In the August 12th, 2009 edition of the Calgary Sun, columnist Jeremy Loome wrote an interesting article titled “High-Caliber Programs Solve Gun Woes”. Loome is clearly not a supporter of handguns. He even makes the rather absurd comment that he would not attend a barbeque hosted by a handgun owner because of the likelihood of being shot.
Despite his clear distaste for guns, however, Loome writes a fairly informative article surprisingly suggesting that gun control advocates are wrong. The premise of his article is essentially that guns are not the root cause of problems, rather anti-social behavior is rooted in economic and social issues, which education, not abolishing firearms would solve. He draws from the experience of gun populations, such as those in Vermont. According to his article, Vermont has some of the least strict gun control laws in North America. In Vermont, anybody can carry a concealed weapon and anybody can buy a gun without a background check. Vermont’s gun crime rate is amongst the lowest in the United States and several points lower than gun control paradise, Canada.
The Swiss have an armed population – in fact, each household is expected to have a gun, with ammunition. From their perspective, an armed citizenry, dedicated to protecting itself is more effective than a paid military. Citizens with a vested interest in their country have a greater stake than paid mercenaries. Swiss gun crime is amongst the lowest in the world.
Loome concludes that tax payer dollars invested in the ineffectual and now virtually defunct gun registry would have been better spent educating Canadians on the root causes of crime. It is hard to argue with his point.
Gun ownership is about balancing costs with benefits. From a democratic perspective, firearms represent the great equalizer. In a true democracy, the government exists for the people, and if the government steps out of line, democracy expects the people to purge the government. Firearm ownership sits at the very heart of this principle, for an unarmed population has little ability to resist the despotic will of a heavily armed State. Firearms also equalize differences between young and old, male and female, criminal and law abiding.
With firearms possession there are costs. Just like more cars on the road equals more accidents, the greater the number of guns in society translates into more accidental shootings. Just because something poses a risk, however, does not mean it is necessary to remove the thing altogether. After all, we license motorists and allow them to hurdle themselves down highways at high rates of speed on a quotidian basis.
Taking away guns does not solve criminal behavior. Criminals will either obtain guns or find other weapons to do the deed. The question is, why should law abiding Canadians necessarily be the only unarmed group? When the State tells us they are the only ones allowed to carry firearms, citizens should be worried. The heart of democracy is that citizens can, if necessary, resist the State. My point is, lets educate instead of terrorize. Lets do what Loome suggests: “…combat the poverty based roots of crime”. That seems to be a sensible and democratic objective.
David G. Chow
Criminal Defence Lawyer
www.calgarydefence.com
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
New Dial-and-Drive Legislation
Just in case the readership on this discussion board consists of more persons than just me(and on occasion, Michael Bates), it is appropriate for me to post on the subject of new laws targeting the specter of unsafe driving arising from cellular telephone use. I do so to demonstrate that my hypocrisy has limitations.
http://www.calgarysun.com/news/columnists/michael_platt/2009/08/11/10422141-sun.html
As you may recall, I have recently criticized police for engaging in tax collection in the guise of traffic safety:
http://andjusticeforall-calgary.blogspot.com/2009/08/proof-that-traffic-safety-enforcement.html
Though I am concerned about government adding yet another law to the books, and am rather perturbed that I will no longer be able to conduct business whilst sitting at the seemingly innumerable untimed red lights littering Calgary roads, I have to admit that talking on the phone or driving with my 5 month old puppy gleefully looking out the window from the comfort of my lap represents a definitive safety hazard. Unlike a great many laws, legislated by inept government officials trying to justify their salaried and pensionable existence on the back of an ever decreasing, yet highly taxed private industry, officials who lobbied for laws allowing police to genuinely target the root cause of distracted and ultimately unsafe driving have in my mind, legislated much needed additional powers for real traffic safety enforcement. Additionally, for those engaged in the much publicized “dial-a-dope” drug trafficking trade, watch out, for police can now stop you for talking on your cellular telephone.
Notwithstanding the benefits of this new legislation, I remind citizens, that with each law passed, government effectively equips itself with greater power to intrude upon the existence of any Canadian.
Put your feet on a park bench, you can talk to law enforcement. Drive to fast, talk to law enforcement. Have a cracked tail light, talk to law enforcement. Talk on your cell phone while operating a motor vehicle, talk to law enforcement. This list goes on and on and on….
Some laws, however, are necessary. If they are broken, it is proper to talk to law enforcement. So, I agree, drive while distracted – talk to law enforcement.
