Guns, Gangs and Toronto

[zipperhead_cop]

I don't know - Ghiglieri in The Dark Side of Man points out that, on average, the murder rate of juvenile US gang members (ages under 18 and of all ethnic groups) is 463/100,000.  This is much higher then anything seen in Canada.  Does it constitute a crisis that demands a suspension of some civil liberties?  I don't think so - as I said, you don't see the Americans running to shred the Bill of Rights to deal with its inner-city crime problems.  This is not an immanent threat to the well being of Canada but rather an indication that there is an acute social problem within a specific community that needs to be addressed.  I don't think you can address social problems with the Emergencies Act.

Nice.  So lets hang back and let the problem snowball until the violence is 100 times worse here.  You don't think that if the US could turn back the hands of time and get a grip on this crap before it got this bad they wouldn't?  How about taking a pro-active stance and nipping it in the bud before we get there.  There is no greater cultural influence to Canada than the USA.  We are a shadow of them (like it or not, no matter how much 'Corner Gas' you force yourself to watch) but we don't have to be like them.  All of these problems are manageable and correctable, with a few intelligent (read not liberal) steps in the right direction. 

Back a page, your point about not enforcing the laws against organized crime members until they get caught doing something;  how do you think they get their colours?  By hosting a tastefully appointed garden party and integrating origami napkins?  For real gangs it takes years of being a hanger on, striker, probationary member before you get your full colours.  The non-full patch members are the ones who do the most crime, in order to prove themselves.  Once they get their colours, they have committed a heap of criminal acts to get there.  Connecting their crime to the organizations is pretty easy.  Intelligence gathering is coming into a new golden age, and it's at a point where I can read a report filed in Vancouver, or pull up a mug shot.  And just because a law exits doesn't mean it gets enforced.  Discression does kick in as does common sense.  There have been dozens of kids that I could have locked up over the years for wearing those rings that go across more than one finger for being a prohibited weapon, but you look at the kid and his record and you choose not to.  Discression is what terrifies you liberals, because you can't handle not knowing what will happen.  I'm sure your friend Brad Swallows has a trite quote for this too, but what you are arguing is the old "Police State" bogeyman.  Maybe some input from people who live in a police state, like Singapore would be useful.  Maybe we would find out that when you have a rock bottom crime rate you can free up community resources for social programs and education.  PBI was bang on with his post about the effectiveness of tough sentencing options and better social nets.  Unfortunately, the only thing that has a nice fluffy feel to it is working on the social programs.  There has to be a two pronged attack with both concepts to be effective.

 

[midgetcop]

Whoa. zipperhead, your arguments would sound a lot more reasonable if you left out all the irrational liberal-bashing.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

They sound fine to me

 

[midgetcop]

They sound fine to me

Alright. Then explain:

Discression is what terrifies you liberals, because you can't handle not knowing what will happen.

..because in/out of context I have no idea what he's talking about.

:shrug:

 

[Cloud Cover]

"discretion" ...


Anyway, having attended the revolting and rather endless parade in the criminal courts in Toronto a few times, I just can't see how any amount of social safety net programs are going to change anything for the better. To me, that's just throwing good money after bad. 

I'm not so sure that the reason crime is so low in Singapore can be accounted for by any fear of the law alone. I have to wonder if it can be explained by an effective and highly disciplined education system that is properly funded and structured, and which teaches simple social skills - like how to be a responsible person.

Going back to the Toronto court rooms, IIRC all I ever saw was a whole lot of irresponsibility sustained if not actually propelled by a culturally and constitutionally entrenched broken system which seems to reward brazen disrespect not just for authority and law, but on fundamental human terms as well.  The culture of victimhood in Canada has deeply polluted our society to the extent that even the most despicable crimes and criminals are somehow always the fault of another, and never the accused. That is precisely the mistake the United States made post WW2, and for a country that consistently thumps its chest and says "we're better because ...", we seem to follow the US for better or for worse- and now it's starting to get people killed.  IMHO the gang problem is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

 

[Infanteer]

Nice.  So lets hang back and let the problem snowball until the violence is 100 times worse here.  You don't think that if the US could turn back the hands of time and get a grip on this crap before it got this bad they wouldn't?  How about taking a pro-active stance and nipping it in the bud before we get there.

