While You're Away...
Yes, it's patently true; all too often the law is an ass. But it's the law. So what do you do? Obey or be hauled to jail and before a court of law. Where even the lawyers and the judges sitting in judgement must be embarrassed by the turn things can take that are clearly and simply unsupportably ridiculous.
Society is ever evolving. So too should the law, in some instances, apart from the inflexibility in law of some social crimes for which penalties must be kept intact. And even then, where there are extenuating or explicable circumstances which may nullify the penalties to some degree, laws should be re-visited and amended if need be.
Presumably a law that has been on the books without alteration for over a century could do with some close scrutiny. And in Canada, the law defining self-defence has been part of the Criminal Code since 1892. Time for a re-definition, obviously. Particularly in light of recent events where individuals have defended themselves from violent home invasions.
In one such event, in Ontario, a father and son had overpowered a would-be home-invader determined to rob them, but also brandishing a knife at them. Their counter-attack led to the death of the intruder. They were in direct danger of being arrested for using undue force. Saner heads prevailed, in the event eventually and no charges were laid, taking due note of the circumstances.
The event in Toronto where a greengrocer in Chinatown and several of his employees secured the presence of a well-known thief who had just lifted some plants from the store premises without paying, and then returned to repeat the offence, saw the storekeeper charged with illegally confining someone (while awaiting the eventual arrival of police) who just happened to be a thief who plagued the community.
After the storekeeper was found not guilty of the charges brought against him, a public outcry arose that laws for self-defence were badly in need of revision. The federal government promised to look at that as an imperative, but it is one of those promises that has yet to be fulfilled, having been interrupted by the dissolution of Parliament and the election that followed in the spring.
For sheer stupid inanity the case of Joe and Marilyn Singleton who had returned to their rural home after a night out to discover thieves had entered in their absence, represents a case in point. Extremely pointed. The house they had left unlit was now blazing with light, and its interior had been trashed, with furniture awry, dishes smashed, pictures torn off the wall, and their possessions ransacked.
Mr. Singleton had picked up a wood-chopping axe and intercepted one of the crooks trying to start his car parked in the driveway. "I told him to sit there, the police are coming, we'll sort it out. That's when he put his car in reverse and smashed into our car. Then he put the car into drive and it was then I thought, my God he's going to smash into the garage door to get away and my wife was right on the other side."
So Mr. Singleton reached into the driver's side window and hit the man in the face with the blunt end of the hatchet. When the RCMP finally arrived two more thieves were caught. They'd gone out to get a pickup truck. Their car was perceived as being too small to haul away all the loot they had stolen from the Singletons' home.
The injured man, all of 19, was a repeat offender, out on bail, after having threatened another homeowner somewhere, with a crowbar during yet another burglary attempt. Mr. Singleton was charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm. Both could net him a ten-year prison term.
Crown prosecutors in reading and interpreting the law claimed he had provoked the thief by confronting him instead of allowing him to drive off.
Mr. Singleton, in defending himself, ended up paying $30,000, representing his retirement savings. "We don't have any second thoughts now", he said in a recent interview. "We would just drive away or let them steal what they need to steal", he said.
And now they have a dog and a security system. They leave their house lights on when they're away,
Society is ever evolving. So too should the law, in some instances, apart from the inflexibility in law of some social crimes for which penalties must be kept intact. And even then, where there are extenuating or explicable circumstances which may nullify the penalties to some degree, laws should be re-visited and amended if need be.
Presumably a law that has been on the books without alteration for over a century could do with some close scrutiny. And in Canada, the law defining self-defence has been part of the Criminal Code since 1892. Time for a re-definition, obviously. Particularly in light of recent events where individuals have defended themselves from violent home invasions.
In one such event, in Ontario, a father and son had overpowered a would-be home-invader determined to rob them, but also brandishing a knife at them. Their counter-attack led to the death of the intruder. They were in direct danger of being arrested for using undue force. Saner heads prevailed, in the event eventually and no charges were laid, taking due note of the circumstances.
The event in Toronto where a greengrocer in Chinatown and several of his employees secured the presence of a well-known thief who had just lifted some plants from the store premises without paying, and then returned to repeat the offence, saw the storekeeper charged with illegally confining someone (while awaiting the eventual arrival of police) who just happened to be a thief who plagued the community.
After the storekeeper was found not guilty of the charges brought against him, a public outcry arose that laws for self-defence were badly in need of revision. The federal government promised to look at that as an imperative, but it is one of those promises that has yet to be fulfilled, having been interrupted by the dissolution of Parliament and the election that followed in the spring.
For sheer stupid inanity the case of Joe and Marilyn Singleton who had returned to their rural home after a night out to discover thieves had entered in their absence, represents a case in point. Extremely pointed. The house they had left unlit was now blazing with light, and its interior had been trashed, with furniture awry, dishes smashed, pictures torn off the wall, and their possessions ransacked.
Mr. Singleton had picked up a wood-chopping axe and intercepted one of the crooks trying to start his car parked in the driveway. "I told him to sit there, the police are coming, we'll sort it out. That's when he put his car in reverse and smashed into our car. Then he put the car into drive and it was then I thought, my God he's going to smash into the garage door to get away and my wife was right on the other side."
So Mr. Singleton reached into the driver's side window and hit the man in the face with the blunt end of the hatchet. When the RCMP finally arrived two more thieves were caught. They'd gone out to get a pickup truck. Their car was perceived as being too small to haul away all the loot they had stolen from the Singletons' home.
The injured man, all of 19, was a repeat offender, out on bail, after having threatened another homeowner somewhere, with a crowbar during yet another burglary attempt. Mr. Singleton was charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm. Both could net him a ten-year prison term.
Crown prosecutors in reading and interpreting the law claimed he had provoked the thief by confronting him instead of allowing him to drive off.
Mr. Singleton, in defending himself, ended up paying $30,000, representing his retirement savings. "We don't have any second thoughts now", he said in a recent interview. "We would just drive away or let them steal what they need to steal", he said.
And now they have a dog and a security system. They leave their house lights on when they're away,
posted by Pieface | 7:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home