David G. Chow
Calgary Criminal Defence Lawyer
www.albertaimpaireddrivingdefence.com
http://www.calgarysun.com/news/columnists/michael_platt/2009/08/11/10422141-sun.html
As you may recall, I have recently criticized police for engaging in tax collection in the guise of traffic safety:
http://andjusticeforall-calgary.blogspot.com/2009/08/proof-that-traffic-safety-enforcement.html
Though I am concerned about government adding yet another law to the books, and am rather perturbed that I will no longer be able to conduct business whilst sitting at the seemingly innumerable untimed red lights littering Calgary roads, I have to admit that talking on the phone or driving with my 5 month old puppy gleefully looking out the window from the comfort of my lap represents a definitive safety hazard. Unlike a great many laws, legislated by inept government officials trying to justify their salaried and pensionable existence on the back of an ever decreasing, yet highly taxed private industry, officials who lobbied for laws allowing police to genuinely target the root cause of distracted and ultimately unsafe driving have in my mind, legislated much needed additional powers for real traffic safety enforcement. Additionally, for those engaged in the much publicized “dial-a-dope” drug trafficking trade, watch out, for police can now stop you for talking on your cellular telephone.
Notwithstanding the benefits of this new legislation, I remind citizens, that with each law passed, government effectively equips itself with greater power to intrude upon the existence of any Canadian.
Put your feet on a park bench, you can talk to law enforcement. Drive to fast, talk to law enforcement. Have a cracked tail light, talk to law enforcement. Talk on your cell phone while operating a motor vehicle, talk to law enforcement. This list goes on and on and on….
Some laws, however, are necessary. If they are broken, it is proper to talk to law enforcement. So, I agree, drive while distracted – talk to law enforcement.
David G. Chow
Calgary Criminal Defence Lawyer
www.albertaimpaireddrivingdefence.com
Monday, August 10, 2009
Earth - A Hillbilly's Paradise
From reading articles about the duck poachers
http://www.calgarysun.com/news/columnists/michael_platt/2009/08/10/10412096-sun.html
there are at least two certainties relative to this unfortunate event:
(1) David Fraser is genuinely remorseful; and
(2) David Fraser and the other two fellas involved in the senseless murdering of wildlife are ignorant as ignorant can be.
Seriously, whenever a citizen is trekking through the back country armed with a firearm, shooting at living creatures one has to wonder whether the act is not only legal but moral.
Now, I understand the need to cull certain wildlife from farmer’s fields. Absent pest control, gophers pose risk to both agriculture and domestic animals. The risk is not just about a horse or cow stepping in a gopher hole, or about prairie dogs chowing-down on agriculture, it is about disease and pestilence spreading from an overgrown gopher population. But shooting ducks leisurely sunning themselves on a local watering hole? That’s just not the same thing. That is a distinction with a massive difference.
To be fair to the Fraser boys, I have strong suspicion that they are no different than a gaggle of other hillbillies worldwide senselessly blasting wildlife without consideration. They are, however, the ones that in an odd moment of innocent-ignorance posted their rampage on the internet for all to see. And its not just metrosexual yuppies incensed over this tragedy; for I have spoken to a number of law abiding firearms owners who are disgusted as well. They are angered because of the senseless death and perhaps even torture of beautiful creatures, but also because this kind of activity adds support to those lobbying for abolishing firearm ownership altogether. A lobby that many, including this writer, does not support.
Having said all of this, I think we should take a moment to recognize what appears to be a genuine display of remorse on the part of David Fraser. As human beings, we are of course highly anthropocentric creatures. Often, we see the world only through human eyes, with little recognition for what it is like to be something other than what we are. Interestingly, without much adieu, human beings senselessly cull the oceans of wonderous creatures on a quotidian basis. For instance, to satisfy our insatiable urge for exotic foods, we torture sharks for their fins. Sharks are perhaps the earth’s greatest survivor. The Great White Shark is a miracle of consistency. A creature that has survived "unevolved" for millions of years. Today, these splendid creatures find themselves tangled to death in fishing nets, bait lines and some have even been hunted by a host of pathetic testosterone junkies sitting in the safety of armored boats while they chum the water with one hand and drink a beer with the other. Manly I tell ya!
I guess my point is at least twofold. Firstly, as much as we are angered at the Fraser’s, we should at the very least acknowledge David Fraser for taking responsibility and in so doing, showing us that he is human. Like all humans, he is a creature capable of making mistakes. He apparently recognizes what he did was wrong. At least he is conscious. That makes him far different from scads of other people who don’t even understand or care to appreciate their moral shortcomings. Secondly, when we look at this incident, we should not only extend our concern for the senseless conduct that led to the death of ducks; we should also reflect upon the countless other creatures we destroy without much adieu. For we kill billions of other creatures with far less consideration than the carnage wrought by the Frasers.
