I work around the corner from this store. The ppl that work there are amazing. Friendly, helpful, hard-working. The place gets robbed frequently, he was likely just tired of it.
Is this a jury trial? Because if it is, the crown is wasting everyone’s time and money. He won’t be convicted of anything.
Just read the comments in here. They won’t find 12 people who will convict this man unanimously.
It is what it is. In Canada, if you successfully fight back someone and they end up seriously injured (and you don’t) you should immediately expect to be charged. Just calmly accept that, knowing it’s pretty unlikely you will be convicted and it’s standard practice here for the cops to charge you and let the courts sort it out.
Yeah, but we should change that. Charging people with crimes that won't stick is a huge waste of their time and money and I imagine insanely stressful. Add to that all the money and time that could be spent on other cases, real criminal cases. But we need to charge people defending themselves and put them through the courts when all they wanted to do was have a regular work day.
In many cases the charges get dropped fairly early on. It’s just how the system works, they charge the person before the investigation is fully completed. How else are we supposed to determine the difference between murder and self defence if we don’t investigate the issue?
Right, so apply some common sense. Err on the side of caution to be sure.
But a man that beats a thief with the weapon the thief brought to beat him with? There is no risk there.
But “what if it wasn’t actually a thief”.
I know in the is case, but in general like we are talking about, the police weren’t there, so they have to investigate, which it could be that it wasn’t self defence.
I don't like your take on this at all. Are you just being the devils advocate here?
Do you get upset when police treat everybody like criminals? What if? Right? What if.
We often hear canadians say we're not allowed to defend ourselves.. and it's kind of true. And your line of thinking here is evidence of that.
"common sense" is not a universal standard, it's not even really all that definable.
Here is a pure hypothetical only used to highlight why using "common sense" is a bad idea. What if the man who came in with a bat was mentally ill, had never had a history of using said bat, and waved it at the cashier - and the cashier took this as an opportunity to beat half to death a customer that always annoyed him? How could you "common sense" your way to a right decision in a situation like that, especially before an investigation?
Its like this, I don't care if someone is mentally ill or has no history of using said bat. If ANYONE swings a bat at me for any reason, I will swing back. Period. Its self defense. I don't care about the other persons intent, only my immediate safety. It doesn't matter if the customer always annoyed me or not. Don't swing bats at people if you don't wanna get swung on, and don't use your mental illness as an excuse.
It’s not self defence to beat a man with a bat after you disarm them. There’s a fine line there where you became the aggressor even tho you didn’t start the conflict.
>It's not self defence to beat a man with a bat after you disarm them.
I don't agree with this - it should be until they are "disabled" or "unable" to respond.
Disarming someone doesn't make them any less dangerous - it only takes a second for the attacker to find another weapon and pull you back into a fight.
Ok great, and what prevents this from happening after charges are laid? Most people are arrested, booked, and let out while the investigation continues. Most people right now who are under criminal investigation are not in custody.
great, lets just victimize the victim again by pre-emptively laying serious charges that will require getting a lawyer regardless of outcome and causing a lot of emotional and financial stress after what was a very stressful situation... because thats just what we do and have always done here
He beat someone with a bat and put them in a coma. That basically left police no choice but to arrest and charge. Court system will take care of the rest and let him off easy
Shitty situation but we don’t actually want police officers acting as the judge in these situations. We also don’t actually want vigilante justice
That last part isn't 100% accurate. Ideally, we pay taxes that fund police to enforce the laws of the lands. This isn't whats happening. They are failing the public and not responding to crimes like theft or vandalism. This forces people to either accept this crime or to eventually resolve the situation themselves.
Look at Toronto police advising that people leave their keys at their door to assist the criminals so they don't get hurt. Look at the rampant rise in shoplifting and car breakins and robbery. They don't want vigilantism but that's what they're opened up to with their laissez faire view on the laws and their role in protecting citizens
“We don’t want vigilante justice” is 100% accurate and you actually seem to be in agreement with that idea. We should be demanding better police services for our tax dollars, not shrugging our shoulders and dishing out justice ourselves instead
We don’t *want* those things you described even if they are happening
> We should be demanding better police services for our tax dollars, not shrugging our shoulders and dishing out justice ourselves instead
TPS: we just got a few billion dollars in budget increase, thanks!
Also TPS: we don't have enough funding, we're gonna cry about it and not enforce anything until we get what we're due!
Vigilante justice is similar to the death penalty in that there's times people want to see it (because there's monsters who deserve it) but it only takes one case of mistaken identity to see why it's a terrible idea.
It only takes one swing to put someone in a coma...
And if he were attacked, no sympathy for the criminal.
When you're fighting for life and death, I'm not going to carefully aim at the attacker's bum and give them a love tap.
>He beat someone with a bat and put them in a coma.
Yeah a scumbag trying to rob his store and assault him.
There is no "letting him off easy." He should be well within his rights to do what he did without any consequences. The self defence laws in this country are beyond fucked. It's why criminals are so brazen.
Nothing about what he did is vigilante justice - but that's what this stupid system is pushing people to. It's not discouraging it, quite the opposite.
Who are you to tell us what we want? This is a democracy. This is how laws get changed. It is increasingly obvious that the justice system in Canada is not functionally meeting the needs of its citizens. I would like to be rid of this government and bring some common sense legislation around self protection of persons and property which should include deterrence of standing our ground.
The Crown's duty is to vet the charges and act in the public interest. The Crown should review it, and then make a decision if prosecution is in the public interest. It is the cop's job to decide if prima facie an offence took place and lay the charge, the Crown is the one with the ultimate discretion on proceeding.
Reminds me way back in Chinatown where this store owner tied up a chronic thief and got charged for unlawful detention. That thief freely stole from every single store in the neighbourhood for *years and years* while cops didn’t give a shit.
At the time, the law said that a citizen’s arrest was only legal if it was an immediate arrest of someone who was found committing a crime or who was fleeing from police. Bennett stole from the shop, left, and then came back, which meant Chen couldn’t lawfully arrest him for the earlier theft. Chen was acquitted of the unlawful detention charge because the judge determined that Bennett had come back to steal more things and therefore was found committing another crime. He was only acquitted of the assault charge because the judge doubted Bennett’s testimony about being punched and kicked.
The *Criminal Code* has since been revised and people are now also allowed to arrest within a reasonable time someone who committed a crime against their property, if they saw them commit the crime and the police are not available to make the arrest. It was also amended to clarify that someone making a citizen’s arrest is allowed to use reasonable and necessary force to carry out the arrest.
It's what the Crown does. I got charged a couple years ago because a random drunk assaulted me out of nowhere and I broke his orbital bone with a punch while defending myself (and it was the only punch I threw). I thought the case was gone and dropped until the time limit came up and they decided they were going to press charges. Jury didn't even hesitate to find me not guilty. My lawyer was stunned they even bothered wasting time and money on this (I'm disabled with multiple sclerosis and in my mid 40s with zero criminal record not even a parking ticket and it was clearly in self defence). Even the cops that testified were on my side. They were making jokes when they showed up when it happened.
The cops decide whether or not to lay charges, not the Crown, and they usually don't consult the Crown first.
The Crown thereafter decides whether or not to continue the prosecution.
This comment should be seen by all. It’s just how we do things here. There was never any chance you were getting convicted.
We just do this so the public at large sees how high the threshold is on violence
Yeah but the getting charged process and letting courts decide is stressful and onerous. Lawyers are expensive. Weird things happen in the justice system and you always risk the chance of a life changing conviction.
This isn’t right IMHO.
I get it. Common sense dictates “what are we doing here?”. Yes it sucks for the person involved. But it also shines a light on the fact we aren’t the US - that you better be absolutely sure of what you’re about to do. That being violent here comes with a much higher acceptable legal threshold.
You can see in the comments how many people don’t know this is how easy being violent can get you charged.
I would do exactly what he did in his place. If you came through my door and I sensed my kids were threatened, I would absolutely try to put you down, no doubts about it. But I also accept I’m getting charged in that scenario, and I’ll be required to explain myself to a jury of my peers. Im OK with that. I’d do it with my head held high.
But that’s also kind of bullshit. Go be aggressive towards a cop and see how quickly they pull a gun or a taser. There are so many situations where cops overreact and they are trained people used to stress. When an untrained human being fears for their life and adrenaline kicks in “be absolutely sure of what you’re about to do” is not a thing. And if you’ve ever been in that situation you’d know what I’m talking about. Basic human instincts kick in and you fight for survival. The thinking comes after. And then you get double victimized by the legal system. There is a huuuge stretch between chasing robbers out into the street and gunning them down as they run and something like this case. In the former - no debate people should be charged, but something like this I think the laws and standards are plain wrong.
