In light of the G20 debacle–and thank you for everyone who keeps contributing to the relevant threads below!–I thought I would post this recent story in the COMMENTS section. First, I am sickened that the courts would waste our time and money trying to charge a merchant who detained some scumbag who kept ripping off his store. I covered that story before, explaining that I side 100% with the merchant who is merely protecting his livelihood. He didn’t beat the jerk, he just detained him. The problem? He did it one hour later, after he saw the guy riding by, likely about to rob him again. Now, if he cut the guy’s hands off for stealing, that would be another story. But how the fuck does any cop or anyone in the just-ass system live with themselves when they admit that a scumbag criminal has more rights than a good, honest, hard-working citizen who was a victim of the scumbag criminal?! Another reason to be embarrassed to be a Canadian.
Having said all that, I have to admit that part of me is glad for what the cops did in the STAR story in the COMMENTS section. Namely, they broke the jaw of an animal who had been involved in many VIOLENT home invasions, some of which are described here:
The robberies were apparently aimed at drug dealers who allegedly owed money. But elderly women and an 8-year-old girl were among the victims.
One woman was sexually assaulted and another was told she would be shot if something went wrong.
A man inside one of the homes had a dollar sign carved into his back with a knife by one of the robbers, who also tried to cut off the man’s finger.
Now, if they were uncertain that this piece of shit was guilty, I’d be concerned. But they knew he was guilty. So I applaud the cops for exacting true justice on this Argument for the Death Penalty. Home Invasions–especially the kinds these monsters committed–are truly some of the worst violations one can imagine, and our courts do not treat them seriously enough. I only wish the cops had called in all of the victims and let them have their way with this waste of skin.
Of course, the rational part of me is concerned that the cops are taking justice into their own hands. What if some cop believes that smoking a joint is worthy of a broken jaw?! So of course I don’t want cops to be able to wantonly throw around vigilante force. But in cases such as this one, I have to admit that I feel that a little karma has been restored…
SIU to review evidence in beating — Court of Appeal condemns Peel police office for severely beating suspect (Raveena Aulakh Staff Reporter)
Two days after the Ontario Court of Appeal rebuked two Peel police officers for severely beating up a suspect in several home invasions, the Special Investigations Unit is reviewing evidence to determine if the case should be reopened — seven years after it happened.
“A decision of this nature from the Court of Appeal as it pertains to an SIU investigation is unprecedented,” said Jasbir Brar, media relations officer for the SIU.
The comments about SIU “warrant a review of the trial transcripts, transcripts which did not exist at the time of the original decision,” she said.
A provincial agency, the SIU investigates when a civilian is seriously injured or killed by a police officer.
Jason Tran complained in 2003 that officers who were transporting him to a Peel police station after he had surrendered warned him it would be “the hard way” if he asserted his right to silence and didn’t provide a statement. He decided to follow his lawyer’s advice and say nothing, but was left with a broken jaw and permanent headaches.
“Regardless of whether the officers abused Tran to obtain a confession or for some other reason, the essential fact is that they beat him up,” Justice Gloria Epstein said in the decision released Wednesday.
“Their conduct was despicable.”
The court also said it was shocking that no disciplinary action was taken against the officers, who tried to cover up the incident and later lied about it in court.
The SIU had launched an investigation. But it was closed without charges on June 6, 2003 with no reasons given, citing privacy issues. During Tran’s trial in 2006, a lawyer for the SIU told court its director John Sutherland had concluded there were no reasonable grounds for believing the officer had committed a criminal offence.
In its decision on Wednesday, Epstein said, “It is difficult to understand why or how (investigators came to that conclusion).”
Tran was found guilty in 2006 of conspiring with eight others to carry out a series of home invasions in Mississauga and Hamilton in 2002. He turned himself in to Hamilton police on March 27, 2003.
During a pre-trial motion before Justice Michael Tulloch three years later, the Peel officers denied assaulting Tran. One of the accused officers testified that Tran had said he fell.
Tulloch didn’t believe the officers. The medical evidence showed Tran’s injuries were consistent with a blow to the jaw.
