# Car Thief Beaten- Will We See More of The Same?



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Jan 2007)

An outstanding article on what we will see more of in the future........and would be seeing a lot of right now if the general public had a clue about our *cough* _criminal justice system._



 Justifiable rage 
By TOM BRODBECK

Car thief Stanley Ross is in for a rude awakening. 

The 22-year-old Winnipegger, who was severely beaten following a two-car crash Saturday, has been in a medically induced coma for most of the week. 
When, or if, he comes to, he's going to be in for a bit of a shock when he's told about the vitriolic anger directed -- not at his assailant -- but at him. 
E-mails and phone calls continued to pour into the Winnipeg Sun yesterday from people supporting the vigilante-style beating Ross took. 

Two-thirds of readers in the Sun's online poll Wednesday said Ross got what he deserved. 
It's unnerving for some to hear this. But there's a very good reason why this level of rage -- from otherwise reasonable and civilized people -- has emerged. 
People have lost faith in our criminal justice system. 

Vigilantism, or acceptance of it, doesn't happen in a vacuum. 
It occurs when the public no longer feels the justice system is holding criminals accountable for their actions. 
In a civilized society, we give up our right to take justice into our own hands in exchange for a criminal justice system that, instead of beating criminals with baseball bats, takes their liberties away and segregates them from society. 

We put them behind bars. 
Granted, we'd often prefer to strangle the low-life who killed, raped or maimed. 
But we generally accept the most humane way of dealing with the situation is to denounce the crimes loudly through incarceration and by ensuring sentences are proportionate to the gravity of the crime. 

It's a reasonable trade-off. And when it's carried out properly, it generally works. 
It's a social contract. 

Trouble is, Canada's pointy-headed social worker types hijacked our criminal justice system some years ago and convinced lawmakers and judges that rehabilitation and re-integration into the community are far more important goals than deterring and denouncing serious crimes. 
The liberal-left in this country managed to swing the criminal justice pendulum so far away from traditional sentencing principles that they broke the social contract. 
Which means all bets are off. 

And people want to beat car thieves with baseball bats. 
It's a natural and entirely predictable reaction. 
It will get worse, too, if governments and the judiciary don't start honouring the social contract again. 

Look at car thieves. 
We have a program in Winnipeg where young, chronic car thieves are rarely jailed for their crimes. 
Instead, they're released into the community, on probation, and are supposedly monitored by justice officials. 
Not surprisingly, they regularly breach their probation and often repeat their crimes, sometimes over and over again. 

Cops and justice officials know who they are and where they live. 
But because our justice system is so hell-bent on releasing criminals into the community, they're not held accountable for the 10, 20 or 100 cars they steal. It's extremely frustrating for the public. 
How else do you expect them to react after years of this nonsense other than "let's beat the hell out of the little punk?" 

The chickens have come home to roost. 

Tom Brodbeck is the Sun's city columnist. He can be reached by e-mail at: tbrodbeck@wpgsun.com.
Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@wpgsun.com.


----------



## gaspasser (13 Jan 2007)

Not one so support vigilantinism (is that's a word?) BUT what deterent affect did it have on his peers? Will he try to do it again?
Punishment vs. Deterent affect?
my 0.02


----------



## Samsquanch (13 Jan 2007)

There is absolutly nothing wrong with "street level justice", just as long as you don't get caught.   ;D
For a good read on this subject check out "Without Remorse" it's a Tom Clancy book... very entertaining.

 I've also heard The Guardian Angles are become active in Canada once again. I don't know much about them but maybe it's a sign average people have finally had enough?


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Jan 2007)

It's a shame things have been allowed to fall to the level where normally decent people feel the need to take a bat to these pukes.  A gunnysack full of doorknobs gives a much more satisfying "THWOCK!"