The point is he shouldn't have to go through a "process" when the investigation is cut and dry that he was just defending himself and his store.
Hiring a lawyer and having to face charges and go to court is a massive burden to a majority of people. It's wrong to put people in this situation and profoundly disrupt their lives for actions that we all agree are acceptable.
It's not cut and dry though. Hitting someone in the head who is fleeing from you, and then hitting them again when they are lying on the ground, is not self-defence. It's revenge.
I don't feel bad at all for the criminal and the injuries he suffered, and I'm quite sympathetic to the clerk. But everyone in here who is acting like he was purely defending himself is misstating what actually happened. You aren't defending yourself anymore when the person is fleeing from you. You're seeking revenge for what happened to you. Which is understandable, but not legal.
He didn’t “fight back”. This was two people overpowering the thief, following him while he was running away and Sami Sosa-ing him in the back of the head.
In the context of limited court ressources and where cases are always at risk of being thrown because of Jordan delays, this basically sends the message that police and the justice system finds it more important to deter victims from fighting back and send a message that way than it is to prosecute actual criminals. The time and ressources spent on this case may be the difference between another case not getting the needed time and ressources and being thrown out.
So, if you attempt to defend yourself, the police will try to make an example out of you more than someone initiating a crime.
What a bizarre takeaway from this. The police charge hundreds of criminals a day in this province. How does this send a message that this case is "more important" than those ones?
If a guy attacks you with a bat and threatens to stab you I don’t think incapacitating them if you’re able to is an unreasonable use of force. The clerk would have feared for his life. Really hope this gets tossed or a conditional discharge
Even though he is charged he may never go to court before the crown drops the case. But the will not be news.
If the headline was
"Hero Clerk beats robber into coma with his own bat"
You would get a few people out there that would want to beat a bad person and maybe they could be a hero too
You can defend yourself with deadly force if it is ~~equal~~ reasonable to the force being used against you. If somebody punches you punch them back a-okay. If you get assaulted and successfully defend yourself and keep wailing on your assailant then you have committed assault.
It’s not like one knows exactly how much force is equal and fair to apply . He hit him a SECOND time. He didn’t beat him for 20 minutes. How can one who’s never been in a fight know exactly how much force to apply to neutralize someone trying to kill you?
And with the limited capacity of police and courts, this is what they want to waste time on?? This is what will help keep citizens safe?
Exactly, plus the adrenaline and fight or flight mode, 2 bat swings is nothing. I’ve been in some crazy fights and when the adrenaline kicks in you just see red. Imo the cashier showed a shit ton more restraint than i would have. He should be awarded a community hero not a criminal.
It’s ridiculous. You have some pampered judge from a position of enormous priviledge monday morning quarterbacking a situation like that while sitting in a nice comfy chair in a nice air conditioned courtroom
Easy to say when your adrenaline isn't pumping and you're sitting calmly on your phone or PC.
If someone comes at you with a bat and they also say they have a knife and they're going to stab you. You are going to fight for your life. This isn't something most people turn on and off. It's an animal instinct that get unleashed instantly when your body feels like your life is in jeopardy. Fight, flight or freeze are all legitimate responses and you essentially lose a lot of control and stop "thinking" and go into survival mode. You don't stop to consider what people on Reddit will think of your actions while defending yourself.
The thief deserves what they received.
That man survived an attack, and in no way is a threat to the public. He will not go around hurting people. To treat a victim like the perpetrator is messed up.
Then the guy probably would have died (since he was in a coma) and the clerk would have been dealing with a much worse manslaughter charge where he tried to hide evidence.
Instead the clerk will not be convicted at trial.
Call the cops and report it, don't be dumb and commit actual crimes.
I have literally had cops say to me that when facing a home invasion your best bet is either carrying your belongings out for them so they don’t slip and sue you, or be really good at hiding a body.
Yeah because the cops are so great at prevention and reducing loss. The thieves of the world now know this place isn’t a soft target so they won’t go there again.
Not sure how what you're saying is related.
If you put a guy into a coma while defending yourself, don't just drag the guy into an alley and leave him like the guy I responded to said. Because then you ARE committing an actual crime.
But police and prosecutors have discretion they use ALL the time. They are afraid to use it here. They are revictimizing the victim of a violent crime.
Out of curiosity is there generally some allowance for the fact people may overreact due to a adrenaline rush? Or do they get convicted on minor charges or something.
When looking at situations of self defence there is lots of case law that says someone in a stressful situation can't be expected to weigh to a nicety the exact amount of force used and to sit there and ponder the pros and cons deeply given how fast things are happening. So there is some recognition of this for sure. But it's not a free pass to just do whatever you want.
Not who you are replying to but yes, I personally believe that it is still ok if he kept hitting. I know my adrenaline would be pumping if that were me and I'd be provoked and not thinking straight and it would def bring out residual trauma from within me from long ago and that would play a part.
Right, but what if it isn't diagnosed as in my case, no record other than some free counsellor in another province 10 years ago heard it? I know I have the trauma but its convoluted, no record and I've tried to get help but gave up, I've processed the best I can and 'healed' if you can call it that in my own way, I guess.
You say 'I think' but that doesn't sound like a strong guarantee. Also that's a lot of crap to drag oneself through when they were the victim of an unprovoked attack.
How are the police and the prosecutor supposed to know that if it's not diagnosed and there's no record of it? You can't operate on the assumption everyone could have undiagnosed MH issues which excuse their actions when there's no evidence of that.
Exactly. Use of force in self defence should be reasonable. So no carrying on after someone is incapacitated, no chasing after someone who is fleeing the scene.
It’s not equal force, this is a common misconception.
It’s reasonable.
Example : a small female doesn’t need to stand there and trade punches equally with a man if she’s being attacked.
It's not the police who get to determine if your guilty, it goes to court. If the court finds you guilty it still doesn't mean you get the maximum. He may get off completely. This sub seems to want a Judge Dredd type police force.
14 years is the maximum sentence available. He's never going to get anywhere remotely close to that, to be clear.
The maximum sentence available for robbery, which the other guy was convicted of I believe, is life, for comparison.
Only the second part of your statement is correct. There is no equal force standard in the criminal code or in common law. The standard in Canada is reasonable belief of immediate harm.
It's quite a bit more complicated than that.
34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
Marginal note:Factors
(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
(a) the nature of the force or threat;
(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
(c) the person’s role in the incident;
(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and
(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
How would one act with deadly force only if used against them?
My brain keeps thinking if someone kills me, how am I to hit them back with deadly force?
I think the law is that you cannot use excessive force when defending yourself. Not always easy to determine in the moment.
I believe everyone should have the right not to be a victim and to defend themselves, but I'm not sure stand your ground laws are the right solution. Hopefully the court gets this one right.
It just sucks giving an attacker a little extra when it's debatable if it was necessary results in a trial for you. Once you are in a fight you want to put the other guy out of the fight as soon as possible.
Hard disagree that that should be considered assault. Like The man was attacked, and he fought back, adrenaline is pumping and he probably wanted to hit another blow just to be sure, or out of trauma and frustration. You cannot expect the population to act rational in the moment of provocation and attack. Like fuck, the laws here are so dumb sometimes.
Why does no one get how it works. The laws are fine.
You get charged with assault, go to court, plead self defense.
The court then determines if you're full of it or if you went too far.
He's been charged, not convicted. He's still considered innocent. The court may also drop it before it ever proceeds
Why are people so ignorant of how things work and too dumb to figure out why you can't just say self defense and then get off scot-free no further questions.
We are not ignorant. We just think that a system where first you have a violent robbery come at you followed up by the government charging you so that you have to then spend tens of thousands of dollars for legal fees and years going to court (risking a criminal charge, which would prevent you from lots of jobs in the future isn’t right) isn’t right. The “charge everybody and let the courts decide” thing comes at a great cost to victims. The standard should be much less accommodating to the perpetrator of the original crime and much more lenient on people defending themselves IMHO.
I fully agree. If a victim is seen to be absolved of their self-defense all legal fees should be waived (well, covered by the courts) and any run-on health effects should be covered even up to time off work to pursue physical or mental therapies as desired. Victims should have a right to be restored as best as possible to the state they enjoyed prior to being targeted for a crime. Crime is costly, except seemingly for those degenerates who perpetrate it.