Meanwhile, Peel police say they conducted an internal investigation after SIU’s initial probe into Tran’s complaint. Sgt. Zahir Shah, a media relations officer for Peel, said he couldn’t talk about the results of that internal investigation because of “privacy issues.”
I am 100% against vigilante justice. I understand the frustation of people who get ripped off and feel as if they have no recourse, but to me, to have someone take matters into his or her own hands is opening the door for anyone else to do the same. How long would it take for things to get out of hand? (Really!!). Even though in this one instance, the man was sure he had the right person and did not harm him in any way, others may follow his lead and not be so restrained. What would happen then? We do have laws in place for a reason. They are far from being perfect but I don’t think it is reason enough to bypass them.
By the way, I’m not sure which story you are referring to. Is it about the shop owner in Kensington Market who caught a man stealing plants on his sidewalk front and “kidnapped” the culprit later on?
In any case, my point is that I don’t think you can right a wrong with another wrong. Let’s face it, a lot of people out there are completely irrational and would use this as an excuse to bully others. Unfortunately, with vigilante justice, there is always the potential of having the wrong person, or having the situation get out of hand. If we start dismissing abuse because there was a “reason” behind it, it won’t be long before it’s mayhem.
Having said that, I do hope that the judge will take into account the previous events and be lenient towards the shop owner. Criminals should not have better protection than their victims, and the judge should take into account all events.
About your other story on home invasions, I would say that police brutality is wrong regardless of the situation. Rather than allowing it, I would first try to change the system. Maybe I am overly naive here, but I do believe in the system. Cops should be held to the highest standards, regardless of the situation. Whether it is catching someone after a home invasion, or being part of the G20 security force, there is no excuse for them to be crossing the line. I’m sure there is a strict protocol in place (and for a reason), and they should be following it. Again, I’m not sure what story you are referring to here, but considering the cops in question are denying their actions, it seems to me that abuse was occurring, and that they are well aware of it. Can you really dismiss that? Again, I would argue that we have laws in place for a reason, and you cannot just bypass them because you feel that they are not serving their purpose. Then, what’s the point of having a legal system? We might as well just let people do whatever they want?
I think cops especially should be representative of our system, and stick to the rules… and enforce them. Do we need to review those rules to make sure that criminals don’t get away with whatever they do? Absolutely!!!
I was working in a drugstore at age 17 when the floorwalker enlisted a coworker and I to chase down some guys who were stealing allergy medication (enough that it was falling out of their clothes as they ran). We detained one, and as we tried to handcuff him to a fence he suckerpunched the floorwalker and kicked my coworker. I put him in a chokehold, which took the piss out of him but also got him shouting about how I’d be charged with assault. When the cops arrived, they scoffed at him, commended me for my action, and told me not to use terms “chokehold” or “headlock” in my police report. As a general rule, they’re reasonable about stuff like this, and the word of three relatively upstanding citizens and a police officer against some dirtbag who lacked the dignity to accept that he was caught will usually hold up in court.
Too bad I couldn’t admit “hell yeah I choked him into submission” though. It was a pretty sweet chokehold…
Vigilante justice should always be the exception, not the rule, but to completely oppose it is as bad as completely promoting it. Sometimes the police don’t do their jobs well or properly, and sometimes there isn’t time to wait for their arrival (or even make the call). Sometimes, someone has to step up, and the justice system’s treatment of that grocery store clerk is a travesty… if only because he’s getting punished more severely than the thief.
I do agree with you Ian, that vigilante justice should be the exception rather than the rule, and that in extreme cases, it is acceptable. In your example, it happened right there in the moment so it was more about making sure the culprit didn’t get away. There is a big difference… in RR’s story, even an hour difference puts a completely different spin on the story and on the purpose of the intervention.
I agree 90% of the time with vigilante justice. Sometimes, scumbags just need to pay for what they’ve done. We’ve all seen, especially with the stories on this site, how the justice system can fail and fail and fail again. What person can really look at that and say that they’d be okay with the sentences 100% of the time?
The justice system is only a regimented, legal form of revenge. When the system fails, I see very little reason (apart from going after the wrong person) why someone shouldn’t do what this person did in the story.