Again, does it constitute a crisis that is going to turn Toronto into Johannesburg or Sodom and Gomorrah?  As midgetcop pointed out, there are far more lethal problems in Canadian society and other cities have higher homicide rates per capita then Toronto.  I think you are being a bit of a chicken little on this one.

Back a page, your point about not enforcing the laws against organized crime members until they get caught doing something;  how do you think they get their colours?

Thanks for the lessons on the obvious; you'll remember that I pointed that out - catch them for the crime then.  We don't need to invent new laws to get these guys.  You've yet to address my concern that the one guy charged in connection with the boxing day shooting had a nice rap sheet - I think we can both figure out the problem.

Discression is what terrifies you liberals, because you can't handle not knowing what will happen.  I'm sure your friend Brad Swallows has a trite quote for this too, but what you are arguing is the old "Police State" bogeyman.

lol - I love how you constantly refer to me as a "liberal".  Is it making my argument easier to debate when you insist on bringing in meaningless outside rhetoric?  You, or anyone, have yet to build a reasonable case as to why extraordinary measures are required to fight organized crime.

As I said, the "Police State boogyman" obviously isn't a boogyman when Law Enforcement officers come here and say we should outlaw certain types of clothes or justify search and seizure upon flimsy grounds.

Maybe some input from people who live in a police state, like Singapore would be useful.

I'd hardly consider Singapore a police state.  They, like us, have a Constitution and they abide by the "rules of the game".

PBI was bang on with his post about the effectiveness of tough sentencing options and better social nets.

Well it is good to see you agree with me then, because PBI concurred with my disagreement with your idea and I agreed with him on tough sentencing.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I have found that there is a point of commonality in liberal though that has a theme of "you cant trust the government" (no Liberal endorsement suggested) and "its a slippery slope/it will be Big Brother".  In all likely hood, the ones who advocate rights for the sake of rights at societies expense are highly educated free thinkers who could handle themselves credibly in a completely autonomous environment.  They also are not the ones who are committing the crime.  Criminal thought (this is from experience, not some study) is closer to animal instinct for habitual offenders.  They think in terms of "what do I want now" and don't look much farther than about an hour down the road.  The only thing that stops this kind of introverted view is a sense of consequence.  Criminals generally don't have that because there is nothing in our system that provides it.  Do you think that a $200 fine is an appropriate sentence for a drug dealer (who is currently doing dead time for setting up a robbery scheme with another crack head and a hooker who would lure a john into an alley then jump the guy) with a 30 conviction plus record for resisting arrest where they forced their way into a strangers home to escape from officers?  $200 @ $40 per crack rock=5 drug transactions minimum which takes roughly one hour.
Police have used discression for years with no "slide" into draconian conditions.  Has no one ever gotten a break on a traffic stop?  Ever gotten a 12 hour suspension when you could have gotten drilled for impaired op of a car?  Just because the law exists, doesn't mean it will be enforced.  It gives us options.  The only thing in the Criminal Code which requires us to make an arrest is when a warrant for an arrest existsBetter to have the option and not use it, than not be able to do anything about this gang problem.
Im sure that there are hundreds of issues that we could point to needing work, but is this thread not "Guns, Gangs and Toronto"?
As for "liberal bashing" when has that ever been irrational?  Or even discouraged for that matter?

 

[Infanteer]

I'm not so sure that the reason crime is so low in Singapore can be accounted for by any fear of the law alone. I have to wonder if it can be explained by an effective and highly disciplined education system that is properly funded and structured, and which teaches simple social skills - like how to be a responsible person.

