Self Defense Crime

In Toronto, the trial of a grocer charged with confining and assaulting an apprehended shoplifter has recently begun. The shoplifter, who has over forty convictions, is testifying against a shopkeeper in return for a decreased jail sentence of just thirty days.

The shopkeeper and many other neighborhood businesses had been targeted by the shoplifter countless times in the past. On the day the shoplifter was confined he had stolen some flowers from the shopkeeper’s shop. Less than an hour had passed, before the shopkeeper noticed the bandit. At first he told the thief that if he simply paid for the flowers he had taken, the police wouldn’t be called.

The culprit, however, had other ideas, and took off. Fortunately, with the help of the shopkeeper’s employees they managed to stop the bandit. A struggle ensued which saw the shopkeeper sustaining minor injuries. Sick of being a target by the culprit, the merchants decided that they would tie the man up and held him while police arrived on the scene.

However, when officers arrived it was the store owner who found himself arrested, charged, and subsequently jailed. A citizen’s arrest is only possible while a crime is in progress, not afterward. Merchants had previously detained shoplifters caught in the act, only to see officers send them home with a mere warning. As a result, their attitude to these types of crime are seen as trivial and a waste of time.

Despite the outrage expressed by the public, prosecutors decided to take the case to trial. They explained that the shop owner had violated the shoplifter’s civil rights, and to their way of thinking, they believe that a career criminal had the basic right to undertake his crimes without interference.

When it comes to self defense, it is up to the victim to be capable of proving that the force they employed was necessary. On the other hand, when it applies to criminals, they aren’t legally responsible. Even if a homeowner is suddenly invaded by burglars, the intruder must make the first move prior to a defendant being able to determine what is the correct response. As a result, this often places the homeowner at a great disadvantage, as the intruder can ultimately take the first shot, which may well be the only that that occurs.

Police forces with insufficient manpower are finding themselves having to tackle a wide range of criminal activity. However, expecting police to be on the scene at all times when an incident occurs just is not possible. But, instead of the courts recognizing this, they are frowning upon citizens who defend their families, their property or themselves.

Hopefully, the public reaction to the shop owner’s trial will deliver a clear message to the justice system. Instead of prosecuting the victims, they should focus their time on punishing the criminals. Self defense should be a basic right, it should not be a crime.