If you want my real opinion – they should call in all the victims of any major crime and put them in a room with the criminal. And then they should lock the doors, and let that victim beat the ever loving shit out of that piece of shit. Now that, is true justice.
Thank you everyone for your feedback. As always, I enjoy getting other people’s perspectives, especially when they are articulated as well as I get to read on this site. Here are some of my thoughts, in no particular order:
1) The law states that the shop owner could have apprehended the scumbag on his own (citizen’s arrest…we may have a slightly different term here), as long as a) he has good reason to do so (he did–he had security footage of this jerk, I believe; at the very least, he’s a known thief in the area), b) he uses “reasonable force” (he did–he just contained the scumbag), and c) it’s done around the time of the crime (to allow for a bit of a chase or to confirm that the criminal act did indeed occur, I suppose). The only thing this guy did wrong was catch him later. I have absolutely no problem with that; if I see some guy steal my bike off my porch and I know who it is, then see the guy an hour later or even a year later, you can bet that I’m going to apprehend him (possibly with UNreasonable force) and try to get my bike back. Barring that, I’ll try to ensure that the cops check his place for other stolen goods.
2) I don’t like the idea of cops trying to beat confessions out of people, since it’s a fact that such confessions are often meaningless–that is, when it’s obtained through torture, since the person will say anything to get it to stop. However, if the cops are certain they’ve got the bad guy, I don’t mind intense pressure.
3) If they know for a fact they’ve got a real bad guy, like this guy was (he was part of an Asian gang that did home robberies and raped, mutilated and threatened to kill victims, including an 8 year old!), part of me is glad to see true justice finally being served. I wish it happened more often: then crime might actually go down when people realize there are IMMEDIATE, REAL consequences to their actions.
4) Even if the cops get in trouble for beating the guy up, this is a separate issue from the guy’s guilt. The first judge got it right when he said, “Okay, you’re still a guilty scumbag so you’re going to jail, but I”m going to lessen your sentence to account for the fact that you got your ass whipped, which is what you deserve in the first place.” The second judge is a typical Canadian just-ass idiot, who said, “I know you’re guilty, and the beating you got had nothing to do with your arrest (he surrendered) or guilty verdict, but since you were mistreated, I’m going to let you go completely.” WHAZZZAAA???
5) If nothing else, I think this site has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that our just-ass system is broken and is more intent on protecting the rights of the bad guys far more than the good guys, whether the good guys are cops, civilians, or victims of crime. This is not empty, hysterical rhetoric, but rather a very rational statement about an irrational, immoral, and just plain fucked up state of affairs.
To UTSC Student: you say:”I agree 90% of the time with vigilante justice” …. Really?? How do you define justice then? If you were to take it upon yourself to punish the culprit, where would you draw the line? How do you determine what is punishment enough? What makes you think that you got all the answers? Again, I DO understand the frustration of being ripped off and see the authorities do NOTHING. But it does not justify taking the matter into your own hands. If it did, we might as well get rid of the whole system and let people fend for themselves. Survival of the fittest!!
I’m sorry but I cannot agree to this kind of thinking. As I said before, it’s just opening the door for more abuse. Do we need to change the system? YES!! Do we need to hold police officers accountable for their actions? Absolutely!! But I really don’t think taking justice into your own hands will do much better. Just imagine for one minute, you take action against someone who ripped you off, and it turns out you had the wrong guy. You acknowledged the possibility, so go with me here for a minute… What would you do next? How would you fix it? Just wondering…
To RR: I do agree with you ONLY in this case because we know that he had the scumbag who ripped him off earlier. But rather that advocating for vigilante justice, I would rather hope that the judge woulld take ALL of the events into consideration. It is still wrong for anyone to take revenge, for all of the reasns I stated in my previous comments. Can you really see yourself living in a “mob-like” society where every time someone gets to you, you’ll get him back? So the system is broken!! Is giving up on it the only alternative?