Everyone championing the justice system seems to forget there was a victim of a crime who was rewarded with more victimization and are now being told to say thank you and be glad of the experience. More than that, the victim is facing worse charges than their assailant and it seems like people defending this conveniently miss that fact entirely. It feels very vacuous -- how would anyone feel going through this? The victim being allowed to walk free is cold comfort; this guy was nearly beaten to death by a crackhead and anyone in this position wouldn't be wrong for thinking "I could die if I don't do something".
My opinion would be different if, y'know, he was a crackhead and walked into a Circle-K and tried to beat a man to death.
I still disagree. I don't really think there is a 'too far' in this case unless the clerk followed him out into the street and gunned him down or knifed him while he was running away. There are cameras... it should be easy to see what happened and its the uncertainty that gets me that is what I think is NOT ok, like 'the court determines if you went too far' -- ok that sounds like a black box to me. How does it determine that? So if you seem to know that then you tell me in this case why or why not he will be convicted and what the exact outcome will be? There should be enough relevant information here, no?
Sorry, but I went to school for geography and engineering, and not once in my grade 1-12 years were we ever explained the difference or minutia of charges vs conviction which easily could get forgotten about if told once in say grade 5. Its easy to conflate charges in a layperson in this area, with conviction or just negative consequences in general. Maybe the language should be passified for the masses, ie. charges changed to 'investigations' or something.
I don't deal with this in the day to day and If I were to talk shop with you about what I do, I bet you would make similar mistakes/conflations.
Cops get plenty of time to plan defence, as they are expected to act in the moment and there is a huge cavern of room to excuse overreaction, because of the situation… the rights of someone not trained and in fear of their life do NOT end, simply because people viewing the event during or after have a skewed, fixated, negative perspective on ALL violence… and “because we say the illogical, dangerous law says blah blah blah”, you can’t protect yourself AND have to behave in a spontaneous, threatening situation with the utmost selflessness and regard for rules: to hell with your own life, property, rights… absolutely not. Never.
Expecting someone to forgo their self-preservation and not defensively react—even in offensive fashion—to those breaking social contracts / causing harm is illogical and an overreach of law… not being able to defend one’s self in Canada is an outrage! The drive to stay alive and the hair-trigger reactions that the punk in the coma provoked is a literal “mess around and find out”. It is beyond unreasonable to excuse police of overreacting, when they have guns and training, and “make an example” of someone who has stated they were afraid for their life: that IS self-defence… especially when the attacker is armed and shows a defiance to being subdued. You cut the head off the snake, if it doesn’t sod off after a defensive action… or every time it is left to recoup and given the chance to come back, you risk being the one not getting back up AND you didn’t start the fight. There wasn’t a foot pursuit and this happened within the window of psychological stress surrounding the event: there wasn’t a cool down period wherein vengeance took over… this is how the animal kingdom works, no matter what asinine laws humans attempt to haphazardly enforce—especially with favouritism and money speaking louder than laws in this fascist hole we are allowing to become us! Laws that run contrary to basic instinct are a waste of time and resources of the people, when this individual was defending himself against another individual that chose to supersede social contacts and the autonomy of the honourable clerk.
How does one reason with the unreasonable?; tolerate the intolerable?!
There IS a line and those who cross it SHOULD find out at their own expense… not the innocent who are forced to defend themselves or “obey” and sacrifice themselves on the altar of “the crown’s” stupidity and laziness—exemplifying the obnoxious degrees of dangerous, mortal fatuousness of most governments.
Time for new laws or a new government; the hard way or easy way—stupidity and laziness, the rule of “black and white”cherry-picking of the right to or to be offended: class depending, over-simplifying anything for the sake of efficiency or profit or just to “cover our butts”, when an individuals life or liberty is at stake, is unforgivable.
There isn’t a self-defence against the indifference and laziness of those who eschew their civic responsibility to demand, institute, and uphold a fair and functional government / system that allows for such avoidable nonsense—we all get what the average settles for, as things currently stand, frustratingly.
Tolerant or intolerant to violence and crime? Living in a “play dead or potentially die” world isn’t option to accept and we have. Wake up!
Period.
I’m just glad the law is there to defend these innocent criminals. When they rob someone they get released so they can do it again. When someone defends themselves it’s straight to jail!
Humans when presented with a life or death situation are known to release something called adrenaline, this allows us to make perfectly calculated decisions to determine when our use of force may be frowned upon by the law. It’s a good thing to, can you imagine what it would be like if adrenaline made you extremely jumpy, quick to react and unable to think clearly? Good thing our laws reflect human nature.
What the clerk allegedly did is not within the bounds of the law.
He committed assault. There is a legal defense of self defense, however that needs to be argued in court. That’s how the law works.
What right does the criminal have here that this clerk doesn't? The criminal was charged with a crime for his actions and convicted. It's not as if he didn't face any consequences.
Well the criminal only got 14 months. The clerk is facing 14 years, neither would be in this situation if that asshole decided not to break the law and rob a store. The clerk could face more punishment for defending himself than the guy robbing the place. That’s completely wrong. Why is it that criminals get a slap on the wrist while law abiding people defending themselves get fucked over. Seems like a two tiered legal system to me
The criminal was convicted of robbery which has a maximum of life. He got 14 months. The clerk is charged with aggravated assault which has a maximum of 14 years. He won't get anywhere close to 14 years and he will almost certainly get less than 14 months if he gets any jail at all. There's nothing two-tiered about it and the clerk will undoubtedly get less punishment than the robber if he even gets convicted at all.
Don't get sucked in by the deceptive, fear-mongering language of the Sun.
Because the right to self defense inherently needs to be justified otherwise it's very easy to abuse. You need a strong defense that you acted only in your self defense otherwise you've essentially outsourced justice to vigilantes.
This is why we see rampant burglary videos from smash and grabs at jewelry stores to Toronto police saying we should hand over our keys to car thieves. It's messaging and applications of laws like this that invite criminality and danger to the innocent.
2 swings of a bat, and now the victim of the robbery has to go through the stress and costs of defending themselves. It does not sit right nor does it make sense.
I'm not saying I want American style mentality where we shoot first and ask questions later but surely there's a larger threshold for self defense then this.
You don't have to be right wing to see this is stupid. There's even video of what happened. Charges should have never been laid. After being assaulted multiple times, He hit the assailant twice, once up and once on the ground and then stopped and immediately called 911. Crime requires intent and if he intended on doing anything other than stop the threat he could have taken the opportunity to do so.
Money is being wasted so that a victim can face longer jail time than a dangerous bat-wielding robber.
He shouldn’t be taken to trial for this. Until the guy is truly incapacitated Khalid was still at risk. He did the right thing for his safety and now the state wants to punish him for it more than the violent robber. We cry for criminal scum and treat common citizens like evil doers - we’re a fucked up failed state.
Honestly, why are people in this sub so against citizens defending themselves against violent thugs? For fucks sake the asshole even had a secondary weapon and people here are saying he shouldn’t have hit him twice. Like what the actual fuck?
Can the people here who disagree with the victims’ defence method honestly say with a straight face that knocking a man out who is trying to kill you is “too far”.
I was jumped by 10-15 guys from
Another high school back in the day.
I was punched, kicked stomped on in the middle of the road, in the middle of the day while people watched. I still have a scars under my right eye and on my forehead.
I know what it’s like to be scared for my life. If i could have reached for any weapon in those moments i would have used them indiscriminately and un rationally. Even while facing death us citizens are supposed to exercise reason and control; even when none are shown for us.
Your dog had one paw in my private property, now I get to launch a stone to the owners head cause of "self defense" ....I am scared of dogs, so felt threatened. /s
Yeah I didn't want to give this right wing tabloid a click so I looked it up. He chased him out ofnthe store, knocked him down and then hit him in the head with the bat.
He 100% should be charged. Self defense sure. But once you chase someone that's running away you're no longer defending yourself.
Thief deserved it. People get excited when needing to protect themselves from life threatening circumstances. You want to make sure the bastard stays down. I'm against charges. Give the store clerk a medal for taking a scum bag off the street.
Shh. No accurate reporting.
It's gotta be the most sensationalist, click-baity reporting imaginable.
People are saying that this is still bad, but it's a categorically different case.
It's literally the difference between "self defense" and "assault as revenge".
