[archanfel]

Kelly McParland at National Post wrote an interesting piece on the on-going David Chen assault trial.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...id-chen-learns-the-canadian-word-for-justice/

Sympathy for the guy aside (I think he did the right thing), I am kind of surprised by the attack on law from a right wing paper.

Gee, Ontario justice system, we sure are impressed that you decided to enlist this guy to go after an honest shopkeeper who tried to stop the guy from stealing from him. Boy do we support the idea that David Chen should be made an example of, because otherwise honest people might think they had a right to protect themselves from people like Bennett. And we can’t have that.

I am rooting for this guy too and I hope his name is cleared (which pretty much happened based on the testimonies). However, I would be far more afraid if the law is not blind and carries prejudice like Mr. McParland does. If any "honest" people can use any method he think is justified to "protect" himself, the society would be a lot scarier than a few thieves running around. The law is the law. If you don't agree with law, you can change it. And maybe that's warranted here (although again, the fact seems to suggest the law worked just fine). However, putting righteousness above the law is a very slippery slope that I am not sure Mr. McParland wants to go down on.

I do think Canadian laws are too nice. Criminals are not punished nearly severe enough and even when they are prisoned, they do not learn the skills that would allow them to reintegrate with the society. However, a law is a law. Canada is a democratic country and we have a process to pass laws. We also have a court system that use precedents to explain laws. Does Mr. McParland really wants a society where "honest people might think they had a right to protect themselves from people like Bennett"?

I hope David Chen clears his name and I hope he will still hold a positive view of the Canadian justice system.

 

[Observer Walt]

I think most would agree with you. No responsible person supports vigilante action, but that's not what this was. The police did not come to Mr. Chen's assistance, and he did only what was reasonable, IMO.

 

[archanfel]

I think most would agree with you. No responsible person supports vigilante action, but that's not what this was. The police did not come to Mr. Chen's assistance, and he did only what was reasonable, IMO.

I don't disagree. However, while my opinion should be considered in the legislative process (however small a contribution factor it is), it shouldn't matter in the judicial process. It's up to the court to decide what's reasonable and what's not reasonable.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I think most would agree with you. No responsible person supports vigilante action, but that's not what this was. The police did not come to Mr. Chen's assistance, and he did only what was reasonable, IMO.

Maybe not in Toronto, but I'd say in many other places, vigilantism should in fact be applauded.

However, this is just stupid. The idea opposing vigilantism is that the police are far better equipped to deal with criminals than regular people. But Chen called the police 20 minutes before, and received no help. The people pressing these charges should really be ashamed of themselves.

 

[GraphicMatt]

To play devil's advocate, what if Chen had incorrectly identified an innocent man on the street as someone who earlier robbed his store, then held that person in captivity for a period of time. Would Chen be guilty of a crime then?

 

[Redroom Studios]

well, you can introduce what if's into any argument... what if the police catch the wrong guy? it happens all the time. I think that one of the problems with our society is that we get caught up in 'the letter of the law' rather than supporting 'the spirit of the law'. This is why criminals can get off on technicalities when there is clear evidence of their guilt. In this case I am 100% behind the shop keeper based on common sense. Keeping with the spirit of the law, this guy was not tortured or held arbitrarily or for an extravagent length of time. It made me laugh to hear that he felt scared about what might happen to him... well hey, dont engage in criminal behaviour and life will be a lot less stressful for you! hmmm, shades of the whiny G20 protestors...

 

[GraphicMatt]

The 'common sense' stuff is all well and good but ultimately laws need to be about specifics. I think Chen's case should get dismissed - it should have been dismissed a long time ago - but this kind of vigilante thing is a dangerous road to go down.

Do you really want to live in a world where any shopkeeper can accuse you of stealing, lock you in his van, and then when the police show up they simply take his word for it and charge you with a crime?

A separate issue is that Chen had previously lost faith in the police service's ability to respond to criminal activity in his store. That's very problematic and deserves attention.

 

[Redroom Studios]

does anyone know what the laws are regarding citizens arrest in Canada/Ontario? I'm sure its been mentioned in the news reports but I'm not able to recall at the moment. If citizens arrest is legal in this jurisdiction then clearly thats all that Chen was trying to do. And yes I'm sure there was a lot of built up frustration in his actions.

I do hear your point about the slippery slope regarding vigilante actions... though it doesnt register to my mind that there is some great appetite for such actions that is currently being held back by the law. Conversely there is a huge demand for marijuana being acted out regardless of the current law. My point is that actions and desires do not necessarily equate with laws or perceived weakness of enforcement. I think any such case as this needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Anyone detaining another person without just cause would clearly be outside of the law.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

could be worse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPUCtnLRNPE#t=2m10s

 

[Therion]

If he did something wrong, he should be tried, but to me the real travesty is that the thief (who has 40 convictions for a wide range of crimes) got a deal to testify against the shopkeeper. He's the dude who started the whole thing!

 

[duper]

David Chen learns the Canadian word for ‘justice’

What word is that?

 

[doady]

What word is that?

Maybe it would have made more sense for the headline to say "David Chen learns the Canadian meaning of ‘justice’ " But what did you expect, it is the National Post. So yeah..

 

[Voltz]

If he did something wrong, he should be tried, but to me the real travesty is that the thief (who has 40 convictions for a wide range of crimes) got a deal to testify against the shopkeeper. He's the dude who started the whole thing!

An even greater travesty was that the scumbag was even out on the streets to begin with, he should have been given a life sentence a long time ago.

 

[toraerach]

does anyone know what the laws are regarding citizens arrest in Canada/Ontario? I'm sure its been mentioned in the news reports but I'm not able to recall at the moment. If citizens arrest is legal in this jurisdiction then clearly thats all that Chen was trying to do. And yes I'm sure there was a lot of built up frustration in his actions.

A citizen's arrest is legal only when the criminal is caught in the act and arrested immediately. Chen would have done nothing wrong, according to the law, had he made a citizen's arrest in his store when he caught the thief in the act. The problem was that the thief left and Chen did not pursue. When a citizen gives up pursuit, he/she is no longer legally allowed to make a citizen's arrest (unless the criminal was at that point fleeing from a police officer).

 

[archanfel]

A citizen's arrest is legal only when the criminal is caught in the act and arrested immediately. Chen would have done nothing wrong, according to the law, had he made a citizen's arrest in his store when he caught the thief in the act. The problem was that the thief left and Chen did not pursue. When a citizen gives up pursuit, he/she is no longer legally allowed to make a citizen's arrest (unless the criminal was at that point fleeing from a police officer).

Exactly. However, the thief did acknowledged that he went back to steal more flowers, so that kind of destroyed the prosecutor's case. Oh, wasn't that sweet.