----------



## career_radio-checker (13 Jan 2007)

One of the upsides of totalitarian/theological countries like Iran is that they practice the "eye for an eye" style justice system.
Some punk decides to steal a car, he gets caught and they lop off his arm. Some scum decides to rape a woman or a child, he looses his 'din-dong.' And a murderer who decides to take someone's life will eventually lose his. 
Not only does it guarantee the perp won't repeat the same crime (because he physically can't) but its one a hell of a deterant when the, ahem *ceremonies* are public shows. Now if only the justice officials in those types of states weren't corrupt and unfair towards women and other minorities, they might be on to something.


----------



## CADPAT SOLDIER (13 Jan 2007)

I was offered a security position by this guys security company on new years eve after jumping in on a brawl and punching some guy in the face repeatedly, just to let you in on SK's hiring practices.
The guy deserved repeated punches to the face though, he had punched a girl in the face when she was on her knees.
These guys are a bunch of idiots, some were on the ball but others were buying and selling drugs and they were inapproriately frisking female party goers, they do not have female guards on staff.


----------



## CADPAT SOLDIER (13 Jan 2007)

they guy who did the beating was a serbian immigrant on probation for being a crack dealer


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 Jan 2007)

Future Unknown said:
			
		

> they guy who did the beating was a serbian immigrant on probation for being a crack dealer



Source?


----------



## CADPAT SOLDIER (13 Jan 2007)

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/subscriber/local/story/3840154p-4443456c.html




"Salihovic, a Bosnian immigrant, was himself arrested July 1, 2005 when police pulled over a car for speeding on Provencher Boulevard and found a red container with 14 rocks of crack cocaine. He was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking."

my mistake, bosnian, he was bosnian.


----------



## observor 69 (13 Jan 2007)

More from the Winnipeg Sun:  http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipeg/2007/01/13/3341383-sun.html

January 13, 2007 

Justice wake-up call, Criminals must be held responsible for crimes 
By TOM BRODBECK

Not even the unbearable, biting Prairie cold can quell the auto theft problem in this city, as wily car thieves continued to punch through key-hole locks and car ignitions well into the frigid night this week. 

There were 51 reported motor vehicle thefts and attempted thefts in Winnipeg Thursday -- the day the mercury took a nose dive into the minus 30s -- according to Winnipeg police data. 

Apparently, these guys will stop at nothing to steal your car, whether it's parked at a shopping mall, on the street or in your driveway. 

Considering the number of chronic car thieves out on the street this week, the spike of car thefts is not surprising. 

Police sources say there were 12 Level 4 and Level 3 car thieves wanted in the community this week. Those are the most chronic car thieves under the age of 18 -- kids who steal cars over and over again -- allegedly monitored by justice officials. I say allegedly because the monitoring system they announced last year is turning out to be a bit of a joke. 

They keep telling us how many they're monitoring. But we see a spike in car thefts every time a bunch of them are released into the community. 

Cops actually keep track of how car thefts go up whenever more Level 4s and Level 3s are back on the streets. 

It's precisely why so many Winnipeggers have reacted so angrily to the story of Stanley Ross, the convicted car thief who was beaten with a baseball bat last week. 

There seems to be some confusion about the story, too. Many readers are wondering why some are calling the assault a vigilante beating when the alleged assailant apparently didn't know Ross was a car thief. 

That's not the story. The story is the public's reaction to the beating. The story is the rage many feel about car thieves generally who are not held accountable for their actions by the justice system. 

RAGE 

The public knows Ross is a car thief and they're condoning the violence against him because they don't see the justice system taking action against car thieves. 

We don't have all the details about the beating. When we do, we can start judging the alleged assailant, Ross and anybody else who was involved. 

There also seems to be some confusion about what I wrote yesterday. I explained why we're seeing this rage against car thieves. 

Some wrongly concluded that I'm suggesting vigilante justice is warranted in this case. It's not. It never is. 

I merely explained why people feel the way they do because of the collapse of the justice system. It's entirely predictable. 

It's not, as a Winnipeg Sun editorial wrongly concluded about my piece yesterday, something that makes for an easy excuse to justify vigilantism. 