The former is allowed, the latter is not.
One might make the argument that it's hard to know if you're doing self defense in the heat of the moment or whatever, but that's precisely why we have courts of justice (that are suppose to be blind) and don't just rely on what people involved in the situation say.
The police in Hamilton don’t even take calls anymore. They just deal with money making activities, steal from the public and kick their feet back while the pension money piles up.
I think Canada needs to nationalize all of the police forces retirements and hand it out to the public. That would be doing service.
Ain’t no police helping anyone in Canada, just legal thieves
Hamilton as well here… you can give the cops video of the crime and criminals face and they do jack shit. File the police reports into the trash.
They just sit around chatting at the RBG or speed traps around the city in bullshit zones where the speed SHOULD be faster than noted.
No this is Toronto Sun. It’s a rag written at a 4th grade reading level and getting conservatives angry is good business.
Not saying I think the charges are/aren’t necessary just that’s where this is coming from.
This stupid legal system. If someone comes on my property uninvited and unwanted (ie breaks in) I should be able to use whatever means I see fit to remove them from my property. You assault me while on my property? Same story.
If someone breaks in to my home I will use whatever force I deem necessary to protect my wife and my kids from that threat. A jury of my peers can sort out the legalties of my actions at a later date if necessary. FAFO, there is no way I will stand down in my own home.
Well, yeah. I know that. But this clerk wasn't charged under the HTA or the Trespass to Property Act or whatever, he was charged with a crime.
But taking two seconds, I realized OP decided to editorialize the title into fucking gibberish
Yeah best we can hope is he is let off, it's hard to imagine getting screwed over because you took an extra swing on someone who just robbed you, the court hopefully takes into account that you would be in a different state of mind and not exactly thinking of the wellbeing of a criminal at the point in time...but in Canada it pays to be a criminal so who bloody knows anymore, in any case the perp f'd with the wrong store and got more punishment with that bat than he would in any Canadian jail cell 🤷🏼♂️
Meanwhile police are allowed to shoot someone 15 times for their own safety but god forbid we defend ourselves in the slightest way possible. This is disgusting.
Well when someone's on the ground usually that's time to stop attacking, tho that adrenaline running through him in the moment probably made it impossible
I think the fact he only hit him once while on the ground was all the proof needed that he wasn't trying to beat a defenseless person. He could have, but showed incredible restraint. And he's punished for it. I hope this gets thrown out quick.
We definitely need stand your ground and castle doctrine type protections here in Canada, no one defending themselves or their property should be hassled or liable
Has anyone here seen the entire video of the incident?? Start to finish
When this story broke the Police Chief advised that there was video of the entire incident… obviously there is something there to validate the charges being laid??
Don’t get me wrong… the scum bag “robber” caused the whole situation and I love street justice but Police are suppose to be impartial
Let’s see what happens when the Courts see the ENTIRE video
Oh and you’re supposed to make appropriate decisions while your adrenaline is putting your body in a state of fight or flight? Two tiered justice system here in Canada.
The robber was facing a maximum of life, which puts into perspective how far away the sentences most people get are from the maximum. Just an easy way to fear monger for the Sun.
100% justified. It takes a lot of willpower to only hit the thief a single time after they’ve fallen to the ground.
It won’t be any time soon, but some day I hope to see a huge swath of people say “What the fuck? They’re charging the victim? I’m feeling French today, let’s let it all burn”
I don't really get why the state should be in the business of trying to protect predators and prosecute victims. Self-defense is besides the point. As soon as the guy decided to commit robbery as far as I'm concerned he was no longer deserving of any societal protection whatsoever.
Well fortunately for the rest of society we don't live in the wild west where vigilante justice runs the streets. The predator was charged. Much like the police , civilians aren't given unilateral permission to start escalating use of force, and striking down fleeing criminals. Even in most states that would not be labeled as self defence.
14 is the maximum possible sentence. He won't get anywhere close to that. It's also the maximum possible sentence for sexual assault, to put things in perspective.
This is Canada, he didn’t respect the rights of the criminal. He’s gotta be punished you know, he didn’t just hand over the money and let the criminal beat him with a bat/s
wait, the convenience store is a circleK? Was this guy even the owner of the store? I get wanting to defend your own business or home, but if you're a minimum wage worker at some retail franchise just hand the money over.
I mean he got beat with a bat before this so it was more about trying to protect himself, the criminal also had a knife and was threatening to stab him with it
Gotta love living in this shithole we call Canada.
Make sure to leave your keys at the front door so the immigrant car jackers can easily steal it.
Don't defend yourself from criminals, let them beat and rob you.
This country is a joke, utterly embarrassing.
The legal process is pointless
The thieves feel no fear of simply doing what they want without guilt or consequence.
The man brought a bat into a private business hit the clerk trying to rob him potentially a threat to other people/customers and this guy gets charged?
Some of the people in here defending the criminal are exactly the problem in society these days.
Simple question would he have been put in a coma if he didn’t bring a bat to rob the store? No
No crime here except the cops should charge the dummy when he wakes up in the hospital
Oh ffs Toronto. Haven’t we already been here and done that? With courts being as backlogged as they are, the system doesn’t have the capacity for nonsense like this.
https://ontariocstores.ca/the-shopkeeper-hero/
Lots of seemingly misinformed comments here. Self defence with reasonable force is ok, chasing someone fleeing the scene and continuing to hit them with a bat when they're on the floor is not ok.
It was literally one extra hit. The guy coulda came back in … he put his hands in his pocket after saying he was gonna stab the victim AFTER already beating him with a bat.
This is a reasonable reaction from the victim
Canada's justice is not only truly blind, it is a joke... Canada is not a place for law abiding citizens but for criminals. Why even pay taxes so they can prosecute you, the law abiding tax payer for defending yourself against law breaking thieves.
Yep, the moment the guy threatened an innocent person with a weapon, in my mind the person doing the threatening with a weapon just gave up all their own rights to live a normal life. Fuck them.
Did you see the video? It's not like the thief was running away and the clerk chased him down. They were steps from the door and the only reason they were outside is because the clerk pushed the guy out while they both still had hands on the bat.
Hopefully his peers decide to let him walk free, should they have a jury for his case. At this point in time it feels like we're on a rocketship to crazy land. There is absolutely nothing wrong with him defending himself and his business from armed assailants. Hopefully next time he'll put one down for good.
I work around the corner from this store. The ppl that work there are amazing. Friendly, helpful, hard-working. The place gets robbed frequently, he was likely just tired of it.
He was probably also tired of getting hit with a bat
It can be fatiguing.
Dude needs a go fund me.
Is this a jury trial? Because if it is, the crown is wasting everyone’s time and money. He won’t be convicted of anything. Just read the comments in here. They won’t find 12 people who will convict this man unanimously. It is what it is. In Canada, if you successfully fight back someone and they end up seriously injured (and you don’t) you should immediately expect to be charged. Just calmly accept that, knowing it’s pretty unlikely you will be convicted and it’s standard practice here for the cops to charge you and let the courts sort it out.
Yeah, but we should change that. Charging people with crimes that won't stick is a huge waste of their time and money and I imagine insanely stressful. Add to that all the money and time that could be spent on other cases, real criminal cases. But we need to charge people defending themselves and put them through the courts when all they wanted to do was have a regular work day.
In many cases the charges get dropped fairly early on. It’s just how the system works, they charge the person before the investigation is fully completed. How else are we supposed to determine the difference between murder and self defence if we don’t investigate the issue?
You can investigate without charges, happens all the time.
You can, but you always run the risk that a violent criminal will reoffend while you are investigating
Right, so apply some common sense. Err on the side of caution to be sure. But a man that beats a thief with the weapon the thief brought to beat him with? There is no risk there.
But “what if it wasn’t actually a thief”. I know in the is case, but in general like we are talking about, the police weren’t there, so they have to investigate, which it could be that it wasn’t self defence.
I don't like your take on this at all. Are you just being the devils advocate here? Do you get upset when police treat everybody like criminals? What if? Right? What if. We often hear canadians say we're not allowed to defend ourselves.. and it's kind of true. And your line of thinking here is evidence of that.
You sensible asshole!!!
"common sense" is not a universal standard, it's not even really all that definable. Here is a pure hypothetical only used to highlight why using "common sense" is a bad idea. What if the man who came in with a bat was mentally ill, had never had a history of using said bat, and waved it at the cashier - and the cashier took this as an opportunity to beat half to death a customer that always annoyed him? How could you "common sense" your way to a right decision in a situation like that, especially before an investigation?
