Lawful Outrage
In Canada's largest, most populous and most ethnically diverse city an absurd situation has arisen whereby the law as it is written and applied offers twisted "justice" to petty thieves who make the lives of merchants utterly miserable by the thieves' penchant to haul away shopkeepers' goods sans payment, while holding shopkeepers to a standard of behaviour that would make sense only in a society that welcomes pilferers and looters to help themselves.
Shopkeepers who witness slippery-fingered thieves at work and who immediately contact the police can wait a half day before busy police manage to respond. In the interim, the thief has made off with goods, diminishing the return on hard work, long hours and merchandise-sales for the shopkeeper. Common sense allied with practical solutions would have it that the shopkeeper could detain the thief until the arrival of the police.
After all, as it was pointed out during the trial of David Chen, owner of the Lucky Moose Food Mart, this is exactly what large merchandise emporiums like The Bay and Home Depot, for example, do themselves. These large enterprises have the monetary wherewithal to hire private security firms to vet and audit clients' behaviour, and to detain them - even run after them outside the store to detain them, until the arrival of police.
Why then should it be different for a small shopkeeper, frustrated beyond mere irritation that the same thief, well known by neighbourhood merchants in Toronto's downtown Chinatown for his purloining ways? Having witnessed Anthony Bennett, the bane of Chinese merchants for far too long, hauling away goods without paying for them, and then returning to compound the situation with another theft, Mr. Chen and two of his employees gave chase.
They apprehended the thief who himself was violently abusive toward Mr. Chen, and refused to pay for what he had stolen. Toronto police who did show up after being called through a bystander's call to 911, took grave umbrage at citizens taking the initiative out of maddening exasperation, to do what the police should have done, and treated Mr. Chen, his employees Qing Li and Jie Chen as though they were the criminals.
Charges were laid of forcible confinement and assault against the shopkeeper and his two assistants, and the thief plea-bargained a break in exchange for testifying against Messrs. Chen, Li and Chen. During which time he admitted to being a habitual thief, a perjurer and an unreliable witness.
While the trial is ongoing, set to be concluded on Friday, Mr. Bennett finds himself back in jail. Seems like a second home to the man.He simply was unable to refrain from his life-long habit of lifting other peoples' property, yet again.
The Crown prosecution, however, insists the shopkeepers have broken the law. Mr. Bennett's ongoing theft opportunities are irrelevant, as he would have it. Perhaps it is this particular law which has broken the covenant between the property owner and the state to ensure security of private property through due diligence on the part of security agents, such as municipal police?
"A man was accosted, pushed against a fence, pushed to the ground, and hogtied", expostulated the Crown prosecutor. True, true, certainly true. The thief defied the lawful property owner's request for payment for his purloined goods, and he also kicked him repeatedly, initiating the violence that the Crown so deplored.
Under the circumstances, a violet thief whom police and the law have done little to deter, suffered the brief indignity of having to answer for his crimes. The combined anger of the Toronto Chinese merchants and purveyors of foodstuffs has been aroused in this absurd case. The Crown is quite correct in stating: "There are a number of points that beggar belief", in pursuing his case against Mr. Chen.
Foremost among those points, from the perspective of the Chinese shop owners in Toronto is that the law is diligent in its defence of a committedly bold thief, and appears quite disinterested in the affairs of lawful, hard-working shop owners. That's what beggars belief.
Shopkeepers who witness slippery-fingered thieves at work and who immediately contact the police can wait a half day before busy police manage to respond. In the interim, the thief has made off with goods, diminishing the return on hard work, long hours and merchandise-sales for the shopkeeper. Common sense allied with practical solutions would have it that the shopkeeper could detain the thief until the arrival of the police.
After all, as it was pointed out during the trial of David Chen, owner of the Lucky Moose Food Mart, this is exactly what large merchandise emporiums like The Bay and Home Depot, for example, do themselves. These large enterprises have the monetary wherewithal to hire private security firms to vet and audit clients' behaviour, and to detain them - even run after them outside the store to detain them, until the arrival of police.
Why then should it be different for a small shopkeeper, frustrated beyond mere irritation that the same thief, well known by neighbourhood merchants in Toronto's downtown Chinatown for his purloining ways? Having witnessed Anthony Bennett, the bane of Chinese merchants for far too long, hauling away goods without paying for them, and then returning to compound the situation with another theft, Mr. Chen and two of his employees gave chase.
They apprehended the thief who himself was violently abusive toward Mr. Chen, and refused to pay for what he had stolen. Toronto police who did show up after being called through a bystander's call to 911, took grave umbrage at citizens taking the initiative out of maddening exasperation, to do what the police should have done, and treated Mr. Chen, his employees Qing Li and Jie Chen as though they were the criminals.
Charges were laid of forcible confinement and assault against the shopkeeper and his two assistants, and the thief plea-bargained a break in exchange for testifying against Messrs. Chen, Li and Chen. During which time he admitted to being a habitual thief, a perjurer and an unreliable witness.
While the trial is ongoing, set to be concluded on Friday, Mr. Bennett finds himself back in jail. Seems like a second home to the man.He simply was unable to refrain from his life-long habit of lifting other peoples' property, yet again.
The Crown prosecution, however, insists the shopkeepers have broken the law. Mr. Bennett's ongoing theft opportunities are irrelevant, as he would have it. Perhaps it is this particular law which has broken the covenant between the property owner and the state to ensure security of private property through due diligence on the part of security agents, such as municipal police?
"A man was accosted, pushed against a fence, pushed to the ground, and hogtied", expostulated the Crown prosecutor. True, true, certainly true. The thief defied the lawful property owner's request for payment for his purloined goods, and he also kicked him repeatedly, initiating the violence that the Crown so deplored.
Under the circumstances, a violet thief whom police and the law have done little to deter, suffered the brief indignity of having to answer for his crimes. The combined anger of the Toronto Chinese merchants and purveyors of foodstuffs has been aroused in this absurd case. The Crown is quite correct in stating: "There are a number of points that beggar belief", in pursuing his case against Mr. Chen.
Foremost among those points, from the perspective of the Chinese shop owners in Toronto is that the law is diligent in its defence of a committedly bold thief, and appears quite disinterested in the affairs of lawful, hard-working shop owners. That's what beggars belief.
Labels: Ontario, Social-Cultural Deviations
posted by Pieface @ 6:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home