It's simply reality. When the justice system fails to live up to its end of the bargain, you're going to see people rebel and they will begin to support the idea of vigilante justice. 

That's what you want to avoid. We don't want people taking the law into their own hands. That's why this story should be a wake-up call to politicians, justice officials and judges. 

Some people don't want to accept this reality. They don't truly believe the justice system has collapsed. If they did, they would understand the public backlash. They don't. 

It's real, folks. And it won't go away until the justice system starts holding criminals responsible for their crimes. 

The warning signs are all there. 

                            -----------------------------------

Oh and in response to the idea that one should not just post items without a personal opinion.... I think vigilante justice is wrong. The fact that this "justice" was carried out by a previously convicted crack dealer also doesn't speak well for the practise. I am also against chopping peoples hands, "din dongs" etc off. I am also against hangings in sport stadiums.
To be precise I am against street justice. It's very hard to take it back after you find out this form of instant justice got it wrong. I recognize the frustration but the rule of law is supposed to represent an evolved society.


----------



## Bigmac (13 Jan 2007)

If everyone is unhappy with the way the criminal justice system is handling car thieves in Manitoba, or anywhere for that matter, then do something about it. Be proactive and write to your member of parliament or hit the streets and get a petition signed to send to the government. Don't sit there and complain and do nothing. Vigilantism is the wrong way of handling this situation. Make the politicians aware of what you want and punish them on election day if they don't follow through.


----------



## GUNS (13 Jan 2007)

If you want to get the attention of this country's lawmakers then increase the vigilantly style of street level justice.

Writing letters is a total waste of time.  Newspaper head lines will make lawmakers react.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jan 2007)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> One of the upsides of totalitarian/theological countries like Iran is that they practice the "eye for an eye" style justice system.
> Some punk decides to steal a car, he gets caught and they lop off his arm. Some scum decides to rape a woman or a child, he looses his 'din-dong.' And a murderer who decides to take someone's life will eventually lose his.
> Not only does it guarantee the perp won't repeat the same crime (because he physically can't) but its one a hell of a deterant when the, ahem *ceremonies* are public shows. Now if only the justice officials in those types of states weren't corrupt and unfair towards women and other minorities, they might be on to something.



With all its faults, I will still stick to our Legal System, than convert to theirs.  These images, I am sure, mask a truly corrupt and archaic Legal System and one that we have left behind centuries ago.  Perhaps you should look into the Topic we have on the Iranian girl facing the death penalty for killing in self defence, one of the three men who were raping her.  With all its flaws, our system is still light years ahead of theirs.


----------



## Samsquanch (13 Jan 2007)

Having spoken to many policemen my father being one of them they have their hands tied went it comes to chasing down stolen cars. For example stopped at an intersection look at a bunch of pukes in another car he types in the plate number comes up stolen. Pukes do a burn out start driving crazy after the disco lights come on police have to call off chase to protect other motorists. Sometimes if the city has a helocopter they can get it to follow the car while police cruisers follow from a distance without lights wait until the scumbag ditches the car and then attempt an arrest. What the %$#@ is that chase em down ram them off the road and re-educate them with some street level lessons. The police love to chase and love to catch the badguys let them do their job....... Average joe blow wants the police to do it so he doesn't have to.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Jan 2007)

"Average joe blow" doesn't want innocent lives lost in the process. The problem is not the police, not the jails but the revolving door that our courts have become.....


----------



## Samsquanch (13 Jan 2007)

Tell me about it.... especially the repeat young offenders. What is being done about them. I'm sure they laugh at the justice system the whole time even when they are caught.


----------



## career_radio-checker (13 Jan 2007)

msg510390#msg510390 date=1168703179]
If you want to get the attention of this country's lawmakers then increase the vigilantly style of street level justice.

