I think the courts (or some of them) need to be smacked upside the head a few times: http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSKUA94460520070419?feedType=RSS
Justice in the courts? BS
- Thread starter L Gilbert
- Start date
Kinda looks that way.
It just occurred to me that perhaps someone should charge that court with being complicit to the crime or aiding and abetting.
It just occurred to me that perhaps someone should charge that court with being complicit to the crime or aiding and abetting.
I am missing something here....in one sentece they're saying he was tackled and in the next he was beaten. Which one is it? 
Though stealing that many razors sounds pretty stupid and maybe he deserved it.
Though stealing that many razors sounds pretty stupid and maybe he deserved it.
DH:
The guy gets tackled, he struggles, then they used "unreasonable force" to subdue him. Seems to me that resisting arrest is grounds for someone to thump you a few times.
The guy gets tackled, he struggles, then they used "unreasonable force" to subdue him. Seems to me that resisting arrest is grounds for someone to thump you a few times.
lol, yeah especially over razors. You think the guy would of been like: "Ok, you got me...im an idiot."
This definately wont deter people from shoplifting....only encourage. In fact i'm thinking of traveling cross country myself...could use the money! :lol:
This definately wont deter people from shoplifting....only encourage. In fact i'm thinking of traveling cross country myself...could use the money! :lol:
He had not set himself to receive PM's. Noah is his son. In one of those "what a small world", I greeted a new member today as
I saw he was from the same city as me. He suggested I look at his profile. when I did, I realized it was my neighbour..How's that for a small world
Indeed, he seems to miss the obvious, that is, had he not been shoplifting in the first place....
So, first I want to point out that you can read the ruling yourself. Now some excerpts, in order:
"he was dragged down a flight of stairs into the parking lot"
"at the bottom of the stairs, he was pushed face-down onto the ground"
"Mr. Fries grabbed his right arm and twisted it behind his lower back while Mr. Morison grabbed his left arm and put it behind his head to handcuff him"
Ok, so now they handcuffed him, that's the end of the violence right, I mean, I can accept the above, even if it is a bit rogher than what police would do.
"he was lifted off the ground"
"Mr. Fries told him to stop resisting and then started to punch him, knocking one tooth out and cracking another in his top jaw"
"there were several store patrons around telling the store employees to stop hitting him"
So to the onlookers, this was a serious case of abuse. As I said, I could accept it up to the point where one person lifts a handcuffed offender up and the other person starts to pummel him. You don't even have to read very far to find that, paragraph 3 and 4.
Oh, whoops, I need to read further.
"Then Mr. Fries struck Mr. Baines on the head and kicked him in the face." (before he was handcuffed)
"he could see that his face was smeared with blood" (after Baines finally stopped to struggle)
The Judge, a trained legal professional in Canada, points out that section 25(3) of the criminal code states that:
"Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection (1) in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservation of any one under that person’s protection from death or grievous bodily harm."
bodily harm being defined in section 2
"any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature"
Thus: "I conclude that the force used by Mr. Fries was not reasonable force and was not justified under s. 25(1) of the Criminal Code." Interestingly, "[FONT="] [/FONT]I agree that Mr. Baines is partly at fault. I apportion his responsibility at 20 percent for the injuries he suffered. Accordingly, the award of $15,000 is reduced by 20 percent or $3,000. There is, therefore, a judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $12,000."
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.
"he was dragged down a flight of stairs into the parking lot"
"at the bottom of the stairs, he was pushed face-down onto the ground"
"Mr. Fries grabbed his right arm and twisted it behind his lower back while Mr. Morison grabbed his left arm and put it behind his head to handcuff him"
Ok, so now they handcuffed him, that's the end of the violence right, I mean, I can accept the above, even if it is a bit rogher than what police would do.
"he was lifted off the ground"
"Mr. Fries told him to stop resisting and then started to punch him, knocking one tooth out and cracking another in his top jaw"
"there were several store patrons around telling the store employees to stop hitting him"
So to the onlookers, this was a serious case of abuse. As I said, I could accept it up to the point where one person lifts a handcuffed offender up and the other person starts to pummel him. You don't even have to read very far to find that, paragraph 3 and 4.
Oh, whoops, I need to read further.
"Then Mr. Fries struck Mr. Baines on the head and kicked him in the face." (before he was handcuffed)
"he could see that his face was smeared with blood" (after Baines finally stopped to struggle)
The Judge, a trained legal professional in Canada, points out that section 25(3) of the criminal code states that:
"Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection (1) in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservation of any one under that person’s protection from death or grievous bodily harm."
bodily harm being defined in section 2
"any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature"
Thus: "I conclude that the force used by Mr. Fries was not reasonable force and was not justified under s. 25(1) of the Criminal Code." Interestingly, "[FONT="] [/FONT]I agree that Mr. Baines is partly at fault. I apportion his responsibility at 20 percent for the injuries he suffered. Accordingly, the award of $15,000 is reduced by 20 percent or $3,000. There is, therefore, a judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $12,000."
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.
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.