NDP will support Conservative bill allowing greater use of Citizen's Arrest

105 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Tue, 2011-01-25 08:59

Life, the unive...

Unionist wrote:

Life, the universe, everything wrote:
Do you think even good progressives have never had 'petty' or not so- crimes committed against them?

Yes. But that's not a huge problem in Canada today - except in Harper's playbook. Someone who disagrees with me and thinks crime is a huge problem in Canada, probably should vote for Harper.

Quote:

And Olivia Chow has been out there fighting for the poor and dispossessed for a very long time while a lot of us having been pounding off on our computers.

Then why did she propose a bill to solve Mr. Chen's problem, but not Mr. Bennett's? Why was apprehension of the criminal her first and only priority? Why didn't she speak out - then and there - about poverty, race, disability (addiction), treatment, prevention? Why only about apprehension?

I think her heart is in the right place. It's her head that's screwed on wrong. If she compromises with Harper's agenda on crime, and forgets what the source and solution to petty social crime is, then she and her party will lose. That's my opinion.

Talking about crime is not Harper's agenda. Real people in real lives are affected by crime. Trying to deal with their problems is responsible and progressive. Chow has said a great deal over the years and recently about poverty, housing and many other issues, but that doesn't fit into your constant framing attempts so you ignore it. She has been particularly eloquent on how we deal with the mentally ill in society, but again you ignore this. She walks the walk while others pound away on their keyboards.

The Harper agenda is pretend violent crime is right around the corner waiting for you. Harper's agenda is building more prisons as they divert prisoners away from things like the prison farms program. Harper's agenda is to create fear of the 'other'.

What Olivia Chow has suggested is a million, million miles away from that. All Chow did was try to help a victim of crime deal with the issues surrounding that incident and to make sure no one else gets caught up in that again. It was a responsible and thoughtful response to a small problem that clearly needs fixing.

But agian you don't actually care about that because your whole routine is a constant, bungling attempt to frame the NDP and to attack babblers under the radar so you can pretend to have some sort of higher moral ground.

Tue, 2011-01-25 10:09

#53

Boom Boom

Unionist wrote:
I think her heart is in the right place. It's her head that's screwed on wrong. If she compromises with Harper's agenda on crime, and forgets what the source and solution to petty social crime is, then she and her party will lose. That's my opinion.

Is Chow really in danger of losing her seat? That's news to me. Not sure how the party will lose, other than being confined to fourth place in the HofC as usual. But I agree with your sentiments - the NDP should concentrate on root causes of poverty and the root causes of petty crimes, not go along with Harper's playbook. But it does sound to me like she's between a rock and a hard place on this particular issue.

Tue, 2011-01-25 10:58

#54

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Quote:
The police have always had authority to arrest people without warrants in certain situations, particularly when the police catch someone in the act of comitting a crime or emergency situations.

There's a difference....As it stands raids,for example,need the proper paperwork(hence warrants)or the case is null and void.

Re-writing the criminal code so that arrests can be made without warrants is yet another blow to civil liberties.

I don't think anyone is arguing a situation where someone is in the act of committing a crime..The issue,to me anyway,is this bill is worded in a way that will be perverted and exploited by the Reform Party and it encourages vigilanteism.

I have to agree with those who believe that petty crime should be dealt with at its root element and not in a fashion which legitimizes the Reform Party's unfounded,dishonest and imaginary stance on Canada's 'crime problem'

I think most will agree that scrapping the census and building prisons will artificially increase our extremely low crime rates to give the illusion that the billions of dollars the Reform Party will be spending on this issue is justified.

It almost makes me wonder if the ghost of Doug Henning is hovering over the Commons.

Tue, 2011-01-25 11:05

#55

Boom Boom

Concentrating on petty crime while major corporate crime and tax evasion go unpunished is a Conservative tactic. Gotta fill those new prisons somehow.

Tue, 2011-01-25 11:38

#56

Life, the unive...

That's right Olivia Chow and no one else in the NDP has ever said anything about poverty, lack of social supports, addictions or any of that stuff. It has been all law and order all of the time

What a bizarre fantasy land some of you folks live in. I would strongly suggest getting out more.

Tue, 2011-01-25 11:43

#57

George Victor

You are forgetting that the messages going out on TV attack ads are the only input that the average masses will have. THey won't be into your more esoteric reasoning. I believe 48 per cent of them would vote in favour of the death penalty. It's too bad, but the politician today has to work with what's out there, or just go through the motions that you advocate. Very satisfying to one's conscience, I'm sure, even as the bastards bring back the really hardcore penalties by having a majority in Parliament.

We cross posted of course, LtU.