Writing letters is a total waste of time.  Newspaper head lines will make lawmakers react.
[/quote]

Nah, just steal their car. Then they will know what it feels like. (note: this is supposed to be a sarcastic response to an equally sarcastic suggestion of engaging in vigilanteism for the sake of newspaper headlines)



> With all its faults, I will still stick to our Legal System, than convert to theirs.  These images, I am sure, mask a truly corrupt and archaic Legal System and one that we have left behind centuries ago.  Perhaps you should look into the Topic we have on the Iranian girl facing the death penalty for killing in self defence, one of the three men who were raping her.  With all its flaws, our system is still light years ahead of theirs.



I thought that little bit I put in the end about them being "unfair to women and minorities" covered that. Anyways it wasn't the legal system I was proping up, it was the methods of punishment.


----------



## hoist-monkey (15 Jan 2007)

To all the wannabe vigilantes out there, you do realize that if you get caught "being a good citizen" you can be charge, and for us in the CF is it really worth your career.
Who will take care of your family while you are locked up?
I no the police are having a rough time dealing with violence on the streets, but answering violence with more violence is not going to help.
My dad spent 3 years in jail for breaking up a bar fight that got out of hand, and he almost killed a guy, the judge didn't care that he didn't have any prior convictions.
I never got to see my father for 3 years because he thought he was helping somebody else, and when it came time for that person to testify on my fathers behalf, he never showed up.
My dad was a very good boxer and is a big man so he hit one of the assailants pretty hard, trying to help save this other guy from a brutal beating.
When he got out of jail he refused to allow us to be involved in any boxing, martial arts and if we ever got into fights at school we were severely dealt with.

Vigilantes don't work, same as the death penalty,and if you don't believe me get in touch with David Milgaard, or any other person who was wrongly convicted.

Rant over


----------



## Blakey (15 Jan 2007)

There is more than meets the eye in these stories ( the Winnipeg one ), my sister-in-law and her husband witnessed the accident and the beating, from what I know, I'd be watching for charges to be laid.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Jan 2007)

Hmm,- More Of The Same?

  
January 17, 2007  
Acquittal not an option for vigilante dad

By TIM COOK
    
YORKTON, Sask. (CP) - The father who shot his teenage daughter's drug-dealing boyfriend says that whatever the outcome of jury deliberations that began Wednesday, the ordeal he and his family have been through has all been worth it. 
"Our daughter is alive," Kim Walker said as he and his wife, Elizabeth, returned to the Yorkton court house Wednesday evening shortly before the jury retired for the evening. 

"Everything we've been through - she's worth everything we've been through," his wife added. 
Walker said he's received support from across the country. 
"A lot of support," he said. 
"There's a lot of people who are with us, definitely," his wife added before they walked inside. 

Walker, 50, was charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of 24-year-old James Hayward, a convicted drug dealer who court heard was doing morphine with Walker's daughter. 
But Hayward's grief-stricken mother said people are not getting the real impression of her son. 
"He was a good person," Lorrie Getty said in her first public statements since the trial began. "Because I was told not to talk to the media and because they only report what is sensational in this trial, the public has not been well informed." 

While Walker believes he "saved" his daughter from her addiction by shooting Hayward, Getty said she didn't get the chance to help her son. 
"Because no one told me that my son was taking morphine . . . I was never given the opportunity to save my son," she said outside court. 
Before the jury began its deliberations, Justice Jennifer Pritchard told the eight women and four men they must not consider acquittal an option. 

They must decide only if Walker is guilty of first-or second-degree murder, or manslaughter, because there was no evidence that showed that Hayward's killing was lawful, Pritchard said. 
"Manslaughter is the minimum offence that has been committed in this case," the judge said. 
The jury has heard how Walker's daughter, Jadah, then 16, was living with Hayward in the months before the attack and the two were using morphine. 

In the week before the shooting, Walker and his wife received a letter from one of Jadah's friends warning them of the addiction. 
After going to police, they managed to get a warrant committing Jadah to a hospital for 72 hours. 
When she was released, her parents took her home, but she was soon picked up by friends and taken to Hayward's. 
That's when Walker went over and gunned down Hayward in a front room of the house. 