To UTSC Student, just to clarify… when I said:”What makes you think that you got all the answers?”.. I only meant that in the context of being in that particular situaton of being ripped off and taking it upon yourself to deal with it. Nothing more…
Hi Lily,
To be clear, I don’t believe in mob rules or a wild west mentality. I’m talking about specific situations/parameters in my post. More generally, I believe everyone has a right to defend themselves, their property and their livelihood. We have a messed up law that states that, if someone comes into my home with no weapon and tries to rob me, and I hit them with a bat or some other weapon, *I* can be charged. That is messed up.
So I’m not talking about a back-and-forth feud. I’m talking about standing up for or protecting oneself and everything one holds dear.
As for the COPs, as I said, I’m torn about this. I don’t want renegade bad cops, but I’ve said it before: When COPs have a bad guy–I’m talking true bad guy, and yes I know people could easily differ on the definition–I have no sympathy if something bad happens to that bad guy. I understand the problems with this type of thinking but that is the emotional side of me. If I knew that bad guys really got any type of justice in Canada, I’d feel differently. But I know the true state of affairs in this broken system.
How does it make it any different than when the justice system nails the wrong guy? They let him out, throw him back into the world and say “whoops, sorry.”
I mean, it’s a double standard that has no basis in rational thought. If someone invades my home, threatens my family with death and infringing on my rights, and I decide to beat the ever loving shit out of them, then why should I be charged?
What is the other option? Waiting for people who I don’t know, to take 10 minutes to get there while I hope the asshole fuck who is in my house doesn’t take anything or murder anybody that I may happen to care about that?
Fuck that.
@ Lily –
“when I said:”What makes you think that you got all the answers?”.. I only meant that in the context of being in that particular situaton of being ripped off and taking it upon yourself to deal with it.”
Okay, so what makes you think that the system has all the answers? I don’t think that the system has a shit worth of answers, because the system is made of individuals, and technically, individuals are not supposed to have all the answers because that would be a direct violation of that which you are trying to prove – that the system can work, but in the case that it doesn’t, the individual does not have the right to make that kind of decision.
So essentially, what you’re saying is that the individual should not take the law into their own hands and decide what justice is.
But the system should, and the system is there to decide what justice is, and to put the proper people behind bars.
But the system is made of individuals, and thereby, not allowed to take justice into their own hands.
What is the difference between some person who was raped and decided to cut the motherfucker’s balls off, and some other person sitting on the jury that was raped as a child and is now sitting in a rape case?
The system – or any system for that matter – is only as powerful as the individuals that make up the system. If the individuals are given zero power, then when you put 100 individuals together to come up with a solution, guess how much power they have? ZERO! Because they each, individually, have ZERO POWER. Zero plus ninety nine other ZEROS equals ZERO.
But, if you give individuals the power to at least defend their homes and businesses from invasion from asshole fucks that deserve to be thrown out of the goddamned country, then perhaps things change. Then, perhaps the system will change, because at the very base root level, there is no double standard and fuckery.
And if you’re really so interested in “mob like” society, then perhaps answer this – how many people would really rob a bank, knowing that every one of those tellers have a sawed off shotgun and are willing to defend their lives and livelihoods to the very end? What makes the difference between a bank teller doing it, and a cop? Training? That’s bollocks. Training should not be the difference between being allowed to defend your own goddamned house.
Sometimes, all you have is your property in life and what you have around you.
And if you really really want to know just how hypocritical the system is, and you really think that my concept of justice is skewed in the direction of “he hits us, we’ll hit him harder until either he goes down or I go down” …
Take a look at the army. Nuff said.
Sorry about the delay in responding. Starting with your comment RR, I do understand what you are saying and I agree with you to a degree. So yes, as you said … “everyone has a right to defend themselves, their property and their livelihood”… If someone breaks into your home and threatens you, I agree that you should be able to beat the crap out of him (or her). I would probably be one to do just that if it ever happened. In my previous comment, I was only suggesting that if people start taking things into their own hands, it opens a whole new set of problems that could potentially become even more disastrous. In terms of self-defense or doing a citizen’s arrest, the criminal code allows for it TO A VERY STRICT EXTENT. Unfortunately, it is vague and ambiguous, so most of the time, people don’t really understand the limitations of their rights.
No matter how you look at the issue, I still don’t see how vigilante justice can be productive… other than for the victim to get the sheer pleasure of getting even.
