babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Speaking of mirrors...
Two babblers are walking down the street when one of them looks down and finds a mirror.
He picks it up, looks into it, and says, "WOW! I know this person. I've seen this person somewhere before..."
The other babbler takes the mirror, looks into it, and says, "Duh, of course you have. That's me!"
One way that stands as good a chance as any to have the Cons reconsider their approach here is to start a citizen's blitz outside the TSX. Subject anyone wearing a suit while carrying a briefcase that enters or leaves to preventative arrest, complete with plastic handcuffs, on suspicion of abetting fraud and larceny.
Any changes to the law are highly unlikely to include a provision for a "preventative" arrest by citizens. All a prank like this would do is show that you don't really understand the existing statutes around citizens' arrests, or the changes.
Which, considering all of the talk of "vigilantism" might not be far from the truth. But why make it easy?
Go Olivia Go This is to protect property rights. Hell there are hardly any protections for the poor property owner.
In the meantime does reasonable grounds include, "he looked like the black guy I saw yesterday so I jumped him before he could steal anything else."
Inscrutable reasoning at work here.
Great. That was a wonderful flurry of witty pithicisims and pithy witticisms. You should all be well chuffed with yourselves. Now: back to the thread topic. Thanks!
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....apparently you shorted yourself in reading comprehension of the above posted snippet of the proposed criminal code amendments that were posted.
The "anyone can arrest without warrant", was already there. So, perhaps you should have been disturbed many, many years ago about that portion, as opposed to now?!
For clarity, as you apparently missed it, so others might too, Olivia's 2 small amendments were the bolded portions.
You can only arrest in relation to your property and it must be for a past or present crime not a future one. I suspect that if a couple of homeless people tried to arrest a shopkeeper for throwing their shopping cart into a garbage bin to get them away from the public alley behind a business they would not be treated as heroes.
I also doubt if theft of wages would be considered a property crime either. It might have some merit if workers who didn't get a cheque on payday could immediately arrest the capitalist for theft but unfortunately that is merely a civil offence not a real crime. Stealing flowers is a real crime on the other hand and must be dealt with immediately.
Yup this is a righteous issue to expend the very limited capital of the NDP on.
So tell me Remind how open to interpretation is the term "reasonable grounds". And if a shopkeepers grounds are not really reasonable then what? The poor, possibly, homeless person can sue to the full extent of the law?
Drop by more often.
On the contrary, I think it's beneficial for the NDP to be seen dealing intelligently with crime issues.
Nobody's proposing a three strikes law for petty theft, or ten year mandatory minimums, or special solitary confinement or what have you. The changes aren't going to make punishments more harsh, they're going to make arrests more likely. I don't think any political party can afford not to support something that makes it more likely to apprehend a thief.
Then they're open to arrest or conviction of their own JUST LIKE BEFORE.
Do you have the same emotional response to mall security guards, kropotkin?
How open to intrerpretation is it now, as it stands? Seems very open to me. In fact, I see very little change occuring with such an insertation.
The revolving door of crime and profit soon to be coming to your district. The human condition is such that we are a resource to produce wealth for others or to be used as a resource to produce wealth for others. Just think of all the departments that are labeled "human resources".
You know,the condescending crap is old and unproductive.
WHY do we have to AMEND legislation that already EXISTS,then?
I believe every depanneur I ever walked into has a baseball bat for the ready behind the counter,department stores have security guards and undercover dicks,hence merchants ALREADY have the right to protect themselves and deal with theives as they wish.
You can spin the words 'arrest without warrant'all you like,the fact is an amendment of a bill which ALREADY exists with the explicit term 'arrest without warrant' all in the name of giving private persons more power to take the law in their own hands smells worse than Cornwall in a heat wave.
Take it to the bank that the Reform Party will use the amendment to strengthen its wet dream of a police state.
I thought Harper's wet dream is to get 'property rights' in the Charter or Constitution or whatever.
Apparently, after reviewing the 'report suspicious activity' exhortations of the US Patriot Act, the Harperites are not satisfied that the provisions go far enough. With the assistance of the NDP, they've set about fashioning a more hands on approach.
If I am not mistaken mall security guards are supposed to be trained and licensed. Apples or oranges this morning Remind?