"It is for you to say whether the murder of James Hayward was both planned and deliberate," Pritchard told the jury. "Could any plan made in such circumstances be considered deliberate?" 
The defence had argued that the slaying was a father's desperate attempt to save his daughter from a debilitating addiction. 
In his closing argument, lawyer Morris Bodnar asked the jury to send the message that "we are mad as hell and we did something about people killing our children." 

Speaking with reporters outside court Wednesday, Bodnar reaffirmed that position. 
"In the end, yes, it was a father saving his daughter - a very concerned parent who saw his daughter going downhill and what we think was on the verge of dying," he said. 
"If the jury came back with manslaughter, my client would be happy." 
The Crown countered by arguing that the killing was the calculating act of a parent who wanted his daughter's boyfriend dead and Hayward did not deserve second-class justice because of his drug problems. 
Crown lawyer Daryl Bode called the attack a "deliberate, intentional" choice that Walker made. 

On the stand, Walker testified he could remember only snippets from around the time of the shooting. 
But Bode reminded the jury how Walker must have gone to his basement, got his gun, loaded it with 10 bullets and brought 20 more with him. He told jurors that Walker drove to Hayward's house, parked his truck neatly on the side of the street, went into the house to grab Jadah and, when she wouldn't leave, unloaded his gun in Hayward's direction. 

Hayward ended up being hit five times and bled to death on the floor.


----------



## Krieger (18 Jan 2007)

Do the powers that be not see that criminals seem to have more rights than the victims in most cases?  WTF is wrong with the justice system today?


----------



## Samsquanch (18 Jan 2007)

Sounds like his daughter is no prize either, moved out at 16 to do drugs with some lowlifes. My parents would have beat my ass for thinking it. Her brother was into drugs as well wow!..........good parenting! When parenting techniques fail turn to manslaughter the permanent solution.  ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Jan 2007)

Samsquanch said:
			
		

> Sounds like his daughter is no prize either, moved out at 16 to do drugs with some lowlifes. My parents would have beat my *** for thinking it. Her brother was into drugs as well wow!..........good parenting! When parenting techniques fail turn to manslaughter the permanent solution.  ;D




And how many teen kids do YOU have out in the world?  Blame Mummy and Daddy because the kid associates with dirt bags, huh?  Was it your dad's fault the first time you smoked up?  Did your mum force you to fingerbang Suzie Rottencrotch behind the bleachers in Grade 8?  The fact with kids is this:  You can show them the path, you can't always make them take it, no matter how many Dr Spock books you read.  This blame the parents bullshit is, well, bullshit.  A little accountability would be nice.  Just wake up in the morning and say "today I choose not to be a shitbird", then follow up on it.  "If I screw up today, it's because daddy  never hugged me, so that's okay" isn't the same.


----------



## nowhere_man (18 Jan 2007)

The youth justice system in the country is garbage. I'm 16 and I know that if I go and steal a car that is my fault its not my parents or school it's me (besides my parents have told me they'd call the cops on me). 

They should get rid of the whole act and treat teenagers as adults. And as for the crackhead who beat the guy with the bat he didn't know the guy stole that car he just beat the crap out of someone because they we're in an accident. It could have been anyone, that guy should be charged. 

And as for people who murder people if they find them guilty they should hand them over to the victims family so they can punish them, i'm sure that would cut down on repeat offenders.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jan 2007)

nowhere_man said:
			
		

> And as for people who murder people if they find them guilty they should hand them over to the victims family so they can punish them, i'm sure that would cut down on repeat offenders.



Seems to me that this is one of the reasons we have troops in Afghanistan......to stop these OLD ideas of vigilante justice.


----------



## gnome123 (18 Jan 2007)

New bumper sticker(s) for Winnipeg to capitalise on this ordeal.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipeg/2007/01/16/3387878-sun.html


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jan 2007)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> A little accountability would be nice.  Just wake up in the morning and say "today I choose not to be a shitbird", then follow up on it.  "If I screw up today, it's because daddy  never hugged me, so that's okay" isn't the same.



