Robbed , Hit with Club

[LoWd0Wn]

Are you kidding me!! Released!! And the other, possible pending charges?? What does it take for RCMP to hold people accountable? That person could have been drastically injured. And they were robbing him or his property. Unbelievable!!
There should have been charges laid and held for bail.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/2 ... -golf-club

[dmctighe]

I guess he told the Police that he was sorry ... or something. Unbelievable is correct.

[TreeGuy]

It is the laws of the land legislated by our government that rule how the RCMP do their job. Do you think the RCMP give these guys a hug and a handshake when they release them?

Our laws are far from tough on crime.

[Fancy]

Are you kidding me!! Released!! And the other, possible pending charges?? What does it take for RCMP to hold people accountable? That person could have been drastically injured. And they were robbing him or his property. Unbelievable!!
There should have been charges laid and held for bail.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/2 ... -golf-club

It's not up to the RCMP to hold people accountable - that's up to the judicial system.
How is it that so many don't understand how the Canadian legal system works?

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/just ... ng-charges

[gsc]

The problem is our legal system sucks the big one and is out dated. This just go's to show crime pays. What's gonna happen if you get caught nothing but a smack on the wrist.

[dogspoiler]

He's lucky he didn't defend himself, he would have been headed for court.
We are all expected to cower under our beds and not interfere with the criminals.

[36Drew]

He's lucky he didn't defend himself, he would have been headed for court.
We are all expected to cower under our beds and not interfere with the criminals.

If you are on your property (home/dwelling/domicile - even driveway) you are not expected to flee. Canada has had, by ruling since 2011, castle doctrine. Unlike the states, force must be "reasonable and necessary" - you're not allowed to kill if a non-lethal option is available.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/homeowners-not-required-to-flee-intruders-court

The ruling — coming only days after an Eastern Ontario father and son apparently confronted a 41-year-old who was attempting to break into their home, and as Ontario Provincial Police ponder whether to lay charges in the alleged burglar’s death — confirms Canadian homeowners can take violent steps to protect their home.

“You’re expected to be absolutely safe in your home, you may not expect to be safe in a gas station or a store, but in your home, that’s something that’s a given,” says Dahn Batchelor, a Mississsauga, Ont.-based criminologist.

“If someone breaks into your home, it seems to me that he does so at his own risk.”

In most cases, claiming self defence after a violent encounter can be difficult when it could have been possible for the assailant simply to run away. In the home, however, courts have declared the rules are different.

“The law is clear that flight from one’s own home is not a reasonable option for self-preservation, and that the defence of self-defence will still apply even if there is another way out of the house,” reads a 1998 decision by the British Columbia Court of Appeals.

[the truth]

He's lucky he didn't defend himself, he would have been headed for court.
We are all expected to cower under our beds and not interfere with the criminals.

according to many leftwingers soft on crime you are correct

[my5cents]

The problem is our legal system sucks the big one and is out dated. This just go's to show crime pays. What's gonna happen if you get caught nothing but a smack on the wrist.

Outdated ?

Our system of pre-trial release provisions, called the bail reform act was instituted in the 70's, is deemed fairly progresive.

The basis being that a person charged with an offense is innocent until proven guilty and should not be held in custody unless justified.

Released, unlike the US system, is not based on one's ability to raise bail money.

[Bsuds]

I would rather see it based on

A: How serious the crime was.
B: Was it a repeat offender.
C: What are the chances this person can be rehabilitated.

We need to help rehabilitate those who can and incarcerate those who can't.

Drug users should be immediately put in a recovery program even if it means spending a pile of money, in the long run it would pay for itself many times over.

I am really tired with seeing stories that someone who has been arrested has umpteen previous convictions! How much is this costing society to be soft on these types?

Enough is enough!

[my5cents]

I would rather see it based on

A: How serious the crime was.
B: Was it a repeat offender.
C: What are the chances this person can be rehabilitated.

We need to help rehabilitate those who can and incarcerate those who can't.

Drug users should be immediately put in a recovery program even if it means spending a pile of money, in the long run it would pay for itself many times over.

I am really tired with seeing stories that someone who has been arrested has umpteen previous convictions! How much is this costing society to be soft on these types?

Enough is enough!

What you've outlined are mostly sentencing considerations.

Pretrial release is, of course public safety, likelihood the accused will attend court (determined by history of appearing or failing to appear), links to the community (ie, not a visitor from far away)

Only certain types of criminal offences qualify as well.

[Bpeep]

The problem with considerations for sentencing is the offenders lawyer more often than not plays the dysfunctional childhood, abuse or god card and it's effective to shave time.
Why do indigenous people get their race considered in sentencing?
Sounds pretty racist to me.

[Temet Nosce]

The problem with considerations for sentencing is the offenders lawyer more often than not plays the dysfunctional childhood, abuse or god card and it's effective to shave time.
Why do indigenous people get their race considered in sentencing?
Sounds pretty racist to me.

R. v. Gladue
And overrepresentation

[dogspoiler]

The problem with considerations for sentencing is the offenders lawyer more often than not plays the dysfunctional childhood, abuse or god card and it's effective to shave time.
Why do indigenous people get their race considered in sentencing?
Sounds pretty racist to me.

R. v. Gladue
And overrepresentation

The first is an attempt to give them a break.
The second is the result of giving them a break.

[westbankkid]

Don't blame the police, blame some of the a*shole Judges. There are lots out there. Bloody bleeding hearts. There was one case on the lower mainland last nite where this jerk killed a fellow on a bicycle. He got 3 or 4 months in jail. Beginning to see more and more offenders driving fancy cars. His was a mercedes. I guess money talks sometimes.... Just my opinion.