You got that right - there is a reason you can leave your bike, unlocked, out on the street overnight in Japan or Singapore.  I think it is related to the issue below.

Going back to the Toronto court rooms, IIRC all I ever saw was a whole lot of irresponsibility sustained if not actually propelled by a culturally and constitutionally entrenched broken system which seems to reward brazen disrespect not just for authority and law, but on fundamental human terms as well.   The culture of victimhood in Canada has deeply polluted our society to the extent that even the most despicable crimes and criminals are somehow always the fault of another, and never the accused. That is precisely the mistake the United States made post WW2, and for a country that consistently thumps its chest and says "we're better because ...", we seem to follow the US for better or for worse- and now it's starting to get people killed.  IMHO the gang problem is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Yup.  That is probably the root societies within Canada gone awry - no responsibility.  Me, me, me causes them to fall apart and then "it's someone else's" fault in a "rehabilitative" penal system only reinforces that mantra.  I'm going to blame it on Trudeau.  

That's why I like the gulag and the noose - if they aren't going to be responsible then we'll take responsibility for them.

 

[midgetcop]

... we seem to follow the US for better or for worse- and now it's starting to get people killed.  IMHO the gang problem is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

It's "starting" to get people killed? Where have you been the past 20 years??

 

[Infanteer]

I have found that there is a point of commonality in liberal though that has a theme of "you cant trust the government" (no Liberal endorsement suggested) and "its a slippery slope/it will be Big Brother".

You need to examine the term "liberal" and its various meanings.  In the context for which you are using it - which I will assume is "left-wing" - you are completely out to lunch.  Left-wing ideology is most often statist, aiming towards centralizing control into the hands of the state so as to better exercise control over the populace and provide what it determines to be adequate service in various facets of daily life.

So now I guess this makes YOU a "liberal" for wanting to give the police unheard of powers of enforcement and the ability to target people based upon their appearance alone.  Of course, this wouldn't be the first time I've seen this from a law-enforcement officer; I had one guy tell me that he didn't think the average Canadian deserved the right to defend himself with lethal force as "he didn't need any Rambo's making his job tougher".  He probably voted for the Gun Registry too....

If you had bothered to actually read what I have said, you'd see that this is the exact opposite of the above.  I believe in smaller government that will stay out of the lives of the common citizen - and this includes the police.  Until somebody is arrested and convicted for a crime, there is no reason to take them off the streets.  The average citizen needs to be empowered to repel a threat so that the public does not need to require the police as it's sole source for security.  Remember that Peel Principle that was put up earlier?

-  "Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

You'll forgive me if I don't feel like being pestered, detained and search everytime a cop feels I've done something wrong.  It is not incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community welfare and existence, to violate fundamental rights that come with being a citizen.  If we don't define the proper relationship between the citizen and the state appropriately, there is nothing to say that it won't happen - you put too much faith in "discretion".

In all likely hood, the ones who advocate rights for the sake of rights at societies expense are highly educated free thinkers who could handle themselves credibly in a completely autonomous environment.

Huh?

Criminal thought (this is from experience, not some study) is closer to animal instinct for habitual offenders.  They think in terms of "what do I want now" and don't look much farther than about an hour down the road.  The only thing that stops this kind of introverted view is a sense of consequence.  Criminals generally don't have that because there is nothing in our system that provides it.

I'd argue that this behaviour is probably common for most, if not all, humans.  Where is the sense of consequence when some chick is trying to put makeup on her face while driving to work, putting countless others at risk.

Do you think that a $200 fine is an appropriate sentence for a drug dealer (who is currently doing dead time for setting up a robbery scheme with another crack head and a hooker who would lure a john into an alley then jump the guy) with a 30 conviction plus record for resisting arrest where they forced their way into a strangers home to escape from officers?  $200 @ $40 per crack rock=5 drug transactions minimum which takes roughly one hour.