Kat,
I wish I could relate last nights social work "tour de stupid" but I can't. Lets just say the reason was even dumber than that........


----------



## Samsquanch (18 Jan 2007)

Maybe I'm crazy Kat, but I think murdering people who you don't want hanging out with your daughter is hummmm... overkill.... Maybe? Ahhhh good memories of grade 8 are rushing back into my head Mary Jane rotten she was a nice girl I got along well with her Dad. 
I agree whole heatedly about being a victims society. Boohoo not enough hugs. All I'm saying is buddy probably isn't all there upstairs, and if he thinks killing people is perfectly fine what kind of ideas did his daughter get from the warped point of view. 

That being said I'm happy that particular 24 year old is no longer breathing up all the good air. More for me and mary jane rotten #24
Cheers


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Jan 2007)

And nowhere did I say I condoned the killing.  Maybe if I was in the same situation, I wouldn't do much different, this is his child we're talking about.  The father/daughter bond is a very special one.  My whole point was that you blamed the parenting skills for her being a reprobate, not the fact that she CHOOSES to be a reprobate.


----------



## Samsquanch (18 Jan 2007)

I hear you it's got to be bad watching a scumbag come to the door to pick up your daughter. I can't even imagine....


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Feb 2007)

I had a great call last year.  As follows:

My partner and I respond to an assault report complaint.  On arrival, two sixteen year olds appear to have been beaten fairly well, albeit looking terribly cool in their ball caps-askew, wife beater tank tops with hip hop chains and shorts around their knees.   :
They go on to relate that they had been at Walmart and had purchased a video game.  Having opened it, played it and were done with it, they chose to bring it back.  Upon finding out that Walmart is not in the video game rental business, they proceeded to scream and yell at the 18 year old female clerk.  By their own admissions, they were calling her "bitch" "hoe" and made veiled threats of retaliation if they didn't get their money back.  Store security then tells them to get out, and they continue to scream, rant on about their "rights" and refuse to leave (I had to give them some credit for being unbelievably candid about what tools they had been) 
Then for "no reason" (after some digging, come to find out that one had screamed back into the store his feeling that the clerk was a c^nt) "some big adult guy comes over and starts punching me in the face.  And all these people were standing around and they weren't even DOING anything to help us.  And my friend tried to get him to stop, and he got punched to!  And we're just kids, and that is, like, against the law".  
Dad is there as well, and goes on to brag about how he always had to do all the jail time that he ever was given and that if he had to be held to the law, these other people should be too.  Plus, they are all upset that the original unit that attended the scene laughed at the kids, then told them to get off the property or they would be arrested for trespassing.  
My partner and I are trying not to laugh ourselves, and both later agree that we would have given half a paycheque to see these little turds get tarred.  I let all parties know that they just got a valuable lesson in "Don't let your mouth write a cheque that your body can't cash".  Dad then comes up with the flawless solution that he will then stake out the Walmart and follow the female clerk home with his son's help and "take care of it myself".  I then helpfully point out that he is a jackass (twice, because he said "pardon me?" the first time) and that no officer would have any problem locking them up if this matter went any further.  After receiving the obligatory "that's what my tax dollars are paying for?" and getting back "you are on welfare.  Paying GST/PST on cigarettes and booze doesn't fund municipal policing" we leave and laugh for about an hour.  
However, I think the best part of the story would be the part you don't see.  All of the people who got to see said dinks pummelled and then went on to tell the story to others.  And then they told the story, and so on, and so on....

Should the public take the law into their own hands?  Probably not.  
Should they refrain from the same because there is a legal system that works?  Not a chance.  
Will the public expect to see anything in the future that approximates justice?  Forget about it.  

