Burglar Beaten With His Own Bat. Victim Charged

[mariomike]

This discussion sort of reminds me of the Waffle House chair lady.
She apparently got "blacklisted".

Former Waffle House worker says she was ‘blacklisted’ after viral brawl

A former Waffle House employee who went viral when she swatted away a chair that was flung at her during a wild brawl says she was blacklisted by the chain after she acted in self-defense. The woma…

nypost.com

 

[Halifax Tar]

My position is we have the right to defend ourselves and our “stuff”. What the clerk did will be decided by a judge and jury if the Crown pursues it.

@OldSolduer we agree Im just amplifying.

If a person has no right to, and to fight for their lawful possessions then I have to question the very foundations of our society. Are we just supposed to let people walk in and depose us of our "stuff" and hope an over burdened and undermanned police apparatus will get to it
eventually ?

To me if we are saying your "stuff" isn't worth fighting for, then you really have no right to your stuff. Its just "yours" until some bully or criminal decides they want it.

 

[KevinB]

Here in VA you can’t use lethal force to protect property (unless you or family or friends are in the property), but if you have a handgun and a rifle locked in your unattended vehicle and someone tries to steal it, it’s not just a vehicle anymore, and you can use lethal force (given articulable rational, i.e. not just sniping them from unknown, but giving them a warning and a chance to surrender themselves).

Oddly in VA you can also use force up to and including lethal force to resist unlawful arrest.

 

[Furniture]

Let's also not lose sight of the fact that in this case the lowlife entered a store carrying a weapon with intent to inflict harm. The clerk didn't beat the guy with a bat just because he lifted a Snickers...

 

[Haggis]

@OldSolduer we agree I'm just amplifying.

If a person has no right to, and to fight for their lawful possessions then I have to question the very foundations of our society. Are we just supposed to let people walk in and depose us of our "stuff" and hope an over burdened and undermanned police apparatus will get to it
eventually ?

To me if we are saying your "stuff" isn't worth fighting for, then you really have no right to your stuff. Its just "yours" until some bully or criminal decides they want it.

My take on the whole thing, based on the information available right now, is that the clerk was in the wrong to pursue and assault the robber (not burglar).

CCC s 35(1) provides for defence of property and 34(1) for self defence. By using force to disarm the robber, the clerk was able to stop both the robbery and the assault on himself and protect the client in the store at the time. No problem.

Once the robber fled, there was no further justification or need for continued defence of property or self. from the robber. By pursuing and assaulting the robber, the clerk could be guilty of aggravated assault as charged as no exigent circumstances existed for immediate defence of property or self.

I believe in FAFO within the constraints of the law. I have no desire to face prison time defending my property. I view things differently for defence of the person. Some may not agree with that and have made a good argument for why a small business owner or employee may feel their use of punitive force against a criminal is acceptable. I can sympathize completely.

Saw a post on social media somewhere that had the police in Quebec advising the public not to post home security video clips online of thieves stealing packages off doorsteps as it violated that thief's privacy rights.

The QC cops are wrong.

Years ago I took some training on the legal aspects of security and surveillance cameras, both overt and covert. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on someone's doorstep, particularly if said doorstep is within view of the street.

 

[Haggis]

Oddly in VA you can also use force up to and including lethal force to resist unlawful arrest.

Changes to our self-defence laws no longer require an assault to be unlawful. CCC 34(3) expressly limits the most likely scenario involving a claim to self defence against lawful conduct, i.e. cases involving the reactions against the use of force by the LE.

 

[Kirkhill]

My take on the whole thing, based on the information available right now, is that the clerk was in the wrong to pursue and assault the robber (not burglar).

CCC s 35(1) provides for defence of property and 34(1) for self defence. By using force to disarm the robber, the clerk was able to stop both the robbery and the assault on himself and protect the client in the store at the time. No problem.

Once the robber fled, there was no further justification or need for continued defence of property or self. from the robber. By pursuing and assaulting the robber, the clerk could be guilty of aggravated assault as charged as no exigent circumstances existed for immediate defence of property or self.

I believe in FAFO within the constraints of the law. I have no desire to face prison time defending my property. I view things differently for defence of the person. Some may not agree with that and have made a good argument for why a small business owner or employee may feel their use of punitive force against a criminal is acceptable. I can sympathize completely.

The QC cops are wrong.

Years ago I took some training on the legal aspects of security and surveillance cameras, both overt and covert. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on someone's doorstep, particularly if said doorstep is within view of the street.

The case will develop and information will probably cause reassessments ...

With that, this question:

Did the perpetrator decide to flee because he lost control of his weapon or did he flee because he was being pursued by his angry and injured victim who was now armed with his bat?

Does the clerk have the authority to evict the robber from his premises using physical force?

 

[Haggis]

The case will develop and information will probably cause reassessments ...

With that, this question:

Did the perpetrator decide to flee because he lost control of his weapon or did he flee because he was being pursued by his angry and injured victim who was now armed with his bat?

My guess is that he left after having lost the initiative to the clerk. Crooks are by nature not all that brave.

Does the clerk have the authority to evict the robber from his premises using physical force?

CCC 35(1) says "yes", IMO, as long as the force used is reasonable. There is case law around bouncers who have been convicted of excessive force in removing patrons.

 

[Good2Golf]

Once the robber fled, there was no further justification or need for continued defence of property or self. from the robber. By pursuing and assaulting the robber, the clerk could be guilty of aggravated assault as charged as no exigent circumstances existed for immediate defence of property or self.