We don’t really know much about what happened after the shop owner caught the guy. I saw the video (check the link below) but it stops short before the guy gets caught, so what really happened in the end?? There were two other men helping him, so was he justified to tie him up and throw him in a van? ? Also, it happened on a crowded street? Why couldn’t they hold him right there on the spot until the police came?
I am not dismissing the frustration this man must have felt to be robbed like this in broad daylight, and I hope the judge will let him off the hook. The whole story should be taken into account. To me, it shows how things can easily get out of hand when someone takes it upon himself to act. I don’t see how it will work if we allow people to defend themselves on the spot as they see fit.
I am not sure I am making my point clear, but here is the link for the video I mentioned above. It starts after the commercial.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2009/05/25/store-employees-beat-suspected-shoplifter.aspx
To UTSC Student: you have a point: it is no different when the justice system nails the wrong guy, and saying sorry is NOT enough.
If someone invades your home, it would be probably the only instance where I would see a person justified to use force to defend himself or herself, including using a bat even if the intruder has no weapon.
To answer your question “What makes you think that the system has all the answers?” … well, I never meant to suggest that it did. Now, you lost me a little when you said:”the system is made of individuals, and technically, individuals are not supposed to have all the answers because that would be a direct violation of that which you are trying to prove – that the system can work, but in the case that it doesn’t, the individual does not have the right to make that kind of decision.”
Here is where I stand: we have a justice system in place, which is supposed to protect all of us, and people who make the decisions at the top are either elected or appointed. The system is corrupt, broken and the little guy always get ripped off. As I mentioned to RR in my previous comment, all I was trying to say originally was that the system has the potential of working. It might need a complete overhaul, but I think it would be a lot better to give it a chance, rather than to give individuals the power to act and defend themselves whenever something happens to them.
Individuals may not have many rights, but they do have the power to hold those at the top accountable. They have the power to get rid of them, comes election time. Unfortunately, half of the population doesn ‘t care to vote. If something is not working in the system, let’s make sure they fix it. People have accomplished a lot more in mobilizing themselves for a particular cause, rather than using violence to defend themselves individually on the spot. I read a blog this morning which was commenting on the action of the general public during the G20. If I find it again, I’ll copy the link. The guy was right on, arguing that all the demontrations failed to do what they were supposed to. As he said, if people had stayed home, it would have truly shown the waste of money spent on the event, as well as the unecessary force mobilized for it. Rather, because of the actions of a few, the presence of the police in mass was justified… and yes, they did poorly but do you really think that it would have been better without them? Should the owners of the stores that got vandalized beat people as they go?? My point is that individuals can have a lot of power of their own, especially nowadays with youtube and camera phones all over.
Giving the power to individuals to act to defend themselves is again, in my opinion, opening the door to many more dangers. You say:”if you give individuals the power to at least defend their homes and businesses from invasion from asshole fucks that deserve to be thrown out of the goddamned country, then perhaps things change. Then, perhaps the system will change, because at the very base root level, there is no double standard and fuckery”. Well, I don’t think it would change, I think it would actually turn into mayhem very quickly. But that’s just my opinion! I have no interest in living in a society where everyone will have a gun, just in case, nor would I want to go to a bank where the teller would be harmed to the teeth.
However, as I said before, cops should be scrutinized and held responsible for their actions, or inactions because it is their job and there is no excuse for any lapse in judgment on their part.
Lily: Thank you for the link to the story/video. Amazingly clear resolution, no? That is the case, of course, but that story at first made it seem like the store owners used excessive force, whereas later on that did not appear to be the case.
As for your comments to UTSC student, I’ll let them respond themselves, but I have to repeat that I don’t believe in vigilante-ism as a general rule. But when it happens, I’m willing to let it go depending on the circumstances. For instance, if some punk broke a store owner’s window during the G20 and that owner bashed the punk’s head in with a bat, I’d think justice had been served. If, however, the owner came out and started swinging at ALL protesters in front of the store, hoping to get the one punk who broke his/her window, then we’ve got a problem (hmm…isn’t that kind of what the COPs did on Sunday??).