I don't think random beatings are the solution (long term, mind you) but the spirit of the act is.  People have to take back their society and have a sense of responsibility towards it.  There was a time when someone was being rude or out of line in public, people would speak up and others would back them.  Now, anyone can do anything they want and everyone else is supposed to suck it up.  The police can only do so much, and since the judges are hell bent on destroying this country some thing has to give.  

In the mean time, you won't see a lot of boo hooing or hand wringing from your street level police when these things happen.


----------



## xo31@711ret (22 Feb 2007)

+1 zipperhead_cop


----------



## career_radio-checker (22 Feb 2007)

Zip, because you are a SME on this subject I got a few nagging questions:

how come the judges are so lenient?
Who appoints them?


----------



## medaid (22 Feb 2007)

the judges are appointed by the Premier of each province, then the SCC level, the prime minister. Why are judges so lenient? well... beats me!  there are several ideas with regards to this:

1) because that's what the politicians want
2) because that's what the public want
3) because that's what the politicians want

so.... I don't know nothing makes sense anymore   ;D maybe we should move to a retributive system where old style of justice is served. Angry mob beatings anyone?


----------



## 3rd Herd (22 Feb 2007)

See: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/57831.0.html

another misguided criminal


----------



## The_Falcon (22 Feb 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> the judges are appointed by the Premier of each province, then the SCC level, the prime minister. Why are judges so lenient? well... beats me!  there are several ideas with regards to this:
> 
> 1) because that's what the politicians want
> 2) because that's what the public want
> ...



Provincial Court Judges and Justices of the Peace are appointed by the Province.  Superior Court Judges are appointed by the Federal government on the recommendation of special appointing committees, which interestingly enough have been receiving a lot of attention lately because the conservatives are planning on making changes to the committee, which has all the usual bleeding heart left wing hug a thugs up in arms.  The reason, they plan on appointing police officers (retired obviously) to these committees which are primarily made up of lawyers and academics.  They are claiming that this is all partisan blah blah, they (the Conservatives) are trying to stack the committees with people who will appoint more "law and order" types (like that would be a bad thing), that police should have no say or stake in how judges are appointed.  

This says it all 

http://torontosun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/2007/02/19/3644721.html


> Clarity in the Commons
> 
> It is uncommon for both sides of an issue to be expressed with any clarity in Canada's House of Commons, but Feb. 14 was an uncommon day. Consider this exchange between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff regarding who is or is not fit to wear judicial robes. Harper: "We want to make sure we're bringing forward laws to make sure that we crack down on crime, that we make our streets and communities safer. We want to make sure our selection of judges is in correspondence with those objectives. Ignatieff: "Mr. Speaker, this has just confirmed our worst suspicions." Thank you for confirming ours, Michael.
> 
> ...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Feb 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> the judges are appointed by the Premier of each province, then the SCC level, the prime minister. Why are judges so lenient? well... beats me!  there are several ideas with regards to this:
> 
> 1) because that's what the politicians want
> 2) because that's what the public want
> ...



Judges will come right out and tell you;  they are above the public interest.  Just look at some of the comments that came out of the SCC when it was challenging the anti-terrorism laws.  The way they see it, they are the only line between chaos and mob rule.  Since we unwashed masses are so swayed by popular opinion and have collective ADD, and so very critically unintelligent, it is their job to act as a stone in a sea of hysteria.  
Judges are appointed by the government.  So we have about three decades of Liberal decisions that will haunt us for the next twenty years or so.  How bad do you think things will be by then?  
 Judges are everything that is wrong in Canada


----------



## career_radio-checker (22 Feb 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Judges will come right out and tell you;  they are above the public interest.  Just look at some of the comments that came out of the SCC when it was challenging the anti-terrorism laws.  The way they see it, they are the only line between chaos and mob rule.  Since we unwashed masses are so swayed by popular opinion and have collective ADD, and so very critically unintelligent, it is their job to act as a stone in a sea of hysteria.
> Judges are appointed by the government.  So we have about three decades of Liberal decisions that will haunt us for the next twenty years or so.  How bad do you think things will be by then?
> Judges are everything that is wrong in Canada



Thanks zip, always a pleasure reading your insight, 

Toronto may have smog warnings, Ottawa has _arrogance _ warnings with DFAIT, NDHQ and the Senate among the heaviest polluters. I guess we should add the SCC to the list.  ;D

Speak of the devil, looked out the window and it's getting a little foggy outside


----------



## zipperhead_cop (23 Feb 2007)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> Thanks zip, always a pleasure reading your insight,



I post, because I care...   :-*


----------



## hotelquebec9er (23 Feb 2007)

zipperhead_cop:  I understand and agree with many of your sentiments, however...  

