[StylinRed]

The NDP wants to allow shop keepers to detain people who haven't shoplifted yet


http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/114583--ndp-give-store-owners-enough-time-to-hold-crooks

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?

http://www.impawards.com/2002/posters/minority_report.jpg




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


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/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-565_1

This would never never ever pass a Supreme Court Ruling as it's tabled there

[q0192837465]

This is stupid. It's not gonna hold up. Just because someone shoplifted before doesnt automatically make him a re-offender. A senseless proposition.

[Great68]

The NDP wants to allow shop keepers to detain people who haven't shoplifted yet


http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/114583--ndp-give-store-owners-enough-time-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?

http://www.impawards.com/2002/posters/minority_report.jpg

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."

[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

[Elder_MMHS]

Some details on the "high media profile" shoplifting incident that happened in Toronto.

http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101007/101007_thief?hub=CP24Home
http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101011/101110_chinatown_shoplifter/20101011/?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.

[StylinRed]

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


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/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-565_1

This would never never ever pass a Supreme Court Ruling as it's tabled there

[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.

[Manic!]

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.

[StylinRed]

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 :D



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

[willystyle]

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).

[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...

[willystyle]

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.

[wstce92]

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.

[Great68]

The weirdest thing about this bill is that it's coming from the NDP...

It sounds like something the Conservatives would table.

[johny]

^ it's because the guy who is in trouble is from jack layton's wife's riding.

[jackmeister]

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.

[StylinRed]

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)

[Great68]

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.

[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

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

[Great68]

^^^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.

[StylinRed]

Exactly :)

[willystyle]

^^^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.

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.

[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

[willystyle]

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.

[Noizz]

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)

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.

[willystyle]

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)



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.
True, but most large retail stores don't allow managers to evict an individual regardless if they are a known shoplifter or they may have observe an individual shoplifted because they are not trained to detect shoplifters and for safety reasons. Therefore, they have LPO's, it's their job to deter or apprehend.

Managers/Supervisors can customer service the individual anyway they can, in hopes that they can deter the individual, but they shouldn't be walking up to a group/individual and straight up tell them to leave. Most large retail stores would not allow their managers or supervisors to do that in fear of misidentifying a customer as a shoplifter.

[Razor Ramon HG]

I like this.

Now instead of having to wait for the shoplifter to leave the store in order to get them, you can just nab them on the spot.

[Noizz]

Managers/Supervisors can customer service the individual anyway they can, in hopes that they can deter the individual, but they shouldn't be walking up to a group/individual and straight up tell them to leave. Most large retail stores would not allow their managers or supervisors to do that in fear of misidentifying a customer as a shoplifter.

Onus would be on the manager to make that decision, don't need to waste time and beat around the bush, it isn't rocket science trying to identify someone when you have the same hype and regulars who comes in to steal cheese and meat.

And if it was a false accusation, although its just bad PR, customers need to understand that the store is providing a safe and secure place to shop. The falsely accused would have no grounds to sue if their personal space was not intruded. He/she was on private property, but again it's just bad PR if that ever happens. And if a manager could not handle a false accusation situation, they shouldn't be a manager.

IIRCC in January 2010 alone, there was over 1,500+ cases of theft under $5,000 in Vancouver alone. Note these are actual police files and it does not account for simple warn & bans that occur much more frequently. Someone's gotta put the hammer down.

[willystyle]

Onus would be on the manager to make that decision, don't need to waste time and beat around the bush, it isn't rocket science trying to identify someone when you have the same hype and regulars who comes in to steal cheese and meat.
Again, even if it may not be a false identification, the major issue is that upper management doesn't want untrained managers to be evicting suspected shoplifters because they feel that it's unsafe for managers, associates and customers. These individuals can be carrying dangerous weapons, in a situation if these weapons were used, a manager may not know how to react. This may lead to managers, associates and customers being harmed or severely injured over $40 worth of meat or cheese. Would that be worth it?

That's why I am proposing that if this law is to be pass, it should be only exercised in the hands of trained professionals; such as a LPO.


And if it was a false accusation, although its just bad PR, customers need to understand that the store is providing a safe and secure place to shop. The falsely accused would have no grounds to sue if their personal space was not intruded. He/she was on private property, but again it's just bad PR if that ever happens. And if a manager could not handle a false accusation situation, they shouldn't be a manager.
Unfortunately, in the real world, customers are never understanding, and that they would try every way to get something out of a situation. True, the customer wouldn't have grounds to sue; however, the company doesn't want its public image to be damaged and risk the chance of losing that customer, in addition, it can potentially lose hundreds and thousands more because that customer can take their case to the media, friends, and online blogs and forums such as this one. This situation will definitely cause a snowball effect. Picture someone posting a similar story like that on revscene, it is human nature that most of us will side with the victim as corporations are always seen in the negative light. Therefore, medium to large businesses don't even want to risk this situation from occurring that's why they have policies in preventing management to evict or deny customer service, unless it's very severe.

[Great68]

Again, even if it may not be a false identification, the major issue is that upper management doesn't want untrained managers to be evicting suspected shoplifters because they feel that it's unsafe for managers, associates and customers. These individuals can be carrying dangerous weapons, in a situation if these weapons were used, a manager may not know how to react. This may lead to managers, associates and customers being harmed or severely injured over $40 worth of meat or cheese. Would that be worth it?



That is very true.

Though it brings back some memories of my time at Crappy Tire. 2nd day on the job some crackhead woman runs out of the store with a VCR. The manager is right there, calls a Code 1 (Code for emergency, everyone to the front of the store) and goes after the woman.

The next thing you see is a fuckload of red shirts running out the door, some with wrenches or whatever they had close by. It was pretty funny.

The woman ran into the middle of the street, stopped a minivan with a family in it and then jumps inside. Then starts threatening the people in the van and the manager with a needle.

Like fuck, who knows if this woman has any diseases (Likely for a crackhead), is that $100 VCR really worth it?

For the $8 an hour I was getting paid by crappy tire it wasn't worth it for ME to get involved.

[Razor Ramon HG]

:lol

I laughed pretty hard at the thought of a bunch of red shirts pouring out of the store with wrenches and shit.

Fail on the minivan driver for not locking the doors. I would've just taunted her if that happened to me.

[Gt-R R34]

Not going to do much, if this passes.

Goes to Supreme Court, gets shot back down as unlawful.

Waste of our time and money.

[willystyle]

That is very true.

Though it brings back some memories of my time at Crappy Tire. 2nd day on the job some crackhead woman runs out of the store with a VCR. The manager is right there, calls a Code 1 (Code for emergency, everyone to the front of the store) and goes after the woman.

The next thing you see is a fuckload of red shirts running out the door, some with wrenches or whatever they had close by. It was pretty funny.

The woman ran into the middle of the street, stopped a minivan with a family in it and then jumps inside. Then starts threatening the people in the van and the manager with a needle.

Like fuck, who knows if this woman has any diseases (Likely for a crackhead), is that $100 VCR really worth it?

For the $8 an hour I was getting paid by crappy tire it wasn't worth it for ME to get involved.
It would be interesting if there were injuries to the suspect, the driver in the minivan and to the sale associates of Canadian Tire. It can be a potential multi-million dollar lawsuit that Canadian Tire will need to cough up over a loss of a VCR. They deserve it though for not implementing correct corporate policies.