he had not SHOPLIFTED in the first place, he wouldn't have suffered anything.

You know, as much as we want to deplore excessive force by authorities, lets not do so in such a way as to excuse the criminal his behaviour.

 

[Niflmir]

Well, now that I have heard the full account it does put a new light on the op, and the force used to detain Mr. Baines was excessive... However, and in the first instance, Mr. Baines wouldn't have been in his predicament had he not stolen in the first place; secondly, knowing that he had stolen, why did he resist arrest? I don't condone the actions of the store detectives, but Mr. Baines conduct did contribute to his injuries... I personally feel that $12,000 is way over the top for the injuries that the thief incurred. One would be lucky to get that kind of money for a broken limb in a personal injury claim, caused accidently.

Yeah, the real outrage is that a dentist will charge $15,000 to create a permanent replacement for a tooth. My father has to have that done right now, I think he is saving the money up slowly... I don't know what the surgery for a broken limb would cost, probably nothing because our health care system already covers it. Although, if you lost enough time at work because of it, that's another story. I am not quite sure how the Judge arrived at the 20% self liability number, possibly there is some precedence I don't know about, 1/3 would have made more sense to me.

 

[sanctus]

Yeah, the real outrage is that a dentist will charge $15,000 to create a permanent replacement for a tooth. .

Sorry to be so one-sided here, but again, a tooth he would not have had to have had fixed if he had not tried to steal from the store in the first place.

 

[Niflmir]

Clearly they over-reacted.HOWEVER, having said that, I cannot help but stay with my original point that if he had not SHOPLIFTED in the first place, he wouldn't have suffered anything.

You know, as much as we want to deplore excessive force by authorities, lets not do so in such a way as to excuse the criminal his behaviour.

I agree completely, but it is important to send a clear message that criminals are free-for-all punching bags. There is a vigilante group forming up in Calgary, the something or other angels... Guardian Angels. The police are worried for a number of reasons. If I am an excessively violent person and go out looking for criminals to abuse, that's a problem.

Its a real problem for the justice system, crime needs to be punished, but clearly there must be a limit on the force, if they excuse all force than the law enforcement slowly becomes more and more brutal until innocent citizens begin to feel the effects, but everytime they rule on liability they will be portrayed as soft on crime. Not exactly an enviable position.

 

[Pangloss]

Boy oh boy oh boy.

Folks, the court did not say the guards were wrong to apprehend the man - the judge ruled the guards used unreasonable force. Big difference.

Rights have limits - they have to. Shooting someone for trespassing, punching someone in the face for spilling coffee on me, beating a man after he was down and presumably subdued - these are all abuses of the right to protect and defend ourselves.

Perhaps it might help to look at things this way: you are wrongly suspected of being a shoplifter, and when you leave the store, three guards - all bigger than you - come up to you from behind, grab your arm and yell at you to stop. You have no idea what is going on and you pull your arm away as you turn to face whatever this threat to you is.

Well now you just resisted and by turning to face them, you are adopting a threatening stance. They tackle you and beat you and you lose a tooth.

Seems like they were in the wrong now. Why? Because you did not shoplift? They honestly believed you did. Or maybe you are Sikh, or fat, or dirty or poor or whatever else the guards might be prejudiced against and they just assumed the worst about everything you did.

The guards must act on their suspicions, but must also temper their actions with respect for everyone's safety - their own safety most of all - and must also act with the knowledge they might be mistaken.

Are we asking too much of security guards? Not unless we think security guards are really, really stupid. That then begs the question of why they were made security guards in the first place.

Pangloss

 

[Niflmir]

Sorry to be so one-sided here, but again, a tooth he would not have had to have had fixed if he had not tried to steal from the store in the first place.

No, no, its fine to want to elucidate the issue. How far are you willing to carry your side, though? What if the store guard had a sword and chopped off Mr Baines's hand? Is that excessive yet? He would still have his hand if he had stayed within the law, so should the guard be accountable for that? If not, let him take the whole arm, if that's not enough, let him take both arms. If that's still not enough, execute him. Somewhere you have to draw the line and say enough, the very person who sought to be the hand of justice has become the criminal.

That's what is encapsulated in the idea of reasonable force. There was no need, they gave what he deserved and then more. Its that more you have to focus on, damage was done that was not deserved... well, I am assuming you draw the line before someone loses a tooth. In cases of liability, motive is irrelevent. Somebody is faced with a burden they don't deserve, and so the court has to rule on liability, the reason for the burden is irrelevent once you agree it is undeserved.

 

[Pangloss]

Clearly they over-reacted.HOWEVER, having said that, I cannot help but stay with my original point that if he had not SHOPLIFTED in the first place, he wouldn't have suffered anything.

You know, as much as we want to deplore excessive force by authorities, lets not do so in such a way as to excuse the criminal his behaviour.

Sanctus - according to your logic, if I jaywalk and a driver speeds up to hit me, then it is my fault. If I'm an uppity woman and my husband belts me, it's because I wouldn't shut up. Does the phrase ". . .we want to deplore excessive force by authorities. . ." need to be qualified in any way?

If the force is not excessive, then, presumably, the right amount of force was used. If the force used was excessive, then um, well, er. . .too much force was used.

I don't know that using all upper-case letters makes your point any more clear. Perhaps if you used italics and exclamation points as well, I might be persuaded.

Pangloss

 

[#juan]

The message is clear.

If a shoplifter comes into your store and steals you merchandise, you should serve him a cup of coffee and give him a hug and send him on his way with the goods he stole. This is far cheaper than trying to protect your property.

