For David Chen, the shoplifters keep on coming

Yup. Thanks for correcting the perspective here, Cueball (and Sean too, for your previous thoughtful post). I'm getting sucked into attacking the poster child instead of the real criminals.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I think how serious it is depends on whether or not you are the one being stolen from, and how much it amounts to.

I also think the tendency to dismiss crimes like shoplifting is also because many people have simply given up on the notion that people who commit those crimes can or should be impressed on to stop and to take responsibility for their actions.

 

I'll say! Indeed they have legalized all kind of larceny, such as stock market fraud, but never you mind that.

Michael Bryant can get away with murder and now the cops actually attempt to apply the law in the case of Chen, which they can do because he is not from the elite strata, and then Chow poses a private members bill that basically legalizes vigilantism.

We can imagine all kinds of petty vendettas being prosecuted by folks who are unable to get proper satisfaction from the authorities defining for themselves what is a "reasonable period" of time for action, drunk people at parties discovering that their girlfriends purse is missing, and then tracking down the shady guy (who nobodies likes anyway) who left the party early, and beating him senseless, only to find out later the purse is under the couch. How long after your bike is stolen do you continue to have the right forcibly retrieve it from the person who purchased it unknowingly from the real thief?

"The law is on our side..." or so we thought... think... (did we really?) based on our conviction of how right we are in our estimation of the "facts".

Is it any wonder that the little people like Chen and Bennett want to acquire the same rights as those above them who run rampant over morality and make up the rules as they go along? The public will remain confused here on what their rights really are, as long as those above make corruption part of their daily practice, and the police are not even restrained by the laws they are supposed to uphold.

Quote:

Half of the reason we have police and courts is so that they can determine the real facts in a dispute between two parties from a more objective point of view separate from the personal bias, and beliefs of the parties.

That's why we have the [i]courts[/i], but not why we have the police. Chen wasn't replacing the courts. And as I say, I really doubt he had any personal desire to have to replace the police either.

@ Cueball

Not sure if that was all directed at me, but I do know it had nothing at all to do with what I said.

Not that I disagree with all of it, but I'm not sure why you're quoting me at the top of it.

Do I need to repeat yet again that I don't think that what Chen did was a good thing?

laine lowe wrote:

That makes it even worse in my view. But the fact that shoplifting is being painted as such a serious crime is very problematic for me.

Nobody would take it seriously if it happened rarely but when it happens constantly I can well imagine a shopkeeper starting to take it very seriously indeed.

Quite the revelation, laine. I had no idea that Peter Lindsay was the same Peter Lindsay who was Ernst Zundel's lead counsel in fighting against deportation. He's quite the hero of Stormfront and the other neo-nazi sites.

So I have two questions:

How did he come to be representing David Chen (who earns about $6.00 an hour, by his own account)?

Is Anthony Bennett African Canadian - or is that just my impression from watching the [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8HMdvoEHJM]video footage[/url]???

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I'm an independent shopkeeper myself, as I have mentioned a few times already. But that's not the only reason I have sympathy for him. Even before I got into retail I knew of businessowners and residents in similar situations. ... Seeing your business stolen out from under you, getting no help and feeling powerless to do anything? Yes, I have sympathy for him.

 

Those posting against the store owner don't seem to know much about the business environment of independent corner stores if at all. 

I know a store owner who works $70 hours a week and clears less than $2000/month. He is a lucky one.  I know 2 others who were clearning less than that and eventually went out of business.  When these small business owners sell an item for $10 which they paid $8.50 for and then a shoplifter comes along and steals a similar $10 item, they have to sell 6 more just to get back to zero on the stolen item.

What do you do when shoplifters habitually keep stealing from you knowing that the worst that can happen to them is to be caught and asked to put the loot back on the shelf? What do you do when you call the police countless times and none of the calls result in a shoplifter being charged because the police has more important work to do than to look for a shoplifter. It's out of this frustration that when one is caught there is a desire to tie them up so you can hand one in to the police.  Because otherwise the police is not providing a deterence to those who made a past time out of shoplifting. 

The exception to this, if you are big enough to be able to hire your own security guard, then police will deal seriously with shoplifters caught by security guards.  Unfortunately only big chains can do this.   The business environment is so unfavourable to small business owners many have been driven out of business.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Unionist

Sorry. I'm not sure where you're going with that. Might Lindsay's politics and personal motives embarrass some who have supported Chen?