I do agree that it would be better to fix the system and maybe that will happen at some point. Unfortunately, politicians aren’t that bright, so instead of cracking down on the hardcore scum, they’ll apply a “tough on crime” approach to EVERYONE, including e.g., marijuana users, despite the fact that this has been PROVEN to be a complete failure in the US. But maybe some good revisions will occur (I’m just not holding my breath).
As for people not protesting at the G20, if they didn’t, the gov’t would have said “See? All our money was effective at deterring the trouble makers. Never before in the West has such a meeting occurred without any problems–because never before has so much money been spent on security, intelligence gathering, etc…” So I’m glad people protested. However, I do want to take a fly swatter (or bat) to the idiot protesters who cheered on the scumbag rioters (yup, many people did that), protected them by providing cover while they changed their costumes, helped them find accommodations here, etc. Anyone who did that should be charged as an accessory. And anyone who pretends that they had no idea that these scumbags from Quebec (mostly) were going to do what they did should have their heads examined because they are incredibly stupid and naive.
When you say:”…As for your comments to UTSC student, I’ll let them respond themselves…I can’t help wondering:”Ummmm, them??? how many exactly is there? But that’s fair enough, regardless (I’ll take on the whole U of T if I have to
Joking aside, the example you gave in your second paragraph is exactly why I would be hesitant to let people take matters into their own hands. There are just too many idiots out there who will take advantage of the situation.
The fact is that no matter which way we go, no matter which side we’ll take, it will never be just black and white. There has to be some give and take, depending on the situation.
Sorry for the confusion, Lily. I don’t recall whether UTSC student has revealed his/her sex, thus I used “they.” Ironically, I usually use “he/she” but this time tried the less grammatically correct “they.” Serves me right…
As for my example, I think it helps show that we should have some discretion in our courts. In other words, don’t encourage vigilante-ism but, if it happens, then the courts can decide whether it was appropriate or not. In the Chinatown case, I believe it was appropriate. Bashing the head in of a punk who broke your window is appropriate, in my opinion. Shooting a robber in the face if he/she enters your home is appropriate, in my world. Would you agree? Not necessarily with the degree of violence I think is appropriate for such cases but rather the notion that, if people find themselves in certain situations and they act to protect themselves/their property, they should not have to worry about ridiculous prosecution if they have acted within reason.
Yes, and to that I agree entirely!
It’s a he. Sorry for the long reply guys, I will respond to Lily’s comments, but right now i’m just heading off to work. As soon as I can, i’ll respond!
Thanks UTSC Student for the clarification. I was actually 99% confident that you were a “he”, but I have been wrong before…
Looking forward to your next comment. I will check in (much) later on as I am on my way to work too. But here is the link to the blog (I think it’s a blog) I was referring to in my previous comment. It was actually written by a woman. I hope the link works.
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2010/06/27/torontos-g20-summit-a-failure-all-around/
Thanks for the link, Lily. And I’m glad you agree with my point, which I think is pretty rational. Of course, we may have a radically different view of what constitutes “reasonable,” but I hope someone in the position to make the proper choice will come up with a good definition.
Also, I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again: Judges and Justices of the Peace need to be held accountable for their decisions. If they make a ruling and every reasonable person in the same position would make the same/similar ruling, and then something messed up happens, fine–no problem. But if they make a terrible ruling, they should be held responsible financially, legally, or via their position (as in reprimands to firings). The consequences should be worse if the bad ruling causes someone to suffer needlessly.
Or at the very least, have judges VOTED IN like they do in the US. I know that this leads to many bad decisions b/c the judges are often doing whatever the public indicates will get them elected, even if they are not following the letter/spirit of the law. I think a balance, whereby judges are elected but are also accountable to a committee–with their jobs on the line–is the best way.
I wasn’t able to post my comment earlier, so let’s see if it works this time. I agree that Judges and Justices of the Peace should be held accountable for their decisions. At that level, there is no room for error.
However, I don’t think Judges are being elected in the US, at least not by the public. From what I know, the President appoints them based on recommendations and seniority. From what it seems, their system is just as flawed as ours.
…I had a couple more points to make this morning, but I completely lost my train of thought, so I’m gonna leave it at that.