I would not have even commented but when an organization that wants my money decides to spend it showing they too can be tough on crime they lose me.
As for three strikes laws Snert, when the AG of BC said he was going to Ottawa to propose just such a thing I ripped up my card. Did I mention that when the same person tried to become Premier his party was reduced to 2 seats.
Getting tougher on crime is either not an NDP issue or the NDP is not my party.
I see a "tougher on crime" approach as one which seeks to increase penalties for crime, and the like.
This isn't increasing the penalty for theft, it's just allowing citizens to catch thieves. I don't think any party can NOT endorse something that makes a thief easier to apprehend... at least not without looking like either total numpties, or supportive of theft. It's like arguing against the RIDE program.
Who wants to go on record as saying they think criminals should stand a better chance of not being caught??? I'm personally GLAD the NDP is onside. If that means that some members have to tape their card back together for the fiftieth time in order to rip it up for the fifty-first, so be it.
Hopes its better than the training I got when I was a security guard in the 80s and 90s (and yes I did malls too).
Lets see I watched a video for 15minutes then took a test with about 5 questions on general safety (what way do u put out a chemical fire) and then paid some money and the OPP gave me a license with my photo on it. Took about an hour all told.
And then I had the power oh yes. All you peons had to listen to me. Well not really but that was the hope
Maybe we should have laws that allow the police to enter your home at any time and arrest you without a warrant if they have "reasonable grounds" to believe you've committed an offence.
After all, who could possibly oppose such a measure? Only people who think "criminals should stand a better chance of not being caught"! Only those people who don't trust the cops!
So you got about half the training of a modern cop?
Snert Fifty times really. Looki you fucking asshole stop with the personal posts. You have no right to disparage my commitment to a party that you probably have never put any energy into. I have spent decades trying to make positive change in this country. Why the fuck do you come here? Is it merely to piss people off? Well you got to me today you little weasel so bonus points for you and banning for me.
Carry on with discussing increasing arrest powers from a progressive viewpoint. That slope the NDP on is a real one. Trivia question. What province first introduced the use of the Taser and who was its AG at the time?
Well I guess. Didnt get a gun so no training there. Their tests are longer though and a lot more stupidly psychological
They already can in emergency situations.
Yes but only if they think you are committing an felony, not had or were going to
That's okay our stooges criminalized dissent at the G20 with snipers on rooftops and provocateurs in the streets.
I wonder why so many average, walk-a-day people think the left is out of touch with their concerns? Then I read the living in a fantasy land nature of many of the comments on babble and I get it.
Crime happens. Ignorning crime, including property crime against small business is not progressive- it is stupid and hands the win over to the right every time. Property crime is not victimless. If you had ever been a victim of these types of crimes you would understand the sense of violation they can cause. Ignoring that lived reality for lots of people doesn't make you progressive it makes you out of touch.
What the NDP is doing is not pandering to the tough on crime approach it is creating a thoughtful space for some small, but needed changes. Any the comment that every depannier has a bat behind the counter just shows how little people who are spouting off here actually know. That bat would be an illegal weapon if used to threaten or intimidate someone, even if they were committing a crime- the only time it might be okay if it was used in self-defense and again reasonable force provisions would apply. Find out some facts before you spout off.
Apparently the NDP is supposed to have a platform exactly like the communist and Marxist party. In which case, why have multi-party elections at all? Apparently they are afraid that the 140 year-old two party stooge-off in Ottawa will some how be broken beyond repair if the NDP gets in.
That actually wasn't really personal to you. I think I've seen more claims of "Oh woe is me if the NDP don't [renounce, support, vote for, vote against, sign the nomination for, refuse to sign the nomination for] ______ then I'm through with them, forever!!!".
I think some days babble spends more time ripping on the NDP/Jack/Olivia than Free Dominion does.
You may disagree, and probably do, but I actually do believe that stopping theft IS progressive (and if you don't believe me, take the word of other progressives who you can believe).
Or say they came to a door and while talking to the owner, heard someone from inside the house scream "he has a knife and is about to kill me."
Point being, there are always circumstances where the police can arrest people without warrant. Even running away from the police gives them legal grounds to go after you.