No. Peter Lindsay is a high-profile defender of white supremacists, and Anthony Bennett is black, poor, a petty thief, and a drug addict. Explain to me why the MSM said nothing about Lindsay and why in the last 18 months they never mentioned that Bennett is black. We certainly heard a lot about Chen being hardworking and Chinese - just check every single article and babble for proof.

This is not about Chen. It's about those who are promoting the need to crack down on crime - the kind of crime universally committed by the poorest in the society.

How did Peter Lindsay end up with Chen? Who made that liaison?

Quote:

And I am leery about even guessing what you might be implying by raising the question of Mr. Bennet's race. Are you suggesting discrimination on the part of Chen? The judge?

Certainly not. How about the MSM?

Quote:

Lindsay?

Well, I wasn't suggesting that, but then, who knew he was a hero of Stormfront and their ilk? I didn't. Did you?

Quote:

If you are factually correct it certainly didn't dissuade the cops from arresting Chen, nor the crown from taking Bennet on as a witness.

... For which the police and the crown have been pilloried by every right-wing rag in the country - and still are today.

From the very start, this case has left a very dirty taste in my mouth - a rampage in favour of self-help and violence by businesspeople against petty criminals - with every single political party (Kenney, Volpe, Chow) scrambling to get on the bandwagon. Today, on television, I saw Olivia Chow sharing champagne with David Chen. This doesn't make some people sick. It makes me sick.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

On Lindsay, I agree he may have his own motives, and I agree his politics is a very interesting and unsettling sidenote. But again, it has no bearing on the actual incidents and the social environment which resulted in Mr. Chen being charged.

So you think the problem is Chen being charged, and I think the problem is a mass hysteria about how our justice system coddles criminals, turns them loose, and doesn't protect businesses, so they need to protect themselves.

Quote:

And it doesn't change my mind one bit about Chen's actions and motives, nor about the outcome.

Cueball corrected the perspective some time ago, as I mentioned. Why are you talking about Chen's actions and motives? Who mentioned his motives? He wanted to go catch someone who was stealing from him. Not rocket science. Explain to me, rather, the motives of Jason Kenney, Joe Volpe, Olivia Chow, the National Post, the Toronto Sun, et al. And then remind me how progressive people should view this whole phenomenon.

Quote:

And regarding Bennett's race, sorry, but I think you are reaching.

You knew he was a person of colour? Did anyone? I do believe we heard about Mr. Chen's national and racial identity once or twice. What's going on here?

Unionist wrote:

Cueball corrected the perspective some time ago, as I mentioned.

*sigh*

No.. Cueball has his perspective, some of which I agree with, and some of which I do not, but it is no more the final word on this than my opinion or yours.

and @ cruisin_turtle

Well, sometimes it makes no sense at all, actually. One day I walked out of the bank right across West Hastings from the cop shop to find a handgun tucked in the back spokes of my bike.

Bank. Handgun.

I sure as hell was not going to touch it, so I went back in the bank and told the security guard. He called the cops and we waited half an hour for them to not show up before he gave up, picked the gun off my bike himself, and I left.

6079_Smith_W:

Thanks for the link to the National Post article (10 kiwis for $1.29!).  I wonder if The Lucky Moose Food Mart also sells lottery tickets?

@ laine lowe

I am in complete agreement with your second paragraph. Dealing with the societal problems rather than busting the head of someone driven to frustration by them is what I have been arguing for all along.

(this part is not just for you, laine)

Or is it just that we should judge people's capacity for responsible behaviour based on social standing? Someone with a job or business should know better, and is an outrage when he makes a mistake, but (to use an example, not making assumptions about Bennett) a homeless person just can't be expected to know any better, learn or change.

@ autoworker

I believe the same words came out of the judge's mouth regardless of the paper in which the quote appears. Or is everyone playing the guilt by association game today?

(edit)

association after the fact... we must be playing the bonus round!

My understanding was they weren't going anywhere - they were using the van as a place to hold the suspect, like a holding cell.

Cueball is correct, according to what I've read:

Quote:

With Mr. Li at the wheel, Mr. Chen and Jie Chen struggled in the van with Mr. Bennett, whose repeated kicking damaged a rear door, he said. Along the way, Mr. Li spotted police officers on the street, and David Chen told him to stop and call them over.