Indeed, Earth is a hillbilly's paradise.
David G. Chow
Criminal Defence Lawyer
www.calgarydefence.com
http://www.calgarysun.com/news/columnists/michael_platt/2009/08/10/10412096-sun.html
there are at least two certainties relative to this unfortunate event:
(1) David Fraser is genuinely remorseful; and
(2) David Fraser and the other two fellas involved in the senseless murdering of wildlife are ignorant as ignorant can be.
Seriously, whenever a citizen is trekking through the back country armed with a firearm, shooting at living creatures one has to wonder whether the act is not only legal but moral.
Now, I understand the need to cull certain wildlife from farmer’s fields. Absent pest control, gophers pose risk to both agriculture and domestic animals. The risk is not just about a horse or cow stepping in a gopher hole, or about prairie dogs chowing-down on agriculture, it is about disease and pestilence spreading from an overgrown gopher population. But shooting ducks leisurely sunning themselves on a local watering hole? That’s just not the same thing. That is a distinction with a massive difference.
To be fair to the Fraser boys, I have strong suspicion that they are no different than a gaggle of other hillbillies worldwide senselessly blasting wildlife without consideration. They are, however, the ones that in an odd moment of innocent-ignorance posted their rampage on the internet for all to see. And its not just metrosexual yuppies incensed over this tragedy; for I have spoken to a number of law abiding firearms owners who are disgusted as well. They are angered because of the senseless death and perhaps even torture of beautiful creatures, but also because this kind of activity adds support to those lobbying for abolishing firearm ownership altogether. A lobby that many, including this writer, does not support.
Having said all of this, I think we should take a moment to recognize what appears to be a genuine display of remorse on the part of David Fraser. As human beings, we are of course highly anthropocentric creatures. Often, we see the world only through human eyes, with little recognition for what it is like to be something other than what we are. Interestingly, without much adieu, human beings senselessly cull the oceans of wonderous creatures on a quotidian basis. For instance, to satisfy our insatiable urge for exotic foods, we torture sharks for their fins. Sharks are perhaps the earth’s greatest survivor. The Great White Shark is a miracle of consistency. A creature that has survived "unevolved" for millions of years. Today, these splendid creatures find themselves tangled to death in fishing nets, bait lines and some have even been hunted by a host of pathetic testosterone junkies sitting in the safety of armored boats while they chum the water with one hand and drink a beer with the other. Manly I tell ya!
I guess my point is at least twofold. Firstly, as much as we are angered at the Fraser’s, we should at the very least acknowledge David Fraser for taking responsibility and in so doing, showing us that he is human. Like all humans, he is a creature capable of making mistakes. He apparently recognizes what he did was wrong. At least he is conscious. That makes him far different from scads of other people who don’t even understand or care to appreciate their moral shortcomings. Secondly, when we look at this incident, we should not only extend our concern for the senseless conduct that led to the death of ducks; we should also reflect upon the countless other creatures we destroy without much adieu. For we kill billions of other creatures with far less consideration than the carnage wrought by the Frasers.
Indeed, Earth is a hillbilly's paradise.
David G. Chow
Criminal Defence Lawyer
www.calgarydefence.com
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Moral Culpability versus Result Orientated Reasoning -- A Brief Reflection on the Case of Daniel Tschetter
Moral culpability or moral blameworthiness sits at the heart of punishment in criminal cases. In legal parlance, the mens rea of a crime is the intention on the part of the wrongdoer to commit the criminal act. Manslaughter cases, such as the prosecution of Daniel Tschetter, involve a difficult analysis to determine what the offenders actual moral culpability is.
In Alberta, jurists rely upon a case called R. v. KKL or more often referred to as R. v. Laberge to assess moral blameworthiness in manslaughter cases. In Laberge, the Alberta Court of Appeal essentially created three primary categories of moral culpability. At the bottom end of the range -- or the lowest category of moral blameworthiness -- are close to accidental acts. The question is, did the offender's conduct create a situation whereby the oconduct was likely to cause bodily harm that was neither trivial nor transitory. In the middle range are acts where the offender was reckless or wilfully blind to the extent that he ought to have known that there was a risk of serious bodily injury. At the upper end of the range is whether the offender knew or proceeded recklessly in the face of the risk that his or her acts would result in life-threatening injuries in a manner just short of the intent to kill required to elevate the act to murder. Of course, a true application of Laberge involves a more complex analysis, but this general outline suffices to make the point. Moral culpability is on a spectrum.