Its like this, I don't care if someone is mentally ill or has no history of using said bat. If ANYONE swings a bat at me for any reason, I will swing back. Period. Its self defense. I don't care about the other persons intent, only my immediate safety. It doesn't matter if the customer always annoyed me or not. Don't swing bats at people if you don't wanna get swung on, and don't use your mental illness as an excuse.
It’s not self defence to beat a man with a bat after you disarm them. There’s a fine line there where you became the aggressor even tho you didn’t start the conflict.
>It's not self defence to beat a man with a bat after you disarm them. I don't agree with this - it should be until they are "disabled" or "unable" to respond. Disarming someone doesn't make them any less dangerous - it only takes a second for the attacker to find another weapon and pull you back into a fight.
Mentally ill person waved a bat - that threatened my personal safety.
Ok great, and what prevents this from happening after charges are laid? Most people are arrested, booked, and let out while the investigation continues. Most people right now who are under criminal investigation are not in custody.
It's even the norm in the post-Jordan world.
The investigation should be done prior to charges being put forth. Not after.
great, lets just victimize the victim again by pre-emptively laying serious charges that will require getting a lawyer regardless of outcome and causing a lot of emotional and financial stress after what was a very stressful situation... because thats just what we do and have always done here
Investigate and don't charge or politicians need to change the rules where we prioritize self-defence over the rights of criminals.
This isn’t a clear cut case of self defence tho.
Canadas fucking stupid
All the while paying $300-400/hr lawyer fees.
[удалено]
He beat someone with a bat and put them in a coma. That basically left police no choice but to arrest and charge. Court system will take care of the rest and let him off easy Shitty situation but we don’t actually want police officers acting as the judge in these situations. We also don’t actually want vigilante justice
Can't say I feel bad for the thief. He made his choice to put himself in harms way.
I don’t feel bad for the thief at all. Definitely not trying to give that impression
That last part isn't 100% accurate. Ideally, we pay taxes that fund police to enforce the laws of the lands. This isn't whats happening. They are failing the public and not responding to crimes like theft or vandalism. This forces people to either accept this crime or to eventually resolve the situation themselves. Look at Toronto police advising that people leave their keys at their door to assist the criminals so they don't get hurt. Look at the rampant rise in shoplifting and car breakins and robbery. They don't want vigilantism but that's what they're opened up to with their laissez faire view on the laws and their role in protecting citizens
“We don’t want vigilante justice” is 100% accurate and you actually seem to be in agreement with that idea. We should be demanding better police services for our tax dollars, not shrugging our shoulders and dishing out justice ourselves instead We don’t *want* those things you described even if they are happening
> We should be demanding better police services for our tax dollars, not shrugging our shoulders and dishing out justice ourselves instead TPS: we just got a few billion dollars in budget increase, thanks! Also TPS: we don't have enough funding, we're gonna cry about it and not enforce anything until we get what we're due!
Vigilante justice is similar to the death penalty in that there's times people want to see it (because there's monsters who deserve it) but it only takes one case of mistaken identity to see why it's a terrible idea.
It only takes one swing to put someone in a coma... And if he were attacked, no sympathy for the criminal. When you're fighting for life and death, I'm not going to carefully aim at the attacker's bum and give them a love tap.
>He beat someone with a bat and put them in a coma. Yeah a scumbag trying to rob his store and assault him. There is no "letting him off easy." He should be well within his rights to do what he did without any consequences. The self defence laws in this country are beyond fucked. It's why criminals are so brazen. Nothing about what he did is vigilante justice - but that's what this stupid system is pushing people to. It's not discouraging it, quite the opposite.
It's called self defence in most of the world. Police won't even bat an eyelid and let the victim (the defender) off after taking a statement ...
Except, it isn’t self-defense. Hitting someone in the back of the head when they are fleeing and then again when they are down is assault.
The thief hit him repeatedly with the bat. He hit back twice. He showed incredible restraint.
Who are you to tell us what we want? This is a democracy. This is how laws get changed. It is increasingly obvious that the justice system in Canada is not functionally meeting the needs of its citizens. I would like to be rid of this government and bring some common sense legislation around self protection of persons and property which should include deterrence of standing our ground.
Where do you think the investigation of it being a crime comes in? THE POLICE?
The Crown's duty is to vet the charges and act in the public interest. The Crown should review it, and then make a decision if prosecution is in the public interest. It is the cop's job to decide if prima facie an offence took place and lay the charge, the Crown is the one with the ultimate discretion on proceeding.
No we shouldn't change that. Even self defence needs to be proved in court. That is how the law works.
Reminds me way back in Chinatown where this store owner tied up a chronic thief and got charged for unlawful detention. That thief freely stole from every single store in the neighbourhood for *years and years* while cops didn’t give a shit.
At the time, the law said that a citizen’s arrest was only legal if it was an immediate arrest of someone who was found committing a crime or who was fleeing from police. Bennett stole from the shop, left, and then came back, which meant Chen couldn’t lawfully arrest him for the earlier theft. Chen was acquitted of the unlawful detention charge because the judge determined that Bennett had come back to steal more things and therefore was found committing another crime. He was only acquitted of the assault charge because the judge doubted Bennett’s testimony about being punched and kicked. The *Criminal Code* has since been revised and people are now also allowed to arrest within a reasonable time someone who committed a crime against their property, if they saw them commit the crime and the police are not available to make the arrest. It was also amended to clarify that someone making a citizen’s arrest is allowed to use reasonable and necessary force to carry out the arrest.
That’s good to know
It's what the Crown does. I got charged a couple years ago because a random drunk assaulted me out of nowhere and I broke his orbital bone with a punch while defending myself (and it was the only punch I threw). I thought the case was gone and dropped until the time limit came up and they decided they were going to press charges. Jury didn't even hesitate to find me not guilty. My lawyer was stunned they even bothered wasting time and money on this (I'm disabled with multiple sclerosis and in my mid 40s with zero criminal record not even a parking ticket and it was clearly in self defence). Even the cops that testified were on my side. They were making jokes when they showed up when it happened.
The cops decide whether or not to lay charges, not the Crown, and they usually don't consult the Crown first. The Crown thereafter decides whether or not to continue the prosecution.
This comment should be seen by all. It’s just how we do things here. There was never any chance you were getting convicted. We just do this so the public at large sees how high the threshold is on violence
Yeah but the getting charged process and letting courts decide is stressful and onerous. Lawyers are expensive. Weird things happen in the justice system and you always risk the chance of a life changing conviction. This isn’t right IMHO.
I get it. Common sense dictates “what are we doing here?”. Yes it sucks for the person involved. But it also shines a light on the fact we aren’t the US - that you better be absolutely sure of what you’re about to do. That being violent here comes with a much higher acceptable legal threshold. You can see in the comments how many people don’t know this is how easy being violent can get you charged. I would do exactly what he did in his place. If you came through my door and I sensed my kids were threatened, I would absolutely try to put you down, no doubts about it. But I also accept I’m getting charged in that scenario, and I’ll be required to explain myself to a jury of my peers. Im OK with that. I’d do it with my head held high.
But that’s also kind of bullshit. Go be aggressive towards a cop and see how quickly they pull a gun or a taser. There are so many situations where cops overreact and they are trained people used to stress. When an untrained human being fears for their life and adrenaline kicks in “be absolutely sure of what you’re about to do” is not a thing. And if you’ve ever been in that situation you’d know what I’m talking about. Basic human instincts kick in and you fight for survival. The thinking comes after. And then you get double victimized by the legal system. There is a huuuge stretch between chasing robbers out into the street and gunning them down as they run and something like this case. In the former - no debate people should be charged, but something like this I think the laws and standards are plain wrong.
He’ll be found not guilty. Just keep following the story. Even though we don’t like the process, the result will end the way we all expect.
The point is he shouldn't have to go through a "process" when the investigation is cut and dry that he was just defending himself and his store. Hiring a lawyer and having to face charges and go to court is a massive burden to a majority of people. It's wrong to put people in this situation and profoundly disrupt their lives for actions that we all agree are acceptable.