No I don't, and I don't see where you are getting this idea that I am "soft on crime", so quit trying to peg it on me.

Police have used discression for years with no "slide" into draconian conditions.  Has no one ever gotten a break on a traffic stop?  Ever gotten a 12 hour suspension when you could have gotten drilled for impaired op of a car?  Just because the law exists, doesn't mean it will be enforced.  It gives us options.  The only thing in the Criminal Code which requires us to make an arrest is when a warrant for an arrest existsBetter to have the option and not use it, than not be able to do anything about this gang problem.

Police are human too, no?  Then it only follows that police, like any other citizen, is fallible and can screw up and cross the line.  It doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to picture that.

Police officers can do lots about the gang problem - the fact that they guys they bust are out after 3 months is the problem.

As for "liberal bashing" when has that ever been irrational?  Or even discouraged for that matter?

I'm still trying to figure out when respect for fundamental freedoms became the domain of the "liberal"....

 

[Infanteer]

It's "starting" to get people killed? Where have you been the past 20 years??

He was referring to the "culture of victimhood".  People will always kill people, but now we are seeing people killed unnecessarily because we are soft and allow those who should have went up the creek to rejoin society and commit crimes again and again.

 

[midgetcop]

I have found that there is a point of commonality in liberal though that has a theme of "you cant trust the government" (no Liberal endorsement suggested) and "its a slippery slope/it will be Big Brother".

When you can prove that that is a "liberal" viewpoint, then you can you righteously throw that claim around.

In all likely hood, the ones who advocate rights for the sake of rights at societies expense are highly educated free thinkers who could handle themselves credibly in a completely autonomous environment.  They also are not the ones who are committing the crime.

Huh??

  Criminal thought (this is from experience, not some study) is closer to animal instinct for habitual offenders.  They think in terms of "what do I want now" and don't look much farther than about an hour down the road.  The only thing that stops this kind of introverted view is a sense of consequence.

You contradict yourself. If they look no further than an hour down the road, then how are they supposed to have any sense of consequence??

Criminals generally don't have that because there is nothing in our system that provides it.  Do you think that a $200 fine is an appropriate sentence for a drug dealer (who is currently doing dead time for setting up a robbery scheme with another crack head and a hooker who would lure a john into an alley then jump the guy) with a 30 conviction plus record for resisting arrest where they forced their way into a strangers home to escape from officers?  $200 @ $40 per crack rock=5 drug transactions minimum which takes roughly one hour.

Sure. Are you willing to cough up the tax dollars to fund more prisons??

Police have used discression

I'm not trying to be a jerk. But do you mean "discretion"?

for years with no "slide" into draconian conditions.  Has no one ever gotten a break on a traffic stop?  Ever gotten a 12 hour suspension when you could have gotten drilled for impaired op of a car?  Just because the law exists, doesn't mean it will be enforced.  It gives us options.  The only thing in the Criminal Code which requires us to make an arrest is when a warrant for an arrest existsBetter to have the option and not use it, than not be able to do anything about this gang problem.
Im sure that there are hundreds of issues that we could point to needing work, but is this thread not "Guns, Gangs and Toronto"?

Sure. But your posts are quickly falling into incoherence.

As for "liberal bashing" when has that ever been irrational?  Or even discouraged for that matter?

Bashing of *any* political party/leaning has never been encouraged in terms of providing a logical, rational opinion. Sure, it can influence. But when it comes to outright insults - it never earns credibility.

 

[midgetcop]

He was referring to the "culture of victimhood".  People will always kill people, but now we are seeing people killed unnecessarily because we are soft and allow those who should have went up the creek to rejoin society and commit crimes again and again.

:

 

[Infanteer]

:

I'm serious - can you think of any other reason that a guy who had prior convictions of robbery and uttering threats was able to take part in the shootout last week?

 

[midgetcop]

I'm serious - can you think of any other reason that a guy who had prior convictions of robbery and uttering threats was able to take part in the shootout last week?