 

[Libra Girl]

The message is clear.

If a shoplifter comes into your store and steals you merchandise, you should serve him a cup of coffee and give him a hug and send him on his way with the goods he stole. This is far cheaper than trying to protect your property.

yuan, what if the store was a gunsmith's, or a drug store, or a Jewellers, and the thief stole an item worth thousands of pounds? Just a thought... :smile:

 

[Pangloss]

The message is clear.

If a shoplifter comes into your store and steals you merchandise, you should serve him a cup of coffee and give him a hug and send him on his way with the goods he stole. This is far cheaper than trying to protect your property.

Silly Juan.

Logical extremes are not reasonable extremes: I want people to offer up their seat on the bus for someone with a disability or an illness. That does not mean we need a triage officer on every bus to evaluate and rank everyone's infirmity, with the sickest and weakest at the front. That is a foolish way to argue.

Almost as foolish as arguing that a moderated response to theft would result in hugs for crooks.

Pangloss

 

[Libra Girl]

Silly Juan.

Oh, I don't think so... One of the nicest, kindest, and most intelligent guys here; not to mention a gentleman!

 

[#juan]

yuan, what if the store was a gunsmith's, or a drug store, or a Jewellers, and the thief stole an item worth thousands of pounds? Just a thought... :smile:

My first reaction if I had a gun shop might be to shoot the guy and claim it was an horrible accident that happened while demonstrating a gun. I would try to shoot the guy in the front because shooting the guy in the back would seriously stretch the validity of my story....;-):lol:

 

[Libra Girl]

My first reaction if I had a gun shop might be to shoot the guy and claim it was an horrible accident that happened while demonstrating a gun. I would try to shoot the guy in the front because shooting the guy in the back would seriously stretch the validity of my story....;-):lol:

:smile:

 

[Pangloss]

Oh, I don't think so... One of the nicest, kindest, and most intelligent guys here; not to mention a gentleman!

Libra: all of those qualities do not necessarily inoculate one from making the occasional silly post.

Pangloss

 

[Pangloss]

My first reaction if I had a gun shop might be to shoot the guy and claim it was an horrible accident that happened while demonstrating a gun. I would try to shoot the guy in the front because shooting the guy in the back would seriously stretch the validity of my story....;-):lol:

Geez, Juan, my first reaction would be to design a store where theft and violence were obviously deterred. There are lots of ways to discourage thieves without killing them.

Killing somebody that you think stole from you is not a proportional response, smiley faces notwithstanding. Don't you think that preventing theft would be better than killing a suspected shoplifter?

And even if someone did steal from you, why in the world would you want to kill them in return?

What if they insulted you? Rip their left arm off? Parked in your spot in the company lot? Set fire to their car?

Pangloss

 

[#juan]

Thanks Libra Girl...you are very kind.

The other possibility is that some of us were trying to produce a "silly Post". Let's face it, that judge's decision was pretty silly.

I firmly believe that if you try to rob someone and that someone get's the better of you and in the process you are injured.............too bad.....it is your fault!

That was far too serious for this topic....;-):lol:

 

[Pangloss]

Thanks Libra Girl

The other possibility is that some of us were trying to produce a "silly Post". Let's face it, that judge's decision was pretty silly.

I firmly believe that if you try to rob someone and that someone get's the better of you and in the process you are injured.............too bad.....it is your fault!

That was far too serious for this topic....;-):lol:

Juan:

Now you cannot be serious. The "judges decision was pretty silly."? You're kidding, right?

The shoplifter was subdued by at least two security guards, had his face slammed into the pavement, dragged down a flight of stairs and beaten - severely - after he was handcuffed. Beaten to the point that he lost one tooth and another cracked.

Please just answer this question - Is it right to beat a suspect after they have been subdued and handcuffed? What if it happened to you? Are you telling me you wouldn't want charges brought on the guards?

Pangloss

 

[#juan]

Juan:

Now you cannot be serious. The "judges decision was pretty silly."? You're kidding, right?

The shoplifter was subdued by at least two security guards, had his face slammed into the pavement, dragged down a flight of stairs and beaten - severely - after he was handcuffed. Beaten to the point that he lost one tooth and another cracked.

Please just answer this question - Is it right to beat a suspect after they have been subdued and handcuffed? What if it happened to you? Are you telling me you wouldn't want charges brought on the guards?

Pangloss

First, I wouldn't try to rob someone. It is obvious that there are people out there who think it is their right to take something that someone else has worked to pay for. I'm sure this parasite told a sobby, convincing story for that bleeding heart judge. I don't buy it. I'm sure this guy resisted arrest with violence and got violence back. He lost a tooth and now he has trouble speaking? I'm sure his whistle isn't the same either....too bad. He committed a felony, he should be in jail. Judge Foggybottom is completely out of touch

 

[Kreskin]

For the sake of discussion, under what laws should the judge be using? The following is directly out of the canadian criminal code. If the majority of people wish to change the law to allow excessive force then the law should be changed. Until then the judge can only work within the law.

Defence of Property


Defence of personal property
38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified

(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or

(b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,

if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.

Assault by trespasser
(2) Where a person who is in peaceable possession of personal property lays hands on it, a trespasser who persists in attempting to keep it or take it from him or from any one lawfully assisting him shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation. R.S., c. C-34, s. 38.

Defence with claim of right
39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

Defence without claim of right
(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as of right or does not act under the authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justified or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it. R.S., c. C-34, s. 39.

 

[Pangloss]

Sorry guys - there's no getting through to you. I'm just glad you aren't cops and don't live anywhere near me.

Pangloss