Justice in the courts? BS

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Justifying the action of a security guard (not an official law enforcement agent) in the use of excessive force leads to justifying excessive violence against innocent citizens. You cannot on the one hand say that the force is excessive and on the other hand say that the criminal deserved it. So either you stand by the judges decision, and the reasons are quite clear, or you believe that kicking a person in the face while they are being held down is a reasonable way to subdue someone.

I would say that excessive sympathy for habitual criminals leads to more habitual criminals. In the case of this shoplifter, he he stole a car just a day or two after he got his $12,000.00 award. By all means punish the security guards for the excessive force, but let's not lose sight of the fact that those security guards did not cause the shoplifting.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
I would say that excessive sympathy for habitual criminals leads to more habitual criminals. In the case of this shoplifter, he he stole a car just a day or two after he got his $12,000.00 award. By all means punish the security guards for the excessive force, but let's not lose sight of the fact that those security guards did not cause the shoplifting.

Liability and sympathy are two different things. Who exactly is showing excessive sympathy for criminals, or sympathy at all?
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Liability and sympathy are two different things. Who exactly is showing excessive sympathy for criminals, or sympathy at all?

I'm not arguing the law here. I'm arguing what is right in my opinion. The judge went to some lengths to tell how forthright this guy was. I don't know about that. What I do know is that this shoplifter had only been days out of jail when he did the shoplifting, and only days after the shoplifting, he was stealing a car. We've spent far too much money on this guy already.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
I'm not arguing the law here. I'm arguing what is right in my opinion. The judge went to some lengths to tell how forthright this guy was. I don't know about that. What I do know is that this shoplifter had only been days out of jail when he did the shoplifting, and only days after the shoplifting, he was stealing a car. We've spent far too much money on this guy already.

So I take your opinion to be that "Holding an unarmed shoplifter to the ground and kicking that person in the face until they lose a tooth and crack another is a reasonable way to subdue said person," because there really is nothing else we disagree upon.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
So I take your opinion to be that "Holding an unarmed shoplifter to the ground and kicking that person in the face until they lose a tooth and crack another is a reasonable way to subdue said person," because there really is nothing else we disagree upon.

Is that the way you interpreted the evidence? No one has said that the guards shouldn't be punished. I just don't see anything to mitigate the shoplifting. Do you mean that if the guards beat the snot out of a shoplifter, he becomes innocent of the shoplifting?
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Is that the way you interpreted the evidence? No one has said that the guards shouldn't be punished. I just don't see anything to mitigate the shoplifting. Do you mean that if the guards beat the snot out of a shoplifter, he becomes innocent of the shoplifting?

No, he doesn't become innocent of shoplifting; that is the exact thing I have been struggling to point out. This case had nothing to do with the shoplifter's guilt. This was a case that started out of liability, the ruling in no way presumes his innocence, and in fact quite clearly points out his guilt. Nobody, I repeat, nobody, is defending the actions of the shoplifter. In fact, should a criminal trial ever come up on the issue of shoplifting, the man has effectively already admitted to it. He no longer has any defense against the allegations.

To your first question, if you, me, the judge, and every previous person on this thread agrees that this case of liability should not (and it will not) influence the criminal trial, the only issue at hand is the issue that this case in question dealt with: the determination of the reasonableness of the force applied to a criminal. Again, I will repeat myself, nobody thinks this guy is innocent. This trial was not a criminal trial for shoplifting. It was a civil trial of liability. It is simply terrible that some people will interpret this as the courts being soft on crime. They were punishing a very real crime: the use of excessive force, the judge seemingly had no opportunity to punish the man for shoplifting, yet he found a way by basically charging the man $3000 for personal liability in the damage to his teeth.
 

folcar

Electoral Member
Mar 26, 2007
158
5
18
Most of us would take the stance that when you CHOOSE to commit a crime and are subsequently caught, you forfeit your rights as you have become a criminal. Unfortunately the courts of our country and the government who makes the legislation, feel they cannot violate the rights of the criminal and place them on a pedestal. Our system abounds with theses cases. Like the one below.

A Canadian real estate company, was sued by a Barrie employee who drank alcohol at an office Christmas party and later crashed her car.

“It was a self-serve bar at the office. That's a big mistake right there. Around 4 pm, the employer noticed the employee was 'more than her usual self,' if you will. He never described her as drunk, but he was concerned enough to offer to call her husband,” she says.

“The employer also offered taxis to everybody who needed one and another employee who didn't drink offered rides. She declined, and went out with a group of co-workers to a bar.”

The woman drank at least two beers at the bar. When she left the night club around 8 pm, the weather was bad, and one of her co-workers offered her a place to stay for the night. The woman declined, and crashed her car while driving home.

She survived the accident and sued her employers and the bar. They were held jointly responsible for $300,000 in damages, although the bar had no insurance and could not pay. The employer later appealed and settled the case out of court with the employee.