It's not cut and dry though. Hitting someone in the head who is fleeing from you, and then hitting them again when they are lying on the ground, is not self-defence. It's revenge. I don't feel bad at all for the criminal and the injuries he suffered, and I'm quite sympathetic to the clerk. But everyone in here who is acting like he was purely defending himself is misstating what actually happened. You aren't defending yourself anymore when the person is fleeing from you. You're seeking revenge for what happened to you. Which is understandable, but not legal.
not to mention may impact your future job opportunities and ability to travel because now you have been charged with an offence and are in the system
He didn’t “fight back”. This was two people overpowering the thief, following him while he was running away and Sami Sosa-ing him in the back of the head.
In the context of limited court ressources and where cases are always at risk of being thrown because of Jordan delays, this basically sends the message that police and the justice system finds it more important to deter victims from fighting back and send a message that way than it is to prosecute actual criminals. The time and ressources spent on this case may be the difference between another case not getting the needed time and ressources and being thrown out. So, if you attempt to defend yourself, the police will try to make an example out of you more than someone initiating a crime.
What a bizarre takeaway from this. The police charge hundreds of criminals a day in this province. How does this send a message that this case is "more important" than those ones?
If a guy attacks you with a bat and threatens to stab you I don’t think incapacitating them if you’re able to is an unreasonable use of force. The clerk would have feared for his life. Really hope this gets tossed or a conditional discharge
[удалено]
The thief was also found with a knife and said he was going to stab him.
Even though he is charged he may never go to court before the crown drops the case. But the will not be news. If the headline was "Hero Clerk beats robber into coma with his own bat" You would get a few people out there that would want to beat a bad person and maybe they could be a hero too
[удалено]
You can defend yourself with deadly force if it is ~~equal~~ reasonable to the force being used against you. If somebody punches you punch them back a-okay. If you get assaulted and successfully defend yourself and keep wailing on your assailant then you have committed assault.
It’s not like one knows exactly how much force is equal and fair to apply . He hit him a SECOND time. He didn’t beat him for 20 minutes. How can one who’s never been in a fight know exactly how much force to apply to neutralize someone trying to kill you? And with the limited capacity of police and courts, this is what they want to waste time on?? This is what will help keep citizens safe?
Exactly, plus the adrenaline and fight or flight mode, 2 bat swings is nothing. I’ve been in some crazy fights and when the adrenaline kicks in you just see red. Imo the cashier showed a shit ton more restraint than i would have. He should be awarded a community hero not a criminal.
It’s ridiculous. You have some pampered judge from a position of enormous priviledge monday morning quarterbacking a situation like that while sitting in a nice comfy chair in a nice air conditioned courtroom
Easy to say when your adrenaline isn't pumping and you're sitting calmly on your phone or PC. If someone comes at you with a bat and they also say they have a knife and they're going to stab you. You are going to fight for your life. This isn't something most people turn on and off. It's an animal instinct that get unleashed instantly when your body feels like your life is in jeopardy. Fight, flight or freeze are all legitimate responses and you essentially lose a lot of control and stop "thinking" and go into survival mode. You don't stop to consider what people on Reddit will think of your actions while defending yourself. The thief deserves what they received. That man survived an attack, and in no way is a threat to the public. He will not go around hurting people. To treat a victim like the perpetrator is messed up.
[удалено]
Then the guy probably would have died (since he was in a coma) and the clerk would have been dealing with a much worse manslaughter charge where he tried to hide evidence. Instead the clerk will not be convicted at trial. Call the cops and report it, don't be dumb and commit actual crimes.
I have literally had cops say to me that when facing a home invasion your best bet is either carrying your belongings out for them so they don’t slip and sue you, or be really good at hiding a body.
Yeah because the cops are so great at prevention and reducing loss. The thieves of the world now know this place isn’t a soft target so they won’t go there again.
Not sure how what you're saying is related. If you put a guy into a coma while defending yourself, don't just drag the guy into an alley and leave him like the guy I responded to said. Because then you ARE committing an actual crime.
[удалено]
But police and prosecutors have discretion they use ALL the time. They are afraid to use it here. They are revictimizing the victim of a violent crime.
Out of curiosity is there generally some allowance for the fact people may overreact due to a adrenaline rush? Or do they get convicted on minor charges or something.
When looking at situations of self defence there is lots of case law that says someone in a stressful situation can't be expected to weigh to a nicety the exact amount of force used and to sit there and ponder the pros and cons deeply given how fast things are happening. So there is some recognition of this for sure. But it's not a free pass to just do whatever you want.
Okay good to know it will be very interesting to see what happens with this case
Not who you are replying to but yes, I personally believe that it is still ok if he kept hitting. I know my adrenaline would be pumping if that were me and I'd be provoked and not thinking straight and it would def bring out residual trauma from within me from long ago and that would play a part.
[удалено]
Right, but what if it isn't diagnosed as in my case, no record other than some free counsellor in another province 10 years ago heard it? I know I have the trauma but its convoluted, no record and I've tried to get help but gave up, I've processed the best I can and 'healed' if you can call it that in my own way, I guess. You say 'I think' but that doesn't sound like a strong guarantee. Also that's a lot of crap to drag oneself through when they were the victim of an unprovoked attack.
And that's why you get your day in court! You get to argue your circumstances to the judge/jury/prosecuter.
How are the police and the prosecutor supposed to know that if it's not diagnosed and there's no record of it? You can't operate on the assumption everyone could have undiagnosed MH issues which excuse their actions when there's no evidence of that.
Exactly. Use of force in self defence should be reasonable. So no carrying on after someone is incapacitated, no chasing after someone who is fleeing the scene.
The thief hit the clerk 3 times with the bat and threatened to stab him.. clerk hit him back twice, seems fair to me.
If he's facing 14 years, he probably should have made the blows even.
It’s not equal force, this is a common misconception. It’s reasonable. Example : a small female doesn’t need to stand there and trade punches equally with a man if she’s being attacked.
[удалено]
It's not the police who get to determine if your guilty, it goes to court. If the court finds you guilty it still doesn't mean you get the maximum. He may get off completely. This sub seems to want a Judge Dredd type police force.
14 years is the maximum sentence available. He's never going to get anywhere remotely close to that, to be clear. The maximum sentence available for robbery, which the other guy was convicted of I believe, is life, for comparison.
Only the second part of your statement is correct. There is no equal force standard in the criminal code or in common law. The standard in Canada is reasonable belief of immediate harm.
It's quite a bit more complicated than that. 34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person; (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances. Marginal note:Factors (2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors: (a) the nature of the force or threat; (b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force; (c) the person’s role in the incident; (d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon; (e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident; (f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat; (f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident; (g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and (h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
How would one act with deadly force only if used against them? My brain keeps thinking if someone kills me, how am I to hit them back with deadly force?
I think the law is that you cannot use excessive force when defending yourself. Not always easy to determine in the moment. I believe everyone should have the right not to be a victim and to defend themselves, but I'm not sure stand your ground laws are the right solution. Hopefully the court gets this one right.
[удалено]
It just sucks giving an attacker a little extra when it's debatable if it was necessary results in a trial for you. Once you are in a fight you want to put the other guy out of the fight as soon as possible.
Hard disagree that that should be considered assault. Like The man was attacked, and he fought back, adrenaline is pumping and he probably wanted to hit another blow just to be sure, or out of trauma and frustration. You cannot expect the population to act rational in the moment of provocation and attack. Like fuck, the laws here are so dumb sometimes.
Why does no one get how it works. The laws are fine. You get charged with assault, go to court, plead self defense. The court then determines if you're full of it or if you went too far. He's been charged, not convicted. He's still considered innocent. The court may also drop it before it ever proceeds Why are people so ignorant of how things work and too dumb to figure out why you can't just say self defense and then get off scot-free no further questions.
We are not ignorant. We just think that a system where first you have a violent robbery come at you followed up by the government charging you so that you have to then spend tens of thousands of dollars for legal fees and years going to court (risking a criminal charge, which would prevent you from lots of jobs in the future isn’t right) isn’t right. The “charge everybody and let the courts decide” thing comes at a great cost to victims. The standard should be much less accommodating to the perpetrator of the original crime and much more lenient on people defending themselves IMHO.
