| Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events The off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum. |
 | | 
10-13-2010, 03:47 PM
|
#1 | | I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,679
Thanked 10,395 Times in 3,918 Posts
Failed 1,390 Times in 625 Posts
| NDP supports Crazy
The NDP wants to allow shop keepers to detain people who haven't shoplifted yet http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...to-hold-crooks Quote:
NDP: give store owners enough time to hold crooks [crooks wtf?]
Right now, the law says you can hold a criminal after a theft until police come. The NDP want store owners to be able to hold known crooks, even if a crime wasn't committed on the spot.
|
They're obviously fishing for votes in the Chinese Community as the chinese community supported that store owner in Toronto who kidnapped and tortured a shoplifter (and the NDP ran to support them)
There's no way something like this would stand up against our Provincial Human Rights Laws or our Charter of Rights (if they wanted to make this into a law)
What do you guys think.... do you agree with the NDPs Pre-Crime proposal? 
edit: just merging 2 comments so ppl dont have to weed through to get all the info
It's a part of a bill proposed by Olivia Chow Bill C-565
Summary: This enactment amends the Criminal Code to give the owner or person in lawful possession of property the power to arrest without warrant a person he finds committing, or he believes has committed, a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.
Here's the full Bill Quote:
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (arrest without warrant by owner)
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1. The portion of subsection 494(2) of the Criminal Code after paragraph (b) is replaced by the following:
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.
| http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicat...ll&Doc=C-565_1
This would never never ever pass a Supreme Court Ruling as it's tabled there
Last edited by StylinRed; 10-13-2010 at 04:53 PM.
| 
|  | |
10-13-2010, 03:54 PM
|
#2 | | I answer every Emotion with an emoticon
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,760
Thanked 375 Times in 181 Posts
Failed 159 Times in 63 Posts
|
This is stupid. It's not gonna hold up. Just because someone shoplifted before doesnt automatically make him a re-offender. A senseless proposition.
__________________
Ignorance is bliss
How I wish I can remain ignorant, why do I know so much?
| |
| | |
10-13-2010, 04:09 PM
|
#3 | | Willing to sell body for a few minutes on RS
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Victoria
Posts: 10,737
Thanked 5,279 Times in 1,945 Posts
Failed 185 Times in 100 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by StylinRed  The NDP wants to allow shop keepers to detain people who haven't shoplifted yet http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...to-hold-crooks
They're obviously fishing for votes in the Chinese Community as the chinese community supported that store owner in Toronto who kidnapped and tortured a shoplifter (and the NDP ran to support them)
There's no way something like this would stand up against our Provincial Human Rights Laws or our Charter of Rights (if they wanted to make this into a law)
What do you guys think.... do you agree with the NDPs Pre-Crime proposal? | What the fuck? You're misinterpreting the article.
They're not supporting detaining people PRE crime.
They want to allow store owners to be able to detain people for a reasonable time AFTER the crime.
Right now they can only detain someone who is caught in the act.
"But they (store owners) are allowed to detain a person within a reasonable time of the crime being committed, as opposed to during the commission."
__________________
1968 Mustang Coupe
2008.5 Mazdaspeed 3
1997 GMC Sonoma ZR2
2014 F150 5.0L XTR 4x4
A vehicle for all occasions
| 
| | |
10-13-2010, 04:15 PM
|
#4 | | I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,679
Thanked 10,395 Times in 3,918 Posts
Failed 1,390 Times in 625 Posts
|
hmm id have to read the actual proposal i guess
typical news1130 reporting i suppose since they wrote
"The NDP want store owners to be able to hold known crooks, even if a crime wasn't committed on the spot."
but what the actual article suggests is the NDP wants store owners able to detain people they suspected of having shoplifted in the past... still that would open up store owners detaining anyone saying they had shoplifted earlier (where's the proof? and how can they show its the same person?) that's like giving them Police powers of stopping someone that "fits a description" and even then they're not detaining them
| |
| | |
10-13-2010, 04:21 PM
|
#5 | | What hasn't Killed me, has made me more tolerant of RS!
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 186
Thanked 13 Times in 7 Posts
Failed 2 Times in 1 Post
|
Some details on the "high media profile" shoplifting incident that happened in Toronto. http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local...f?hub=CP24Home http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local.../?hub=CP24Home
For anyone that's wondering how this relates to the NDP, Olivia Chow is the MP in an area that contains downtown Toronto Chinatown where this occurred. She is also Jack Layton's wife. There are probably politics involved, but at the same time, she is likely acting on behalf of the sentiments of her constituents.