Mr. Li complied, pulled over and summoned the officers, then went around to the van’s rear to open the doors. Mr. Chen then “saw the police approaching us. Then we were told to lie down.”

Crown prosecutor Eugene McDermott asked Mr. Chen, during cross-examination, why he felt it necessary to drive Mr. Bennett to the wholesale outlet rather than simply call police and wait, Mr. Chen said he was concerned the van was blocking traffic, and that he was unsure how long officers might take to arrive.

Also, it should be noted that Chen never called the police - a witness, Erasmus Lopez, called 911 when he saw them apprehend Bennett.

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/chinatown-grocer-te...

Cueball wrote:

So the police arrested Chen at the site of the van or elsewhere?

From what I read earlier, they detained Chen, his two employees, and Bennett right at the site of the van - put them on the ground, handcuffed them, etc. Obviously, having received a 911 call saying a group was tying up and kicking a man, they acted accordingly.

Cueball wrote:

I don't see what the big deal is really. If I were a cop I'd arrest everyone. I mean really, these guys were supposed to take Chen's story on face value, and take the chance that it was a drug deal gone wrong and Bennet was going to end up as fish food?

I don't think anyone here is questioning the arrest, and the police spokes person said exactly the same thing - that until they knew what was going on they had to act based on what they saw in front of them.

Disgusting.

No. Not really. The idea that one can create laws that precisely dictate the correct course of action in each and every circumstance, and that the law can then be applied in every single case, is patently absurd. This is why we have judges and juries. They take the general concept of the law, and then apply the discovered facts within that framework.

There is a lattitude determined by circumstance that is an important function of law.

Indeed, there is a pretty clear definition in play here, and the judge found in favour of the defense. What is the issue with the present law that need to be fixed? On the other hand it is also really important that there be a deterrent to people taking the law into their own hands all the time. Loosening the definition of the time frame so that action may be taken "within a reasonable time", as Chow proposed is totally stupid.

What amounts to a "reasonable time" could be anybodies guess. 2 days, a week, a month... please. This is making the law less clear, not more clear. And that will lead to lay people having reason to believe that they have the right to take action in all manner of cases, as they see fit.

A clear definition, that is then interpreted by a judge or jury for extenuating circumstances is far more preferable. Chow's law will have people arguing in court that they thought 24 hours was a "reasonable time".

I don't really have a big problem with the judges interpretation of the facts. And I don't really have a problem with Chen's actions, given the circumstance, and what we know. But I really think we want people to be circumspect about how much power they take into their own hands. Amendments to the law do not seem necessary to me. Justice was served by the present law, and the actions of the police and the courts.

But we really don't need people having a lot of lattitude in such cases. Stoping someone in the commission of a crime is good enough.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 

I think this is just our  PM looking for an opportunity to exploit this situation for his own purpose and control the agenda .... and fish for a few more votes.

I think aa few parties fit that bill.

Quote:

 Bennet made it possible by confessing that was his intent.

It's interesting that he owned up to it. Maybe there's hope for him. But it wasn't crucial:

Quote:

"Mr. Bennett was committing an indictable offence whether Mr. Chen found him red-handed (or not)," Khawly said in his verdict. "It's a no-brainer to infer that... he's back to continue his illegal activities."

Unless maybe he was overcome by shame and was returning to give Chen $60. But he'd probably have said so if that were the case, no?

Stigmatizing??

I'm just pointing out that while many people in his position would have denied that they came back to steal again, he owned up to it.  That's responsibility, and it's a [i]good[/i] thing, not a bad thing.

Snert wrote:

Stigmatizing??

I'm just pointing out that while many people in his position would have denied that they came back to steal again, he owned up to it.  That's responsibility, and it's a [i]good[/i] thing, not a bad thing.

Obviously he was an idiot for admiting that. He is obviously too stupid to know how the game is played to win in the system, and as such ends up stealing to compensate. Michael Bryant knows much better, since he is a trained legal professional.

Quote:

I am sure its very satisfying for people who have rarely, if ever, had to worry about where their next meal is coming from to be able to explain morality to those who rarely know, if ever, where their next meal is coming from.

So you figure he stole inedible plants -- from a food store -- so that he could sell them to buy food?