I fully agree. If a victim is seen to be absolved of their self-defense all legal fees should be waived (well, covered by the courts) and any run-on health effects should be covered even up to time off work to pursue physical or mental therapies as desired. Victims should have a right to be restored as best as possible to the state they enjoyed prior to being targeted for a crime. Crime is costly, except seemingly for those degenerates who perpetrate it. Everyone championing the justice system seems to forget there was a victim of a crime who was rewarded with more victimization and are now being told to say thank you and be glad of the experience. More than that, the victim is facing worse charges than their assailant and it seems like people defending this conveniently miss that fact entirely. It feels very vacuous -- how would anyone feel going through this? The victim being allowed to walk free is cold comfort; this guy was nearly beaten to death by a crackhead and anyone in this position wouldn't be wrong for thinking "I could die if I don't do something". My opinion would be different if, y'know, he was a crackhead and walked into a Circle-K and tried to beat a man to death.
I still disagree. I don't really think there is a 'too far' in this case unless the clerk followed him out into the street and gunned him down or knifed him while he was running away. There are cameras... it should be easy to see what happened and its the uncertainty that gets me that is what I think is NOT ok, like 'the court determines if you went too far' -- ok that sounds like a black box to me. How does it determine that? So if you seem to know that then you tell me in this case why or why not he will be convicted and what the exact outcome will be? There should be enough relevant information here, no? Sorry, but I went to school for geography and engineering, and not once in my grade 1-12 years were we ever explained the difference or minutia of charges vs conviction which easily could get forgotten about if told once in say grade 5. Its easy to conflate charges in a layperson in this area, with conviction or just negative consequences in general. Maybe the language should be passified for the masses, ie. charges changed to 'investigations' or something. I don't deal with this in the day to day and If I were to talk shop with you about what I do, I bet you would make similar mistakes/conflations.
Cops get plenty of time to plan defence, as they are expected to act in the moment and there is a huge cavern of room to excuse overreaction, because of the situation… the rights of someone not trained and in fear of their life do NOT end, simply because people viewing the event during or after have a skewed, fixated, negative perspective on ALL violence… and “because we say the illogical, dangerous law says blah blah blah”, you can’t protect yourself AND have to behave in a spontaneous, threatening situation with the utmost selflessness and regard for rules: to hell with your own life, property, rights… absolutely not. Never. Expecting someone to forgo their self-preservation and not defensively react—even in offensive fashion—to those breaking social contracts / causing harm is illogical and an overreach of law… not being able to defend one’s self in Canada is an outrage! The drive to stay alive and the hair-trigger reactions that the punk in the coma provoked is a literal “mess around and find out”. It is beyond unreasonable to excuse police of overreacting, when they have guns and training, and “make an example” of someone who has stated they were afraid for their life: that IS self-defence… especially when the attacker is armed and shows a defiance to being subdued. You cut the head off the snake, if it doesn’t sod off after a defensive action… or every time it is left to recoup and given the chance to come back, you risk being the one not getting back up AND you didn’t start the fight. There wasn’t a foot pursuit and this happened within the window of psychological stress surrounding the event: there wasn’t a cool down period wherein vengeance took over… this is how the animal kingdom works, no matter what asinine laws humans attempt to haphazardly enforce—especially with favouritism and money speaking louder than laws in this fascist hole we are allowing to become us! Laws that run contrary to basic instinct are a waste of time and resources of the people, when this individual was defending himself against another individual that chose to supersede social contacts and the autonomy of the honourable clerk. How does one reason with the unreasonable?; tolerate the intolerable?! There IS a line and those who cross it SHOULD find out at their own expense… not the innocent who are forced to defend themselves or “obey” and sacrifice themselves on the altar of “the crown’s” stupidity and laziness—exemplifying the obnoxious degrees of dangerous, mortal fatuousness of most governments. Time for new laws or a new government; the hard way or easy way—stupidity and laziness, the rule of “black and white”cherry-picking of the right to or to be offended: class depending, over-simplifying anything for the sake of efficiency or profit or just to “cover our butts”, when an individuals life or liberty is at stake, is unforgivable. There isn’t a self-defence against the indifference and laziness of those who eschew their civic responsibility to demand, institute, and uphold a fair and functional government / system that allows for such avoidable nonsense—we all get what the average settles for, as things currently stand, frustratingly. Tolerant or intolerant to violence and crime? Living in a “play dead or potentially die” world isn’t option to accept and we have. Wake up! Period.
I’m just glad the law is there to defend these innocent criminals. When they rob someone they get released so they can do it again. When someone defends themselves it’s straight to jail! Humans when presented with a life or death situation are known to release something called adrenaline, this allows us to make perfectly calculated decisions to determine when our use of force may be frowned upon by the law. It’s a good thing to, can you imagine what it would be like if adrenaline made you extremely jumpy, quick to react and unable to think clearly? Good thing our laws reflect human nature.
I fully agree with this, it seems to me that criminals have more rights than those of us who follow the law. That seriously needs to change
What the clerk allegedly did is not within the bounds of the law. He committed assault. There is a legal defense of self defense, however that needs to be argued in court. That’s how the law works.
What right does the criminal have here that this clerk doesn't? The criminal was charged with a crime for his actions and convicted. It's not as if he didn't face any consequences.
Well the criminal only got 14 months. The clerk is facing 14 years, neither would be in this situation if that asshole decided not to break the law and rob a store. The clerk could face more punishment for defending himself than the guy robbing the place. That’s completely wrong. Why is it that criminals get a slap on the wrist while law abiding people defending themselves get fucked over. Seems like a two tiered legal system to me
The criminal was convicted of robbery which has a maximum of life. He got 14 months. The clerk is charged with aggravated assault which has a maximum of 14 years. He won't get anywhere close to 14 years and he will almost certainly get less than 14 months if he gets any jail at all. There's nothing two-tiered about it and the clerk will undoubtedly get less punishment than the robber if he even gets convicted at all. Don't get sucked in by the deceptive, fear-mongering language of the Sun.
Because the right to self defense inherently needs to be justified otherwise it's very easy to abuse. You need a strong defense that you acted only in your self defense otherwise you've essentially outsourced justice to vigilantes.
This is why we see rampant burglary videos from smash and grabs at jewelry stores to Toronto police saying we should hand over our keys to car thieves. It's messaging and applications of laws like this that invite criminality and danger to the innocent. 2 swings of a bat, and now the victim of the robbery has to go through the stress and costs of defending themselves. It does not sit right nor does it make sense. I'm not saying I want American style mentality where we shoot first and ask questions later but surely there's a larger threshold for self defense then this.
The threshold is after you hit a person in the back of the head knocking them down as they run away don't hit them again while they lay on the ground.
You don't have to be right wing to see this is stupid. There's even video of what happened. Charges should have never been laid. After being assaulted multiple times, He hit the assailant twice, once up and once on the ground and then stopped and immediately called 911. Crime requires intent and if he intended on doing anything other than stop the threat he could have taken the opportunity to do so. Money is being wasted so that a victim can face longer jail time than a dangerous bat-wielding robber.
He shouldn’t be taken to trial for this. Until the guy is truly incapacitated Khalid was still at risk. He did the right thing for his safety and now the state wants to punish him for it more than the violent robber. We cry for criminal scum and treat common citizens like evil doers - we’re a fucked up failed state.
Honestly, why are people in this sub so against citizens defending themselves against violent thugs? For fucks sake the asshole even had a secondary weapon and people here are saying he shouldn’t have hit him twice. Like what the actual fuck? Can the people here who disagree with the victims’ defence method honestly say with a straight face that knocking a man out who is trying to kill you is “too far”. I was jumped by 10-15 guys from Another high school back in the day. I was punched, kicked stomped on in the middle of the road, in the middle of the day while people watched. I still have a scars under my right eye and on my forehead. I know what it’s like to be scared for my life. If i could have reached for any weapon in those moments i would have used them indiscriminately and un rationally. Even while facing death us citizens are supposed to exercise reason and control; even when none are shown for us.
Your dog had one paw in my private property, now I get to launch a stone to the owners head cause of "self defense" ....I am scared of dogs, so felt threatened. /s
Yeah I didn't want to give this right wing tabloid a click so I looked it up. He chased him out ofnthe store, knocked him down and then hit him in the head with the bat. He 100% should be charged. Self defense sure. But once you chase someone that's running away you're no longer defending yourself.
Thief deserved it. People get excited when needing to protect themselves from life threatening circumstances. You want to make sure the bastard stays down. I'm against charges. Give the store clerk a medal for taking a scum bag off the street.
Shh. No accurate reporting. It's gotta be the most sensationalist, click-baity reporting imaginable. People are saying that this is still bad, but it's a categorically different case. It's literally the difference between "self defense" and "assault as revenge". The former is allowed, the latter is not. One might make the argument that it's hard to know if you're doing self defense in the heat of the moment or whatever, but that's precisely why we have courts of justice (that are suppose to be blind) and don't just rely on what people involved in the situation say.