Where do we draw a line in the sand in regards to the SCC and political expediency?  In many ways, the Anti-Terrorism Act breached s.1 of the Charter in a severe way (this is why the original legislation was given the 5 year sunset clause).  The want for the Libs to take the "worst" parts of the ATA out only makes sense in my eyes (seeing as they've never been used).  We have other legislation (Federal Emergency Act IIRC?) that can serve in a terror emergency just fine.  This is probably going to sound a bit idealistic, but I would rather err on more freedom than less.  It's a slippery slope from liberal democracy to dictatorship/police states (just ask the Wiemar republic...)  Just a thought.  
---
On the topic of young punks being royally stupid.  I can sympathize.  I actually had $1800 worth of damage done to my car when two guys (maybe 18) got out of their car infront me and kicked one of my doors during in a fit of road-rage (Campbell and Wyandotte... nice and thugged out, they were in a '93 DeVille with 20" wire rim wheels)...  I know that the justice system isn't going to fix them or make them a valuable member of society, because they don't honestly care.  Maybe if someone gave them a good beat down they'd figure out that they aren't so tough and rules are meant to be followed.  Maybe the Young Offender's Act is a joke  :threat:  :threat:  :threat:

So where do we draw the balance?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (23 Feb 2007)

hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> It's a slippery slope from liberal democracy to dictatorship/police states (just ask the Wiemar republic...)  Just a thought.



Gad!  Enough with the slippery slope.  Holding asshats accountable for their deeds, terrorist or not, is not the jet stream to Nazi Germany.  In order to put together a terrorism case, there has to be heaps of info that most people cannot be privy to.  Rest assured, there are too many real G-balls to deal with that imagined ones don't need to be created.  And if someone wants to railroad someone else for some ulterior motive, it is easy enough to do.  
The slippery slope we are screaming down right now is the left side of the hill.  Personal freedoms are getting ridiculous, and the legal system is bankrupt.  We could stand about 20 years of hard ass policy change before things would need some tweeking the other direction.  



			
				hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> On the topic of young punks being royally stupid.  I can sympathize.  I actually had $1800 worth of damage done to my car when two guys (maybe 18) got out of their car infront me and kicked one of my doors during in a fit of road-rage (Campbell and Wyandotte... nice and thugged out, they were in a '93 DeVille with 20" wire rim wheels)...  I know that the justice system isn't going to fix them or make them a valuable member of society, because they don't honestly care.  Maybe if someone gave them a good beat down they'd figure out that they aren't so tough and rules are meant to be followed.



Were you to have done so, if I was the officer that arrived on the scene, as long as you hadn't killed anyone or used a weapon, I would have arrested the punks and helped you with your statement.  Did you get a plate?  PM me with it and I'll go hunting.  



			
				hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> Maybe the Young Offender's Act is a joke



There is no "maybe".  But jokes are supposed to be funny.  BTW, it is called the Youth Criminal Justice Act now, and it is weaker than the old YOA.  Good times, eh?


----------



## xo31@711ret (24 Feb 2007)

gawd I ain't a cop or lawyer, so I'm out of my 'lane' as it were; bring back the hole and chain gangs (make 'em work). Then, for 'minor' offences give 'em a choice: join the military or go to crow-bar hotel. I've had a few senior NCO's waaaay back who were given that choice and said it was the best decision they ever had to make...of course it'll never happen


----------

