Law Enforcement. The Good , The Bad and The Abusive

HughFreakingDillon said:

so let's flip this: in Winnipeg, a man stole a coat from a store with a wallet and fob in it. He returned a half hour later to steal the car. Staff from the store were (it seems) laying in wait, and severely assaulted him. He is now suing the store and the staff for injuries and because now he's always sad. 

I'm admittedly on the fence about this. I'm against corporal punishment, but I'm also pro FAFO. 

Man sues Winnipeg grocer alleging 'egregious assault' by staff as he tried to steal car outside store

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so let's flip this: in Winnipeg, a man stole a coat from a store with a wallet and fob in it. He returned a half hour later to steal the car. Staff from the store were (it seems) laying in wait, and severely assaulted him. He is now suing the store and the staff for injuries and because now he's always sad. 

I'm admittedly on the fence about this. I'm against corporal punishment, but I'm also pro FAFO. 

Man sues Winnipeg grocer alleging 'egregious assault' by staff as he tried to steal car outside store

***If it were to me, I wouldn't award him anything. His injuries were the direct result of his own actions. And still charge him with attempted auto theft.***

That was my initial reaction before reading the story. They fractured his skull and used a hammer, that is way excessive, especially the hammer. I believe you should be allowed to use reasonable force to prevent someone from stealing your car, but not potentially lethal force. If I see someone trying to steal my car I should be allowed to tackle him if that is what is needed to prevent him from doing it or to perform a citizen's arrest (which the article also states). But not beat him with a hammer.

shecky said:

Can you imagine having to deal with this shit as your job? Not an effing chance!
Next time you see a cop, thank them.

Gern Blansten said:

shecky said:

Can you imagine having to deal with this shit as your job? Not an effing chance!
Next time you see a cop, thank them.

Thank them for doing a job that they signed up for? Sure....

nicknyr15 said:

Gern Blansten said:

shecky said:

Can you imagine having to deal with this shit as your job? Not an effing chance!
Next time you see a cop, thank them.

Thank them for doing a job that they signed up for? Sure....

Thank them for signing up to do the job. I mean you don’t have to but let’s be honest…. Are you signing up? Me? No. Thankfully, they do. 

nicknyr15 said:

Gern Blansten said:

shecky said:

Can you imagine having to deal with this shit as your job? Not an effing chance!
Next time you see a cop, thank them.

Thank them for doing a job that they signed up for? Sure....

Thank them for signing up to do the job. I mean you don’t have to but let’s be honest…. Are you signing up? Me? No. Thankfully, they do. 

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

https://johnhoward.ca/blog/problem-with-bail-not-what-we-are-being-told/

I do agree, however, that giving bail to a contract attempted murderer is atrocious. I don't care what age. 

Part of the problem here (Ontario) is that the jails are already full, leading to more bail being granted. What’s completely baffling is judges or justices who release repeat offenders.

This would seem a reasonable bail model (for most charges?): first offence you get reasonable bail, if you reoffend, harsh bail. Third arrest is automatic remand. I’d even be comfortable with a condition of the first level being automatic detention on a second arrest.

It was the guy in your profile pic at the moment (Justin Trudeau) that early in his first term passed legislation requiring racialized or minority accused to be granted bail “under the least onerous conditions”, which surely hasn’t helped. The kid in the column is only an outlier because he’s 12, usually they tend to be 14-16 here in Toronto, but these stories are sadly far too common, both bail and youth crime (from both sides of the lens).

7. Why were changes made to our bail system in 2019?

In 2019, the Criminal Code was amended to clarify the law of bail and to make bail proceedings more efficient. These amendments were debated in and voted on in Parliament and the changes were informed by extensive consultation with the provinces and territories. In these consultations, the provinces and territories raised issues of delays in the criminal justice system and agreed on the need for targeted criminal law reform.

The amendments also respond to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions on bail. The Criminal Code was changed to modernize the bail regime, while ensuring public safety, and to help maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.

These Criminal Code reforms were designed to: 

• streamline the bail process by increasing the types of conditions police can impose on an accused to avoid sending cases to court where this is not necessary
• provide guidance to police on the need to impose reasonable, relevant and necessary conditions that are related to the offence and consistent with the principles of bail and the Charter
• codify a “principle of restraint” that exists in common law for police and courts to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention, where appropriate, and that only reasonable bail conditions are imposed on an accused, having regard to public safety
• clarify that circumstances of Indigenous accused and accused from vulnerable overrepresented populations, such as Black communities, should be considered at bail in order to address the disproportionate impacts that the bail system has on these populations

Addressing intimate partner violence and repeat offenders

The Criminal Code was also amended to address bail in the context where an accused is charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence (violence that is used, threatened, or attempted against a person’s current or former spouse, common-law partner, or dating partner) and to ensure courts have the accused’s criminal history before making a bail decision, so that the full facts can be understood before a decision is reached on bail.

Specifically, the amendments:

• created a reverse onus at bail for accused charged with a violent offence involving an intimate partner, where they have a prior conviction for an offence involving violence against an intimate partner
• require courts to consider:
  1. whether the accused is charged with an offence in which violence was used, threatened or attempted against their intimate partner
  2. whether the accused has been previously convicted of a criminal offence

These amendments make it more difficult for an accused person to get bail where a pattern of violence against an intimate partner is being alleged. They reflect Parliament’s recognition of intimate partner violence as a serious issue and they strengthen the way that Canada’s bail system responds to such violence by providing better protection for victims.

8. Why were changes made to our bail system in 2023?

In 2023, changes were made to the Criminal Code’s bail regime to address serious repeat violent offending, promote community safety, and reinforce public confidence in the administration of justice. These changes were developed in close collaboration with the provinces and territories, who play a critical role in administering the bail system and ensuring that it operates as intended. The amendments were also informed by engagement with law enforcement, community organizations, and other key partners and stakeholders. Furthermore, they were developed while being mindful of Charter rights, including the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. These amendments took effect on January 4, 2024.

Reforms to the bail system

The reforms to the bail system involve targeted amendments to the Criminal Code’s bail regime that are designed to enhance public safety and address repeat violent offending at the bail stage.

Specifically, the amendments:

• create a reverse onus (meaning that the onus shifts to the accused person to convince the court that they should be released, rather than detained, while awaiting their trial) to target serious repeat violent offending involving weapons
• expand the list of firearms offences that trigger a reverse onus
• broaden the reverse onus targeting repeat offenders in cases of intimate partner violence
• clarify that the definition of a “prohibition order” under the Criminal Code includes a bail release order made by a court that imposes conditions prohibiting an accused from being in possession of firearms and other weapons, to promote greater clarity in the reverse onus provisions
• require courts to consider for any bail decision whether an accused has a history of convictions for violence
• require courts to state on the record that they have considered the safety and security of the community when making a bail order, to ensure that this concern has been evaluated
• require courts to state on the record for any bail decision how they have considered the particular circumstances of Indigenous accused and accused from vulnerable overrepresented populations, as required by section 493.2 of the Criminal Code

Court records show 26-year-old Tyrone Simard was charged with assault with a weapon and mischief for alleged offences that happened June 8.

The records show a Winnipeg court granted his release June 12 with various conditions, including a curfew and an order to not use drugs or alcohol or possess weapons.