First they disarm you
May 26, 2009 2:43 pm Canadian Politics, Culture, PoliticsMy hero Theodore Dalrymple has pointed out the relentless campaign of British authorities to reduce the capacity of people to defend themselves.
I am not talking about firearms. Lack of access to legal firearms reduces your ability to defend yourself, true.
But their real aim is to destroy any assurance that society will back you up if you aggressively defend yourself.
Two recent cases in Canada are disturbing. Brian Knight, an Alberta rancher was charged with excessive force for chasing the thief who stole his all-terrain vehicle and driving him into a ditch.
Then in Toronto the Good, David Chen, a Chinese grocer was arrested and charged with forcible confinement for chasing down a thief, beating him and throwing him into the van to bring him back to the scene of the crime.Police also charged Mr. Chen and his employees with assault, kidnapping and carrying a concealed weapon.
The report from the National Post said the following:
“The suspect ran down the alley, throwing his bike behind him. Mr. Chen leapt over the bike in pursuit.
“After they caught up to the suspect and put him in the van, they drove the van to the side of the road because it had been left in the middle of the street, he said.
“Mr. Chen said he then called police, but a citizen had already alerted officers who stopped the van.
“Mr. Chen and his employees were handcuffed and taken to the police station. He was carrying a box cutter in the cellphone case clipped to his belt, which accounts for the weapons charge.
“He said he had recently complained to an officer about his store being plagued by shoplifters. His employees caught two suspected thieves on Friday. Employees guarded one suspect inside the store for almost six hours until officers arrived, he said.”
Mr. Chen was charged with unlawful confinement because the police took six hours to show up! His concealed weapon was a box cutter, which is a tool legitimately used to open boxes – he is in the grocery business.
Today the following details emerge from a Globe and Mail report:
“After catching him, Mr. Chen said he and his employees tied the man up and put him in a delivery truck, intending to hold him until police arrived. But someone else called 911 first.
“The first thing we told police this guy he stole a thing from my store there,” Mr. Chen said. “But the police [officer] didn’t hear anything. He just pulled me down on the ground, put me in a car and sent me to the station.”
“Mr. Chen said he spent 24 hours in a holding cell at 52 Division, paid $7,500 bail, and that the suspected shoplifter – also charged – got out of custody before he did.
“He and his two employees, Jie Chen, 21, and Qing Li, 40, were each charged with carrying a concealed weapon, which the shopkeeper said were grocer’s box-cutters, like the one hanging from his belt loop.”
This is the advice we receive from our cops:
“Superintendant Ferguson said that according to the law, people trying to make a citizen’s arrest have the right to use physical force to detain someone only if they have witnessed a crime. Unlike a police officer, they are not allowed to arrest someone if they merely suspect the person of committing a crime previously.
General police advice, he said, is that citizens should not confront or try to catch criminals on their own.”
Leave to us professionsals, who show up six hours late.
What is the point of these noisy front-page arrests? To intimidate people into not taking action to protect themselves. Why would police and authorities want to do this? What is their interest? My speculation is that they have lost their moral compass; they fear an aroused citizenry. They envy the directness of citizen action. They wish they could do the same themselves. They cannot. And if they can’t, no one can. Only specialists such as themselves are capable of maintaining order. If people took it into their heads to maintain order, the general uselessness of the police would be more effectively demonstrated. It is the same in education. No one can learn except by being taught by a unionized public school teacher.
It reminds me of Adam Smith’s talk of merchants never getting together but to conspire against the public interest. Only in this case it is the public authorities who seek to enforce their legal monopolies.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Dalwhinnie
Highland Hermit :
Date: May 26, 2009 @ 3:17 PM
The only valid reason for laying charges in this case would have been the harm , or potential harm, that was done to an innocent third party. There no mention of this possibility in the story or the charges, so it is highly unlikely any such harm occurred. There is always the possibility than someone who lacks judgment may harm someone while attempting to defend his property. The most likely victim being the thief. If so, there are remedies. Where no harm is done to anyone the police are simply penalizing people for protecting their own property a task most police seem unable or unwilling to perform.
Gronsky :
Date: May 26, 2009 @ 3:40 PM
Really excellent piece. As a former prosecutor, I know that the police have been reduced to paper pushers in most cases. They process reports and forms and go to court to testify but the Charter means new rules arise all the time restricting what they can do, making their work unpredictable and frustrating. So they stop trying so hard, and I don’t much blame them. I think our Court of Appeal has finally smelled the coffee in the case of handguns. But, it took about 200 or 300 murders of young men over the past five years plus the unfortunate Jane Creba case before the Court was really prepared to acknowledge we have a problem that required them to override the rights of young men to carry illegal handguns around and to have the evidence excluded if the police were not sufficiently careful with them.
Steve :
Date: May 26, 2009 @ 6:12 PM
Theodore Dalrymple’s good friend Alexander Boot, in his book How the West Was Lost, said, “Governments are no longer there to protect society and the individuals within it. They are out to protect the sacred cow of statism…”
According to Boot, the raison d’etre of modern liberal man (whom he calls Modman) is to destroy the “old certitudes” of traditional Western man (whom he calls Westman). With burglary, the property owner is now seen as privileged, whereas the burglar is a victim of society who “is in the same business as the state: redistributing wealth”. If the property owner resists the burglary, “the burglar may have to defend himself”. If the burglar initiates violence, the property owner can only use commensurate force. “If the owner panics and kills the burglar with a meat cleaver when none is found in the burglar’s possession, then the owner shall be convicted of manslaughter…
“In our time, the state has to have a monopoly on violence, so armed citizenry is off limits. A Westman holdout who thinks otherwise presents a greater threat to Modman than even a murderer. The former assails the glossocratic premise of Modman’s government; the latter merely attacks individuals…
An illiterate criminal in no way jeopardizes Modman’s power. The lout’s victim, especially if he is a Westman holdout, may. Therefore, every law devised by Modman will favour the criminal over the victim.”
I highly recommend the book. I don’t agree with everything in it (and actually, neither does Dalrymple), but it opened my eyes to a whole new view of Western history, most of which I probably agree with.