The only logical reason I can think of is system overload - meaning, that he had been let off previously because we don't have anywhere to put him.


I know it's easy for people to feel that justice has gone "soft", or that judges/justices do not know what they're doing.

Maybe I'm totally out to lunch, but I honestly don't think it's a matter of ineptitude , but rather of unfortunate necessity.

How can we truly know either way? 

 

[Infanteer]

The only logical reason I can think of is system overload - meaning, that he had been let off previously because we don't have anywhere to put him.

I know it's easy for people to feel that justice has gone "soft", or that judges/justices do not know what they're doing.

Maybe I'm totally out to lunch, but I honestly don't think it's a matter of ineptitude , but rather of unfortunate necessity.

How can we truly know either way?

Well, I guess that means we agree then, as you seem to be saying that the the guy wasn't where he should have been, which was off of Toronto's streets.  The only difference is that I say we won't drop the hammer and you say we can't drop the hammer - the real answer is probably a combination of both.

 

[mdh]

It seems to me that Whiskey601 has pointed out the essence of the matter - a "culture of victimhood" that defies easy remedy by the state.

The social pathologies of Jane and Finch (to use one enclave of poverty by way of example) are deeply entrenched and reinforced by a sub-culture that puts a premium on anarchic behaviour. Without any social and community restraints (and these restraints are also a matter of cultural orientation and upbringing), I'm not sure that prison terms are going to be the answer; we know that US incarceration rates are high -- but recidivism remains equally high.

I doubt that the Total Cop Solution proposed above will get us very far in combating gang violence - most of which is directed at rival gang members anway. (The notion that Toronto "lost its innocence" in this recent incident is a media fiction - there have been gang shootings in the area of the Eaton Centre before and downtown night clubs are regular venues for handgun assassinations.)

Increasing sentences might be part of a solution - or there might not be a solution at all.  I'm not sure how you turn back the clock and make it unacceptable for fathers to abandon families, banish the romance of "Gangta Rap" from the media, instill traditional notions of individual responsbility, respect for the law, etc, etc? If anyone knows of a successful program that achieves all that - let me know.

Even the much-heralded success of the "broken windows" approach to policing in New York (which saw a dramatic fall in the crime rate) was probably due less to aggressive policing then simple demographics - a fall in the total number of violence-addicted youths which had reached a peak in the 1970s.

 

[GO!!!]

Even the much-heralded success of the "broken windows" approach to policing in New York.....

What is this?

 

[48Highlander]

I'm still trying to figure out when respect for fundamental freedoms became the domain of the "liberal"....

Today's "liberals" (ie. those who support the Liberal party in Canada, or the Democrats in the US) tend to be the ones associated with absolute rights and zero responsibilities.  They're the ones pushing social programs and high taxes so that we can "provide for the poor".  They're also the ones who are against strict punishment and instead push "rehabilitation" or "prevention".  So while historicaly, "liberal"/communist regimes tend to actualy be quite oppressive, that only becomes obvious to the masses once that government implements it's ultimate goals.  In the meantime, "liberals" always see themselves as the champions of human rights and freedoms.  The USSR was supposed to be a "workers paradise", remember?

 

[Infanteer]

Today's "liberals" (ie. those who support the Liberal party in Canada, or the Democrats in the US) tend to be the ones associated with absolute rights and zero responsibilities.  They're the ones pushing social programs and high taxes so that we can "provide for the poor".  They're also the ones who are against strict punishment and instead push "rehabilitation" or "prevention".  So while historicaly, "liberal"/communist regimes tend to actualy be quite oppressive, that only becomes obvious to the masses once that government implements it's ultimate goals.  In the meantime, "liberals" always see themselves as the champions of human rights and freedoms.  The USSR was supposed to be a "workers paradise", remember?

See, that's the trouble between liberal and Liberal.  The folks you are referring to are socialists, the antithesis of liberals.  This is what my reference was indicating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal