Thursday, February 17, 2011

"Use Force If Necessary"?

I'll let the legal scholars dive further into this, but just had to comment.

Really. Do we want vigilante justice?

Remember, the law already acquitted Mr. Chen of any wrong-doing in protecting his restaurant. In other words, our legal system (much maligned by the Conservatives) DID ITS JOB. It worked.

So why the Harper "show-boating"? Well, hoping to find votes in Toronto for one.

But, there is another, more hidden agenda at work here. It's not about law and order. It's a hidden wish that more Canadians would take justice into their own hands. Forget reducing crime (their methods fail at that), this is a wish by the Conservatives to have an armed electorate - very much like the US electorate.

They will also - keep in mind - keep up their fight for reduced firearm regulations. They keep partying with the NRA crowd. They want (and love) the "Wild West" mentality. "Hanging sheriffs" will be next - Harper's already began musing publicly about bringing back the death penalty.

Many support Chen's handling of the theft at this store. Still, given different circumstances, and different actors, this drama may have played out MUCH uglier. Public lives are in danger. Imagine, a purse theft at a ball game. Imagine a gang of players with bats chasing down the villian. Imagine a little kid getting in the way of the swinging bats (or fists)?

Are members of the public trained to handle such situations? Should we hope that members of the public jump up and do battle with masked bank robbers?

Hopefully not.

I cringe at the day when we see Prairie bumper stickers with "protected by Smith & Wesson", and find that they really mean something. It's bad enough that every self-proclaimed gun-lovin' redneck feels they have to have one, or the "trespassers will be shot" signs along with the de rigueur "Pitt Bull On Duty" signage.

post signatureVICTORY FUND


The Rat said...

Is it really such a horrid concept that citizens should be ALLOWED to protect themselves? The concept of organized police is relatively new, you know. And even then the police aren't actually there to protect you, they are there to enforce the law and investigate crime. Until a crime is committed they aren't likely to help you. Under Canadian law today citizens are obligated to retreat before force, even inside their own home, and are unable to use force to protect property. So yes, this redneck gun owner feels that when someone decides to commit a criminal act in the presence of other citizens it should be acceptable for those citizens to act reasonably to defend themselves and their property. I'm not advocating for firearms use in all circumstances but neither am i willing to concede them only to the criminal in front of me and the police who are miles away. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away...

CanadianSense said...

If you mean nearly bankrupting honest hard working citizens from criminals working than I would prefer a return to a time before the Liberals swung the system to favour the criminals.

Same with the Human rights commissions.

Anonymous said...

Just wait till we rid of that gun registry. yee haw. Where's that Assange character? We'll just give him one from Flanagan!

WesternGrit said...

Rat: The police said it best themselves yesterday: stay out of our way and let us do our work. You want trained professionals when you have surgery. Why not when you need a crime prevented, or solved? Is it the macho imagery that just "turns you on" so much? Is it the horrible feeling of being unsafe in Stephen Harper's Canada - when ALL crime rates are falling, and have been for almost 30 years?

Yes, Harper and his ilk love to scare the shit out of people to elicit "fear-voting". But, in reality, do we really want a society based on "The Running Man", or "Tombstone"? I would say we have evolved past that.

"Sense": Crime rates began to lower after the end of capital punishment. They continued to lower with the introduction of programs to actually do something with kids who used to just loiter or hang out at corner stores (community centers, training programs). They lowered further as we began programs of retraining criminals and rehabilitating them (which is a PROVEN method of returning these people to society). Your fear-mongering government doesn't want to listen to the stats - they just want their ideology pushed. They want their friends to build super-prisons for them, a population living in fear - so people keep voting for the self-styled tough on crime (bullshit) party.

WesternGrit said...

And yes Rat, it is a horrid concept. We are not near-barbarians living in the Dark Ages.

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

CanadianSense said...


the fear mongering is being done by the progressives.

I am comfortable with having criminals staying in our prisons longer. Every opposition party jumps on the bandwagon when they think it might collapse their vote.

You can argue community centre and billions for hugging them.

Law abiding citizens should not be at a disadvantage.

I am comfortable with leaving Omar Khadr as a guest of the US until his sentence is fully served.

Why are the progressives so blind to the suffering of the actual victims?