__________________
Victor Chow (Elder_MMHS) | |
| | |
10-13-2010, 04:25 PM
|
#6 | | I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,679
Thanked 10,395 Times in 3,918 Posts
Failed 1,390 Times in 625 Posts
|
Ah
It's a part of a bill proposed by Olivia Chow Bill C-565
Summary: This enactment amends the Criminal Code to give the owner or person in lawful possession of property the power to arrest without warrant a person he finds committing, or he believes has committed, a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.
Here's the full Bill Quote:
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (arrest without warrant by owner)
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1. The portion of subsection 494(2) of the Criminal Code after paragraph (b) is replaced by the following:
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.
| http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicat...ll&Doc=C-565_1
This would never never ever pass a Supreme Court Ruling as it's tabled there
| |
| | |
10-13-2010, 04:26 PM
|
#7 | | I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Shanghai
Posts: 3,564
Thanked 893 Times in 352 Posts
Failed 356 Times in 87 Posts
|
I'm fine with this. What's to worry about it unless you're doing the shop lifting? I wish they throw in the right to beat the sense into shoplifters and cut off some fingers as well.
__________________
yolo | |
| | |
10-13-2010, 04:27 PM
|
#8 | | To me, there is the Internet and there is RS
Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Nanaimo
Posts: 17,082
Thanked 8,130 Times in 3,815 Posts
Failed 1,514 Times in 651 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by StylinRed hmm id have to read the actual proposal i guess
typical news1130 reporting i suppose since they wrote
"The NDP want store owners to be able to hold known crooks, even if a crime wasn't committed on the spot."
but what the actual article suggests is the NDP wants store owners able to detain people they suspected of having shoplifted in the past... still that would open up store owners detaining anyone saying they had shoplifted earlier (where's the proof? and how can they show its the same person?) that's like giving them Police powers of stopping someone that "fits a description" and even then they're not detaining them | That would be a great law. In Nanaimo we had a group doing credit card fraud all over town including our store. After a few months we knew who they were but the only thing we could do is not accept there cards and call the cops. By the time the cops would come they would be gone.
__________________
Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter. | |
| | |
10-13-2010, 04:31 PM
|
#9 | | I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,679
Thanked 10,395 Times in 3,918 Posts
Failed 1,390 Times in 625 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by J____ I'm fine with this. What's to worry about it unless you're doing the shop lifting? I wish they throw in the right to beat the sense into shoplifters and cut off some fingers as well. |
you're missing the point where as long as i suspect you of having done something i can arrest you...
edit: nevmind you probably didnt read the post showing the exact wording of the bill as we posted same time 
I'll recall a recent event where one of my cousins just moved back to Vancouver after living in HK for 10 years we went to Shoppers Drugs after i picked him up for some supplies and the teller/manager started yelling and accusing him of being a credit card fraudster, from days earlier, telling him to get out and never come back or he'd call the police right now making a huge scene and asserting that my cousin was the criminal and stating they still had the video recordings of him in the store... if this law passed he could arrest him and hold him for who knows how long until he contacted the police and they arrived
What the NDP is proposing here is giving the public Policing abilities far exceeding a simple citizens arrest with no repercussions
The reason why store owners etc have to detain during the act is to avoid these catastrophes
Last edited by StylinRed; 10-13-2010 at 04:40 PM.
| |
| | |
10-13-2010, 05:10 PM
|
#10 | | HELP ME PLS!!!
Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 5,542
Thanked 652 Times in 346 Posts
Failed 128 Times in 52 Posts
|
Being in the Loss Prevention industry, I would fully support and welcome this law if it ever makes it pass the House of Common. It would make my life a lot easier to counter known prolific shoplifters, when only a verbal trespass order is not enough to deter crime.
It would also allow me to suspect and detain an individual for a reasonable amount of time for shoplifting when not all 4 elements of arrests are observed. I'm not suggesting that we should be abusing this law left and right on every customer that walks in the store; however, if it becomes apparent that a theft was made, this gives me the right and power to inquire an individual of the merchandises he/she concealed in her bag, whether it was was paid for.
Presently, we're not allowed to engage in any contact with a customer the moment she steps foot outside of the store, by definition, that's a detainment incident (false arrest).
| |
| | |
10-13-2010, 07:39 PM
|
#11 | | HELP ME PLS!!!
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: here
Posts: 5,793
Thanked 146 Times in 67 Posts
Failed 208 Times in 42 Posts
|
do you even know what happened in toronto?... the guy's store was robbed. owner watched the video tape, saw the theft on tape, and knew the theif because he was a reg theif. and he saw the thief like one hour later in the street. and "arested" him.
but because the law currently says you can only arest durring a crime. and not after. the shopowner is now the one in trouble. bunch of BS. owner should never have been charged in the first place.
and FYI... the theif has since been arested for theft again somewhere else...
| |
| | |
10-13-2010, 07:48 PM
|
#12 | | HELP ME PLS!!!
Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 5,542
Thanked 652 Times in 346 Posts
Failed 128 Times in 52 Posts
|
I don't care about what happened in Toronto because I was not speaking behalf of store owners, who most likely didn't know what he was doing anyway. I specialize in LP, and this law (if pass) would clearly be beneficial for retail stores who has LP departments.
| |
| | |
10-13-2010, 07:59 PM
|
#13 | | I STILL don't get it
Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Vancity
Posts: 467
Thanked 531 Times in 138 Posts
Failed 81 Times in 28 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by johny do you even know what happened in toronto?... the guy's store was robbed. owner watched the video tape, saw the theft on tape, and knew the theif because he was a reg theif. and he saw the thief like one hour later in the street. and "arested" him.
but because the law currently says you can only arest durring a crime. and not after. the shopowner is now the one in trouble. bunch of BS. owner should never have been charged in the first place.
and FYI... the theif has since been arested for theft again somewhere else... |
I honestly think that that was the stupidest shit I had read in years (the story, not your post). It's not like the owner is raking in the cash, the guy works hard only to have some asshole continually rip him off cause he knows he won't get in too much shit for it. I'd go so far as to support a bill that lets shop owners beat the fuck out of these assholes if they have video tape of them stealing, or find stolen merchandise on their persons.
I remember way back in high school I used to work at Linen's and Things, and some people would just walk right out the door with a cart full of merchandise; the alarm would go off and everything but since they were outside, we couldn't do shit.
| |
| | |
10-13-2010, 08:01 PM
|
#14 | | Willing to sell body for a few minutes on RS
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Victoria
Posts: 10,737
Thanked 5,279 Times in 1,945 Posts
Failed 185 Times in 100 Posts
|
The weirdest thing about this bill is that it's coming from the NDP...
It sounds like something the Conservatives would table.
__________________
1968 Mustang Coupe
2008.5 Mazdaspeed 3
1997 GMC Sonoma ZR2
2014 F150 5.0L XTR 4x4
A vehicle for all occasions
| |
| | |
10-13-2010, 08:40 PM
|
#15 | | HELP ME PLS!!!
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: here
Posts: 5,793
Thanked 146 Times in 67 Posts
Failed 208 Times in 42 Posts
|
^ it's because the guy who is in trouble is from jack layton's wife's riding.
| |
| | |
10-13-2010, 09:06 PM
|
#16 | | Revscene.net has a homepage?!
Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,296
Thanked 522 Times in 194 Posts
Failed 87 Times in 37 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by johny do you even know what happened in toronto?... the guy's store was robbed. owner watched the video tape, saw the theft on tape, and knew the theif because he was a reg theif. and he saw the thief like one hour later in the street. and "arested" him.
but because the law currently says you can only arest durring a crime. and not after. the shopowner is now the one in trouble. bunch of BS. owner should never have been charged in the first place.
and FYI... the theif has since been arested for theft again somewhere else... | the thief was actually attempting to rob flower store AGAIN and thats when the owner + employee just locked him up in the back of a van BEFORE he stole AGAIN.
| |
| | |
10-13-2010, 09:38 PM
|
#17 | | I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,679
Thanked 10,395 Times in 3,918 Posts
Failed 1,390 Times in 625 Posts
|
wow -_- buncha Charles Bronsons in here :P
but again this proposed law as it's worded now i just can't see it stand up to an Oakes test or provincial human rights laws because it allows store owners to detain anyone they suspect (even if their suspicions didn't arise at that time but in the past) and its sooo loosely worded
The Toronto store incident, is a separate matter but
you realize the Toronto store owner tied the guy up and beat him and left him locked up in a van right? Sorry if I wanted to live in the States I would (where such forms of assault does nothing in curbing crime and begets more violence)
| |
| | |
10-13-2010, 09:47 PM
|
#18 | | Willing to sell body for a few minutes on RS
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Victoria
Posts: 10,737
Thanked 5,279 Times in 1,945 Posts
Failed 185 Times in 100 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by StylinRed
but again this proposed law as it's worded now i just can't see it stand up to an Oakes test or provincial human rights laws because it allows store owners to detain anyone they suspect (even if their suspicions didn't arise at that time but in the past) and its sooo loosely worded
The Toronto store incident, is a separate matter but
you realize the Toronto store owner tied the guy up and beat him and left him locked up in a van right? Sorry if I wanted to live in the States I would (where such forms of assault does nothing in curbing crime and begets more violence)
| I agree that it should be clear that a store owner should not be able to detain someone simply on suspicions. I don't think that's what the intent is supposed to be though, they should definately make it less ambiguous. I am supportive of passing something that makes people like willystyle's job easier.
