Canadian PC

[Yahoshua]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/shoplifter_odd_dc;_ylt=AiGL2vDmF_VVGGUtbsW6is_tiBI F

[fatty]

Sorry, but how is this PC?

[Yahoshua]

Thief robs store. Thief sues for "personal injury" incurred while in the commission of a crime. Thief wins more in the lawsuit than the theif could've gained by stealing.

PC.

[Tchocky]

There's not enough info there to label it "PC". He may have a case, if beaten severely enough to lose a tooth.

Or of course this could be a moneygrabbing opportunity.

[fatty]

Thief robs store. Thief sues for "personal injury" incurred while in the commission of a crime. Thief wins more in the lawsuit than the theif could've gained by stealing.

PC.

The article makes no mention of ethnicity, culture, class, etc. I'm afraid your definition of PC is slightly askew.

[Etienne]

There is such a thing as justifiable and proportionate use of force.

Shop lifter loosing a tooth (And possibly more, if he has trouble speaking) over 109$? Unless he was seriously aggressive, it's way over the top.

[fatty]

There is such a thing as justifiable and proportionate use of force.

Shop lifter loosing a tooth (And possibly more, if he has trouble speaking) over 109$? Unless he was seriously aggressive, it's way over the top.

If he was called aside and ran I could see it as being okay. Unfortunately, as Tchocky said, the article does not provide much information. Except that he "struggled."

[Tchocky]

PC describes discourse, not legal right. Let's take the extreme case. The security guards beat the shoplifter excessively, after they had subdued him. That is wrong, and the guards should be tried. nothing PC about it, "PC" as a phrase is overused, as something to grab at when angry

[P_Funk]

Me I'm proud that I live in that city. It proves that our judiciary isn't so right wing or draconian that we just dismiss immediately anyone that isn't on the right side of the law. Just because you break the law doesn't mean that you lose your rights.

Brilliant.:yep:

And as for PC, I don't get the connection. Seems as if someone is trying to start a titch over an old subject.

[baggygreen]

Im sorry i just find it reprehensible that a criminal can sue, claim or do whatever else, and the victim is forced to pay out.

If someone is committing a crime, how are they then protected by the law? they've gone and chosen that the law isnt for them, but then turn around and demand its protection.... hypocracy?

[The Avon Lady]

Im sorry i just find it reprehensible that a criminal can sue, claim or do whatever else, and the victim is forced to pay out.

If someone is committing a crime, how are they then protected by the law? they've gone and chosen that the law isnt for them, but then turn around and demand its protection.... hypocracy?
I'm not a bleeding heart myself but there is such a thing as overkill.

Say, for example, you pin down a criminal and decide that to make sure he doesn't run away, you hack off one of his legs.

There are limits and there should be.

However, in this particular case, there is no clear explanation for the size of the reward and what was called "excessive force." Sometimes the problem is which or whose "force" meter do you rely upon?

[P_Funk]

Sometimes the problem is which or whose "force" meter do you rely upon? My experience with Police, particularly the RCMP, is that they cannot be trusted. There are long running corruption issues with the RCMP and there is a lack of oversight. In the last 10 years there have been countless cases of excessive force and even suspicious fatalities in police custody, just in BC. One man had all his front teeth knocked out by a cop for doing nothing. It was caught on tape. Then theres that kid up north in BC that was shot in the back of the head while in police custody. The inquiry was conducted by other RCMP. Those are just highlights off the top of my head.

I don't trust the police by default around here since it is the nature of their position to abuse power. If not so then why the need for a division of powers? Until things are clear, I look at the cops with total caution.

[STEED]

Thief robs store. Thief sues for "personal injury" incurred while in the commission of a crime. Thief wins more in the lawsuit than the theif could've gained by stealing.

PC.

I'm not sure if it's PC but one thing is for sure the law is a ass.

We get the same thing here, a man chased a bank robber down the street and grappled him to the ground and what happen. The bank robber pressed charges of assault and wilfully damage to his clothing and the poor bloke who took him on had to pay for a new jacket.

This is not the first time this sort of story has popped up on the news.

[baggygreen]

Oh yes, i do speak in very broad terms AL - for example, using batons on a tax-evading granny is too much. I do agree that force should be appropriate - but i also think appropriate oughta be taken in terms of the situation, not viewed cooly in a courtroom.

A recent example from here (well sydney, but close enough to here) is that 2 men entered a home of an older gentleman one night. they were armed with knives, he took a baseball bat and knocked one cold, the other ran. He was charged with GBH and criticised for using unreasonable force, because "there was no way he coulda known they were armed".

:doh:

[P_Funk]

A recent example from here (well sydney, but close enough to here) is that 2 men entered a home of an older gentleman one night. they were armed with knives, he took a baseball bat and knocked one cold, the other ran. He was charged with GBH and criticised for using unreasonable force, because "there was no way he coulda known they were armed".

:doh:
Thats just moronic. I'm no gun nut but I believe that you have every right to defend your home. However this case in Canada I don't think, though the full story isn't presented, sounds like it might be justifiable. Police brutality is a real thing. You should never discount it.

As for the "cold courtroom", well... its cold for a reason. Courts are the sober second thought to the fast paced adrenaline power trip that is police work. You need to take things into a calm environment and examine them. I shudder to think of my country just trusting the police implicitly.

[TteFAboB]

Hold on fellas, this has nothing to do with the police. The guy lost a tooth to the store's security guards. Like STEED's and the other examples here, they all happened with people outside the umbrella of a corporation, the state and possibily even the government.

Had them been police officers perhaps they'd have a chance in court, somebody could turn a blind eye, etc. Since they were random people and the state's law was already against them (as proven by the courts) and could even have the hand of a government aswell they had no chance at all.

This guy probably explained in detail how exactly he lost the tooth and precisely how the "struggle" took place, step by step. The line between dissuading use of excessive force and dissuading people from stopping criminals is a very difficult one not to cross either way. The details would make it alot easier. Was it an accident or was it a punch? If it was it a deliberate punch, was that punch a counter-attack to his own punches or the first strike of the "struggle"? These details must be all over the case's records, is there any way to access them?

[Heibges]

Police, like that military, at least have training in appropriate use of force. There are certainly times when it is abused, but there are a few hundred thousand police in the United States so you have to keep it in perspective.

The proliferation of Private Security guards is troubling. With relatively little training you see these guys carrying guns.

[P_Funk]

What kind of guy do you think becomes a security guard usually?:p