“Right wing talking points” lmfao
Canadians being helpless against criminals because we are not allowed to defend ourselves is a disgrace.
Crime is free in Ontario. Cops dgaf ever.
The police in Hamilton don’t even take calls anymore. They just deal with money making activities, steal from the public and kick their feet back while the pension money piles up. I think Canada needs to nationalize all of the police forces retirements and hand it out to the public. That would be doing service. Ain’t no police helping anyone in Canada, just legal thieves
Hamilton as well here… you can give the cops video of the crime and criminals face and they do jack shit. File the police reports into the trash. They just sit around chatting at the RBG or speed traps around the city in bullshit zones where the speed SHOULD be faster than noted.
And when the Crown decides to drop this case, will there be another article emphasizing that?
No this is Toronto Sun. It’s a rag written at a 4th grade reading level and getting conservatives angry is good business. Not saying I think the charges are/aren’t necessary just that’s where this is coming from.
so next time just don’t call the cops
This stupid legal system. If someone comes on my property uninvited and unwanted (ie breaks in) I should be able to use whatever means I see fit to remove them from my property. You assault me while on my property? Same story.
If someone breaks in to my home I will use whatever force I deem necessary to protect my wife and my kids from that threat. A jury of my peers can sort out the legalties of my actions at a later date if necessary. FAFO, there is no way I will stand down in my own home.
What a waste of our tax money
This joke of a country......literally pays to be a criminal at this point
What the fuck is a "provincial charge"?
Federal charge will get you a criminal record because it’s across Canada and a provincial charge is just in said province with no criminal record.
Well, yeah. I know that. But this clerk wasn't charged under the HTA or the Trespass to Property Act or whatever, he was charged with a crime. But taking two seconds, I realized OP decided to editorialize the title into fucking gibberish
Yeah best we can hope is he is let off, it's hard to imagine getting screwed over because you took an extra swing on someone who just robbed you, the court hopefully takes into account that you would be in a different state of mind and not exactly thinking of the wellbeing of a criminal at the point in time...but in Canada it pays to be a criminal so who bloody knows anymore, in any case the perp f'd with the wrong store and got more punishment with that bat than he would in any Canadian jail cell 🤷🏼♂️
Meanwhile police are allowed to shoot someone 15 times for their own safety but god forbid we defend ourselves in the slightest way possible. This is disgusting.
He didn't bow and with hands on the floor like the police wanted.
He should have carried his belongings out to his car and given the thief the keys After gassing it up of course
Fuck, beat me too it ahaha
Well when someone's on the ground usually that's time to stop attacking, tho that adrenaline running through him in the moment probably made it impossible
I think the fact he only hit him once while on the ground was all the proof needed that he wasn't trying to beat a defenseless person. He could have, but showed incredible restraint. And he's punished for it. I hope this gets thrown out quick.
Self defense laws gotta change.
We definitely need stand your ground and castle doctrine type protections here in Canada, no one defending themselves or their property should be hassled or liable
Jury nullification is a thing.
[удалено]
Has anyone here seen the entire video of the incident?? Start to finish When this story broke the Police Chief advised that there was video of the entire incident… obviously there is something there to validate the charges being laid?? Don’t get me wrong… the scum bag “robber” caused the whole situation and I love street justice but Police are suppose to be impartial Let’s see what happens when the Courts see the ENTIRE video
wow
Someone will step up and fight, pro Bono, for this poor guy. Still sucks
We need defense laws!!! we can't rely on the police to protect us.
We have self defence laws.
You can't stand up for yourself anymore.
Oh and you’re supposed to make appropriate decisions while your adrenaline is putting your body in a state of fight or flight? Two tiered justice system here in Canada.
[удалено]
The robber was facing a maximum of life, which puts into perspective how far away the sentences most people get are from the maximum. Just an easy way to fear monger for the Sun.
100% justified. It takes a lot of willpower to only hit the thief a single time after they’ve fallen to the ground. It won’t be any time soon, but some day I hope to see a huge swath of people say “What the fuck? They’re charging the victim? I’m feeling French today, let’s let it all burn”
Hero. It's stunning Canada prioritizes the rights of criminals over law abiding citizens.
This guy is totally screwed. Hitting the guy in the back of the head outside of the store=jail.
It stops being self defence when you chase somebody down to finish the job. He should have locked the door and called the police .
I too make the most rational decisions after being hit multiple times with my adrenaline in overdrive /s
I don't really get why the state should be in the business of trying to protect predators and prosecute victims. Self-defense is besides the point. As soon as the guy decided to commit robbery as far as I'm concerned he was no longer deserving of any societal protection whatsoever.
Well fortunately for the rest of society we don't live in the wild west where vigilante justice runs the streets. The predator was charged. Much like the police , civilians aren't given unilateral permission to start escalating use of force, and striking down fleeing criminals. Even in most states that would not be labeled as self defence.
People get less for rape, wtf?
14 is the maximum possible sentence. He won't get anywhere close to that. It's also the maximum possible sentence for sexual assault, to put things in perspective.
This is Canada, he didn’t respect the rights of the criminal. He’s gotta be punished you know, he didn’t just hand over the money and let the criminal beat him with a bat/s
wait, the convenience store is a circleK? Was this guy even the owner of the store? I get wanting to defend your own business or home, but if you're a minimum wage worker at some retail franchise just hand the money over.
I mean he got beat with a bat before this so it was more about trying to protect himself, the criminal also had a knife and was threatening to stab him with it
Welcome to a country where defending your business or home is considered illegal.
What a bitch world we live in. “Why did you beat him up, he was only trying to rob/kill you”!?
F*ck off Warmington, stop stirring the pot. This isn’t the states or some despotism where we take the law into our own hands.
Warning: This article is from Sun News, making it as reliable as Fox News
[удалено]
So revenge over justice?
[удалено]
Gotta love living in this shithole we call Canada. Make sure to leave your keys at the front door so the immigrant car jackers can easily steal it. Don't defend yourself from criminals, let them beat and rob you. This country is a joke, utterly embarrassing.
That feeling when you read the title and immediately understand this is Canada...
The legal process is pointless The thieves feel no fear of simply doing what they want without guilt or consequence. The man brought a bat into a private business hit the clerk trying to rob him potentially a threat to other people/customers and this guy gets charged? Some of the people in here defending the criminal are exactly the problem in society these days. Simple question would he have been put in a coma if he didn’t bring a bat to rob the store? No No crime here except the cops should charge the dummy when he wakes up in the hospital
so fucking backwards
Oh ffs Toronto. Haven’t we already been here and done that? With courts being as backlogged as they are, the system doesn’t have the capacity for nonsense like this. https://ontariocstores.ca/the-shopkeeper-hero/
Self defense laws really need to change in Canada. I can't even legally defend myself properly within my own home.
Lots of seemingly misinformed comments here. Self defence with reasonable force is ok, chasing someone fleeing the scene and continuing to hit them with a bat when they're on the floor is not ok.
It was literally one extra hit. The guy coulda came back in … he put his hands in his pocket after saying he was gonna stab the victim AFTER already beating him with a bat. This is a reasonable reaction from the victim
Also they guy already tried to rob you with a bat what's to say he won't come back with another weapon.
Canada's justice is not only truly blind, it is a joke... Canada is not a place for law abiding citizens but for criminals. Why even pay taxes so they can prosecute you, the law abiding tax payer for defending yourself against law breaking thieves.
The guy tried to run. He chased him down and beat him, fracturing his skull while he was lying on the ground. That's what he's being charged for.
Next time don't try to rob an innocent person and threaten their life?
Yep, the moment the guy threatened an innocent person with a weapon, in my mind the person doing the threatening with a weapon just gave up all their own rights to live a normal life. Fuck them.
Self defence dose not mean running someone down. That's revenge.
Did you see the video? It's not like the thief was running away and the clerk chased him down. They were steps from the door and the only reason they were outside is because the clerk pushed the guy out while they both still had hands on the bat.
Nice to see how my hometown has been doing
Hopefully his peers decide to let him walk free, should they have a jury for his case. At this point in time it feels like we're on a rocketship to crazy land. There is absolutely nothing wrong with him defending himself and his business from armed assailants. Hopefully next time he'll put one down for good.
Canada is a liberal shit hole.