I also agree that vigilate justice, as in the Toronto store case is bullshit and does not belong in Canada.
Personally though, when I watched the movie a time to Kill and was rooting for Samuel L Jackson's character to get out of Jail free... So somewhere in the back of my brain depending on the circumstances I'd find a little bit of vigilante justice acceptable.
__________________
1968 Mustang Coupe
2008.5 Mazdaspeed 3
1997 GMC Sonoma ZR2
2014 F150 5.0L XTR 4x4
A vehicle for all occasions
| |
| | |
10-13-2010, 09:56 PM
|
#19 | | I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,679
Thanked 10,395 Times in 3,918 Posts
Failed 1,390 Times in 625 Posts
|
^^^extra security for store owners at preventing theft is great how about denying suspected thieves entrance into their private property/place of business makes much more sense than allowing the store owner to apprehend someone
Also
you guys have to realize how many Forcible Confinement / attempted kidnapping charges will be dismissed because of the wording in this Bill (this is a highly probable outcome mind you)
and then all of you would be crying about how our Justice System is complete garbage
| |
| | |
10-13-2010, 10:01 PM
|
#20 | | Willing to sell body for a few minutes on RS
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Victoria
Posts: 10,737
Thanked 5,279 Times in 1,945 Posts
Failed 185 Times in 100 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by StylinRed ^^^extra security for store owners at preventing theft is great how about denying suspected thieves entrance into their private property/place of business makes much more sense than allowing the store owner to apprehend someone
| I thought stores could already do that. Waaaay back when I worked the parts counter for Crappy Tire, they had a board in the lunchroom with pictures of people we were supposed to kick out of the store if we saw them.
__________________
1968 Mustang Coupe
2008.5 Mazdaspeed 3
1997 GMC Sonoma ZR2
2014 F150 5.0L XTR 4x4
A vehicle for all occasions
| |
| | |
10-13-2010, 10:30 PM
|
#21 | | I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,679
Thanked 10,395 Times in 3,918 Posts
Failed 1,390 Times in 625 Posts
|
Exactly  | |
| | |
10-13-2010, 10:53 PM
|
#22 | | HELP ME PLS!!!
Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 5,542
Thanked 652 Times in 346 Posts
Failed 128 Times in 52 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by StylinRed ^^^extra security for store owners at preventing theft is great how about denying suspected thieves entrance into their private property/place of business makes much more sense than allowing the store owner to apprehend someone | That depends on the business. Most medium to large retailers would have policies preventing managers from exercising trespass orders. The only stores where I would see this possibly working are small business retailers and mom and pop stores. Quote:
Originally Posted by Great68 I thought stores could already do that. Waaaay back when I worked the parts counter for Crappy Tire, they had a board in the lunchroom with pictures of people we were supposed to kick out of the store if we saw them. | You guys have contract security LP's that can do that. For safety and customer service reasons, managers and employees should never be attempting to verbally trespass an individual.
| |
| | |
10-13-2010, 10:55 PM
|
#23 | | Diagonally parked in a parallel universe
Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,411
Thanked 217 Times in 71 Posts
Failed 98 Times in 39 Posts
|
why not just not allowed them to enter the shop if they are known shoplifters, wtf is the point in making this law. STUPID :S
| |
| | |
10-13-2010, 10:57 PM
|
#24 | | HELP ME PLS!!!
Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 5,542
Thanked 652 Times in 346 Posts
Failed 128 Times in 52 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Shead why not just not allowed them to enter the shop if they are known shoplifters, wtf is the point in making this law. STUPID :S | Read the post above you.
| |
| | |
10-14-2010, 12:57 AM
|
#25 | | My homepage has been set to RS
Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Burnaby
Posts: 2,107
Thanked 261 Times in 71 Posts
Failed 36 Times in 10 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by willystyle It would also allow me to suspect and detain an individual for a reasonable amount of time for shoplifting when not all 4 elements of arrests are observed. | Industry standard is 5 steps, sometimes 6.
1. Observe customer enter area
2. Selection
3. Concealment
4. Continuity
5. Failure to pay
6. Leave store with merchandise (obvious) Quote:
Originally Posted by willystyle You guys have contract security LP's that can do that. For safety and customer service reasons, managers and employees should never be attempting to verbally trespass an individual. | Uhh... manager holds every right to kick anyone out of their store. You don't need an LP department to do that. It's private property. It's for the safety of the customers and employees that allows you, as a manager/supervisor to refuse service.
| |
| | | |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:29 AM.
|
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