Tue, 2011-01-25 11:54

#58

Boom Boom

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

That's right Olivia Chow and no one else in the NDP has ever said anything about poverty, lack of social supports, addictions or any of that stuff. It has been all law and order all of the time

What a bizarre fantasy land some of you folks live in. I would strongly suggest getting out more.

A+ for hyperbole.

Tue, 2011-01-25 12:00

#59

Life, the unive...

That's right, the comments above are rational argument, while pointing out their over the top nature on a minor issue is hyperbole. Good one.

Tue, 2011-01-25 12:02

#60

Life, the unive...

By the way this site wouldn't exist without hypebole and nervous nellies- so before you slag others have a look in the mirror.

Tue, 2011-01-25 12:12

#61

George Victor

The Achilles' Hell...er Heel.

Tue, 2011-01-25 12:21

#62

Boom Boom

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!"

Tue, 2011-01-25 12:43

#63

Snert

Quote:
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?

Tue, 2011-01-25 12:50

#64

kropotkin1951

Quote:

or a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes has committed such an offence.

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."

Tue, 2011-01-25 12:55

#65

George Victor

Inscrutable reasoning at work here.

Tue, 2011-01-25 12:56

#66

Slumberjack

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.

Tue, 2011-01-25 13:00

#67

Catchfire

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!

Tue, 2011-01-25 13:10

#68

remind

alan smithee wrote:
The ' anyone can arrest without warrant' point disturbs me.

Maybe it's not Chow's intention but once the Cons get their hands on this,I think they are going to exploit that point of the bill.

Hence an increase in warrantless raids and arrests.

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.

Tue, 2011-01-25 13:16

#69

kropotkin1951

remind wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
The ' anyone can arrest without warrant' point disturbs me.

Maybe it's not Chow's intention but once the Cons get their hands on this,I think they are going to exploit that point of the bill.

Hence an increase in warrantless raids and arrests.

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.

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?

Tue, 2011-01-25 13:17

#70

George Victor

Catchfire wrote:

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!

Drop by more often.

Tue, 2011-01-25 13:18

#71

kropotkin1951

Quote:

Arrest by owner, etc., of property

(2) Any one who is

(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or

(b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property,

may, within a reasonable period, arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property or a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes has committed such an offence.

Delivery to peace officer

(3) Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.

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.

Tue, 2011-01-25 13:25

#72

Snert

Quote:
Yup this is a righteous issue to expend the very limited capital of the NDP on.

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.

Quote:
And if a shopkeepers grounds are not really reasonable then what?

Then they're open to arrest or conviction of their own JUST LIKE BEFORE.

Tue, 2011-01-25 13:31

#73

remind

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.

Tue, 2011-01-25 13:35

#74

relic

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".

Tue, 2011-01-25 14:22

#75

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

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.

Tue, 2011-01-25 14:25

#76

Boom Boom

I thought Harper's wet dream is to get 'property rights' in the Charter or Constitution or whatever.

Tue, 2011-01-25 14:32

#77

Slumberjack

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.

Tue, 2011-01-25 14:43

#78

kropotkin1951

remind wrote:

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.

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.

Tue, 2011-01-25 14:50

#79

Snert

Quote:

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.

Tue, 2011-01-25 15:15

#80

Bacchus

kropotkin1951 wrote:

If I am not mistaken mall security guards are supposed to be trained and licensed. Apples or oranges this morning Remind?

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

Tue, 2011-01-25 15:33

#81

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

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!

Tue, 2011-01-25 16:15

#82

kropotkin1951

So you got about half the training of a modern cop?

Tue, 2011-01-25 16:23

#83

kropotkin1951

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?

Tue, 2011-01-25 16:29

#84

Bacchus

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So you got about half the training of a modern cop?

Well I guess. Didnt get a gun so no training there. Their tests are longer though and a lot more stupidly psychological

Tue, 2011-01-25 16:31

#85

Aristotleded24

M. Spector wrote:
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.

They already can in emergency situations.

Tue, 2011-01-25 16:34

#86

Bacchus

Yes but only if they think you are committing an felony, not had or were going to

Tue, 2011-01-25 16:38

#87

Fidel

That's okay our stooges criminalized dissent at the G20 with snipers on rooftops and provocateurs in the streets.

Tue, 2011-01-25 16:46

#88

Fidel

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.

Tue, 2011-01-25 16:52

#89

Life, the unive...

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.

Tue, 2011-01-25 16:53

#90

Snert

Quote:
You have no right to disparage my commitment to a party that you probably have never put any energy into.

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.

Quote:
Carry on with discussing increasing arrest powers from a progressive viewpoint.

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).

Tue, 2011-01-25 16:58

#91

Aristotleded24

Bacchus wrote:
Yes but only if they think you are committing an felony, not had or were going to

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 [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxsFjR_JdGY&feature=channel]running away from the police[/url] gives them legal grounds to go after you.

Tue, 2011-01-25 17:13

#92

Fidel

What if I see some guy in black pygamas with "NATO" printed across his back, and he's there running some wire away from a train station to a shadowy spot and what looks like a detonator tee box? Should I try to arrest him? Blow my whistle? Mind my own business and carry on toward the porn shop, I mean, vegetable market?

Tue, 2011-01-25 17:15

#93

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

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.

Excuse me,buddy but I don't know where you live but I'd be happy to bring you around to some depanneurs in my neighbourhood--then you can call me a liar.

As a matter of FACT,I cashed a cheque at an Insta-Cheque on Atwater near Notre Dame and they had a SAWED OFF SHOTGUN behind the glass...Not blatantly out for everyone to see but it was there...I don't think I was meant to see it.

Again,merchants have the right to protect their businesses,if not,there'd be NO security guards,NO cameras and NO baseball bats.

As for all of us 'living in a fantasy land'...I'd say the REFORM PARTY is.

Case in point--Stockwell Day...The man who brushed aside the fact that our crime rate has been on the decline for 20 years,pulled the 'unreported crime' statistic out of his ass.

The idiot is also quoted as saying he saw some woman talking to a heavy set man on the street and was CONVINCED it was some sort of drug deal.

THIS is the point...More powers to the police,more powers to would be vigilantes and we can all act on bullshit statistics and profiling the entire populous..Conduct raids and arrests on simple suspicions.

Nobody is saying that criminals should have all the rights---That's the Reform Party's mantra in selling their fascist crime agenda.

I think most are OPPOSED to a POLICE STATE...Atleast I am.

Tue, 2011-01-25 17:15

#94

NDPP

don't worry about NATO - jack layton supports it and if there's any problems he'll 'transform it from within'..

Tue, 2011-01-25 17:21

#95

Fidel

Never mind. NATO is just fine the way it is.

Tue, 2011-01-25 17:38

#96

Life, the unive...

alan smithee wrote:

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

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.

Excuse me,buddy but I don't know where you live but I'd be happy to bring you around to some depanneurs in my neighbourhood--then you can call me a liar.

As a matter of FACT,I cashed a cheque at an Insta-Cheque on Atwater near Notre Dame and they had a SAWED OFF SHOTGUN behind the glass...Not blatantly out for everyone to see but it was there...I don't think I was meant to see it.

Either you are full of crap or the owner of that store is dead on stupid. Such a thing would violate a wheel-barrow load of laws in Canada. Heck it might even be a pick up truck load. And if you could see it others could and they would be in for a world of hurt and legal troubles. A sawed off shotgun - where do you think we are in Dodge?

I worked as a delivery person travelling from store to store for a few years. I was behind the counter, in the back rooms, and talked to store owners. Never saw a bat, a stick, a gun or a single weapon beyond a direct line button to a security agent. Clarifying the rules for when they try to stop someone from ripping them off is not a police state. That is the world of conspiracy theory nutcases.

You know the other thing I saw was store owners passing on things for free to people who needed help. They did it all the time. But that doesn't mean they should have to turn a blind eye to people who steal from them. Ignoring that is not progressive

Tue, 2011-01-25 18:00

#97

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Conspiracy nut cases...Nuff said.

Words come to mind but I'm not going to indulge you.

Think what you want old wise and all knowing,I have nothing to say to you and I will not even ever acknowledge you again.

We're done.

Tue, 2011-01-25 18:07

#98

Fidel

gah!

Tue, 2011-01-25 18:10

#99

Fidel

Sawed-offs are illegal. He'd have to hide it really well. Cops would be all over him if they ever suspected he had any gun within reach.

This isn't the states. At least not yet. Harpers are working on it though.

Tue, 2011-01-25 18:14

#100

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I never said sawed offs are legal...I know damn well they aren't..I was making a point that some merchants already take things into their own hands.

Gee,imagine that...a business breaking the law.

Years later on the same street,just up closer to St Antoine,Atwater Pizza was raided because it was found out that their 'special' was code for heroin.

I don't appreciate being called a liar...Deal with the fact that these things exist...Or continue walking around with your head up your ass.(that last bit was directed at the idiot who called me a conspiracy nut)

Tue, 2011-01-25 18:25

#101

Fidel

Conspiracy just means two or more people plotting to break the law. And elected members of governments have done it throughout history off and on. It's no big deal if you are on the right side of the law so to speak.

Pages

Topic locked