Who would have ever thought DUI could be proffitable!
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Most of us would take the stance that when you CHOOSE to commit a crime and are subsequently caught, you forfeit your rights as you have become a criminal. Unfortunately the courts of our country and the government who makes the legislation, feel they cannot violate the rights of the criminal and place them on a pedestal. Our system abounds with theses cases. Like the one below.

A Canadian real estate company, was sued by a Barrie employee who drank alcohol at an office Christmas party and later crashed her car.

“It was a self-serve bar at the office. That's a big mistake right there. Around 4 pm, the employer noticed the employee was 'more than her usual self,' if you will. He never described her as drunk, but he was concerned enough to offer to call her husband,” she says.

“The employer also offered taxis to everybody who needed one and another employee who didn't drink offered rides. She declined, and went out with a group of co-workers to a bar.”

The woman drank at least two beers at the bar. When she left the night club around 8 pm, the weather was bad, and one of her co-workers offered her a place to stay for the night. The woman declined, and crashed her car while driving home.

She survived the accident and sued her employers and the bar. They were held jointly responsible for $300,000 in damages, although the bar had no insurance and could not pay. The employer later appealed and settled the case out of court with the employee.

Who would have ever thought DUI could be proffitable!

Interesting case folcar

That woman made every wrong choice that was available and still others had to pay for her. My feelings on this case, I'm sure, are predictable. People should be responsible for their actions. Nobody forced her to get drunk Finding anyone else to blame is a travesty..
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Most of us would take the stance that when you CHOOSE to commit a crime and are subsequently caught, you forfeit your rights as you have become a criminal. Unfortunately the courts of our country and the government who makes the legislation, feel they cannot violate the rights of the criminal and place them on a pedestal. Our system abounds with theses cases. Like the one below.

I feel I am being argumentative and don't really want to push this much further, but this was the point I wanted to get at. People think that they take the stance you outline above, but look at an extreme example: Someone breaks into my house, I subdue them, then tie them to my bed and proceed to rape them. Over the course of the next year I daily torture and rape them, keeping them fed through an IV. Finally, their body collapses from the sustained punishment and they die. Everyone draws a line and says "That's not reasonable," somewhere. Where do you draw your line? Sure, when you choose to commit a crime you forfeit some rights, but some is a long way from all.

You may very well think that booting a person in the face until they spit out a tooth and cough up blood is reasonable, which I doubt, but the only time when I would consider that justified is if your life was in danger.

A Canadian real estate company, was sued by a Barrie employee who drank alcohol at an office Christmas party and later crashed her car.

“It was a self-serve bar at the office. That's a big mistake right there. Around 4 pm, the employer noticed the employee was 'more than her usual self,' if you will. He never described her as drunk, but he was concerned enough to offer to call her husband,” she says.

“The employer also offered taxis to everybody who needed one and another employee who didn't drink offered rides. She declined, and went out with a group of co-workers to a bar.”

The woman drank at least two beers at the bar. When she left the night club around 8 pm, the weather was bad, and one of her co-workers offered her a place to stay for the night. The woman declined, and crashed her car while driving home.

She survived the accident and sued her employers and the bar. They were held jointly responsible for $300,000 in damages, although the bar had no insurance and could not pay. The employer later appealed and settled the case out of court with the employee.

Who would have ever thought DUI could be proffitable!

I would like to check up on that, and would like more information. If all of the facts above and nothing more were involved in the case, no judge would rule that way, thus I am forced to conclude that something is missing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pangloss

Pangloss

Council Member
Mar 16, 2007
1,535
41
48
Calgary, Alberta
Niflmir:

I was wondering when you would realize the futility trying to get clear thought and reason to prevail on this thread. Give it up, man - this way lies madness!

Love what you've posted, and I pretty much agree with all you've said.

Pangloss.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Niflmir:

I was wondering when you would realize the futility trying to get clear thought and reason to prevail on this thread. Give it up, man - this way lies madness!

Love what you've posted, and I pretty much agree with all you've said.

Pangloss.

Seriously mate, I was getting some cognitive dissonance between my support for the courts and the only quote I remember from the quran: "Shouting at those who will not listen is the way of the infidel." I think I will take your advice.
 

gc

Electoral Member
May 9, 2006
931
20
18
I'm probably stating the obvious here, but that's just ridiculous. Not only should he be charged for theft, he should be charged for bringing forth such a frivolous lawsuit.
 

Pangloss

Council Member
Mar 16, 2007
1,535
41
48
Calgary, Alberta
I'm probably stating the obvious here, but that's just ridiculous. Not only should he be charged for theft, he should be charged for bringing forth such a frivolous lawsuit.

GC - Don't embarrass yourself. Read the thread, read the judgment (it is linked in the thread), then comment on it.

Pangloss