…and if the robber had been backtracking to get a (illegally-procured) handgun out of his car to come back into the store to exact some revenge on the non-compliant victim?

 

[KevinB]

…and if the robber had been backtracking to get a (illegally-procured) handgun out of his car to come back into the store to exact some revenge on the non-compliant victim?

I mean if I was the clerk, that would be exactly what I heard him say to me, so as a result I continued…

 

[Haggis]

…and if the robber had been backtracking to get a (illegally-procured) handgun out of his car to come back into the store to exact some revenge on the non-compliant victim?

That's a pretty big "what if"!

Every privately held handgun in Canada is illegally procured after October 2022. But that's it's own rabbit hole for another thread.

 

[Good2Golf]

I mean if I was the clerk, that would be exactly what I heard him say to me, so as a result I continued…

Yup…

That's a pretty big "what if"!

Every privately held handgun in Canada is illegally procured after October 2022. But that's it's own rabbit hole for another thread.

Possible, but not necessarily an unreasonable fear on the part of the victim clerk…

 

[Jarnhamar]

​

Canadian police warn that posting videos of alleged package thieves could be ‘violation’ of their privacy​

That's how stupid we've become.

 

[OldSolduer]

​

Canadian police warn that posting videos of alleged package thieves could be ‘violation’ of their privacy​

That's how stupid we've become.

There has to be a Stupid Farm somewhere where these idiots breed and infiltrate society

 

[Haggis]

Canadian police warn that posting videos of alleged package thieves could be ‘violation’ of their privacy​

That's how stupid we've become.

See my comments above regarding the expectation of privacy in public. The Québec Civil Code is not criminal law and only applies in la belle province. I doubt this would stand a court challenge in a criminal case, even in QC.

 

[lenaitch]

See my comments above regarding the expectation of privacy in public. The Québec Civil Code is not criminal law and only applies in la belle province. I doubt this would stand a court challenge in a criminal case, even in QC.

This coming from a province that generally considers the Charter as suggestions.

A large chunk of their Civil Code is procedural, although it would cover matters under provincial jurisdiction.

I want to be both careful and polite here.

I believe that most people on this site are about as far removed from the world of the small store owner as you can get.

The small store owner does not have a salary. Does not have a pension. Does not have stores to go to draw new clothing when their work clothes wear out. Doesn't get issued the tools they need to earn their living. Doesn't have a security force covering their back. Is under constant threat of punishment if they opt to defend their holdings. Don't get their losses made good.

Everything they have, and everything they will have, comes in through the front door of their store.

It is hard not to take losses of "stuff" personally.

As a post-retirement gig, I was involved with small businesses and convenience stores WRT a provincially regulated function. Go behind the counters and you see cots, young kids playing or doing homework, older kids doing homework between customers. Most mom-and-pops, and even chain franchisees, make well less than minimum wage. The fact that this "store clerk" was so invested in the theft suggests to me that they were family.

There is so much of this story we don't know. Minor details can swing the evidence one way or the other. Unless it turns out that the clerk rendered an out-of-control pummelling, I can see the Crown choosing not to prosecute. If the perp dies; however, all bets are off.

Not a lawyer. Would Circle K possibly face financial liability if there is a civil lawsuit?

Possibly. There would likely be liability coverage in the business insurance but what the terms and caveats are I have no idea. Pretty much anybody can sue anybody. Whether it would be successful remains the question. There's probably an ambulance chaser thinking the same thing.

 

[Haggis]

Possibly. There would likely be liability coverage in the business insurance but what the terms and caveats are I have no idea. Pretty much anybody can sue anybody. Whether it would be successful remains the question. There's probably an ambulance chaser thinking the same thing..

If the franchise agreement had specific clauses on what to do and what not to do during a robbery and the clerk violated that, the liability could then fall to the franchisees or clerk.

I have a cousin who used to sell brand name farm equipment in parts of the world where corporate kidnappings were common. He told me their company built ransom costs into the prices of all their equipment because kidnap insurance was so expensive.

 

[brihard]

​

Canadian police warn that posting videos of alleged package thieves could be ‘violation’ of their privacy​

That's how stupid we've become.

One Canadian police officer said that. I feel pretty safe saying most of the rest of us think he’s a dumbass.

If you have a video of someone taking a package off your porch, and you post that video online saying “here’s a guy taking a package off my porch”, there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy (REP is a legally significant term), and there’s certainly ly no defamation if it’s true. Now, if a package goes missing and you have no video of it being stolen, and you post a video (maybe from a neighbour or another angle?) of someone near your house and you allege without real evidence that they did it, you could potentially be causing yourself an issue. But that’s not the fact set in play with what SQ dude said.

I suspect the Sureté du Québec guy just wants to dissuade vigilantism, but he beclowned himself in the silly, over the top way he went about it.

 

[medicineman]

I suspect the Sureté du Québec guy just wants to dissuade vigilantism, but he beclowned himself in the silly, over the top way he went about it.

The SQ beclowned themselves? Say it ain't so??!! I mean, it's not an Oka level beclowning, but made international news thanks to social media though...

 

[lenaitch]

I suspect the Sureté du Québec guy just wants to dissuade vigilantism, but he beclowned himself in the silly, over the top way he went about it.

That's the way I read it. He is quoted as using the term "posting", although still not strictly correct. It might involve a combination of the SQ member's fluency in English and a US reporter not understanding our system (the SQ is the local PS for Montreal West apparently).

Heck, the OPP, and some other Ontario services have a program where home owners can register their security cameras with the police. That way, if a incident goes down in the neighbourhood, they know who has potential evidence.