Manslaughter always involves the death of another human being. The human toll is high, as is the toll exerted on the living. With this in mind, we should always remember that criminal justice cannot reincarnate or repair the loss of life. All criminal justice can do is punish the wrongdoer in a manner appropriate to the act and the blameworthiness associated with that act. There is little doubt that Mr. Tschetter did not intend to kill anybody. Like so many human beings he engaged in a form of conduct that is inherently dangerous and on the findings of fact in this case, did so in a criminal manner.
The interesting aspect in this case is that Mr. Tschetter's moral culpability arguably does not increase with the death toll. Arbuably, blameworthiness is the same regardless of whether one person died or more. Put another way, the unfortunate, unintended consequences of an act does not necessarily change the moral blameworthiness associated with the act itself. The reason I say this is to remind citizens that punishment must reflect the moral blameworthiness of the crime. Where the end result is catastrophic -- as it was in the Tschetter case -- we should be cautious penalizing on result alone.
Though I appreciate this may sound rather cold, the reality is, true justice recognizes the distinction between the degree of moral blameworthiness and the result.
David G. Chow
Calgary Criminal Lawyer
www.calgarydefence.com
In Alberta, jurists rely upon a case called R. v. KKL or more often referred to as R. v. Laberge to assess moral blameworthiness in manslaughter cases. In Laberge, the Alberta Court of Appeal essentially created three primary categories of moral culpability. At the bottom end of the range -- or the lowest category of moral blameworthiness -- are close to accidental acts. The question is, did the offender's conduct create a situation whereby the oconduct was likely to cause bodily harm that was neither trivial nor transitory. In the middle range are acts where the offender was reckless or wilfully blind to the extent that he ought to have known that there was a risk of serious bodily injury. At the upper end of the range is whether the offender knew or proceeded recklessly in the face of the risk that his or her acts would result in life-threatening injuries in a manner just short of the intent to kill required to elevate the act to murder. Of course, a true application of Laberge involves a more complex analysis, but this general outline suffices to make the point. Moral culpability is on a spectrum.
Manslaughter always involves the death of another human being. The human toll is high, as is the toll exerted on the living. With this in mind, we should always remember that criminal justice cannot reincarnate or repair the loss of life. All criminal justice can do is punish the wrongdoer in a manner appropriate to the act and the blameworthiness associated with that act. There is little doubt that Mr. Tschetter did not intend to kill anybody. Like so many human beings he engaged in a form of conduct that is inherently dangerous and on the findings of fact in this case, did so in a criminal manner.
The interesting aspect in this case is that Mr. Tschetter's moral culpability arguably does not increase with the death toll. Arbuably, blameworthiness is the same regardless of whether one person died or more. Put another way, the unfortunate, unintended consequences of an act does not necessarily change the moral blameworthiness associated with the act itself. The reason I say this is to remind citizens that punishment must reflect the moral blameworthiness of the crime. Where the end result is catastrophic -- as it was in the Tschetter case -- we should be cautious penalizing on result alone.
Though I appreciate this may sound rather cold, the reality is, true justice recognizes the distinction between the degree of moral blameworthiness and the result.
David G. Chow
Calgary Criminal Lawyer
www.calgarydefence.com
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Proof that Traffic Safety Enforcement is Really Tax Collection
Again, following up Kerry Diotte's article in the Saturday edition of the Calgary Sun, I thought it was interesting that there was yet another brief newsflash seemingly supporting some of his research and commentary in today's edition:
http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2009/08/05/10365846-sun.html
As a reminder, Diotte's editorial can be found at
http://www.calgarysun.com/comment/2009/08/02/10340131-sun.html
And yet another article on an unexplained traffic accident from yesterdays newspaper can be located at
http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2009/08/04/10354476-sun.html
Interstingly, today's article suggests that police were on a crackdown over the weekend targeting "unsafe" drivers. According to the article, of approximately 2756 traffic related charges in Calgary and area, approximately 2186 tickets for "speeding". Of the 2186 speeding tickets handed out by police, the article informs that a WHOPPING 2 tickets were for "over the top speeding". The remaining 550 or so tickets were for a variety of other traffic violations, ranging from seatbelt violations, impaired driving, careless driving, stunting and presumably other traffic safety or administrative offences, such as failing to carry a copy of one's license. On this note, one is left to wonder whether the "careless driving" tickets simply accompanied the 2 drivers who were over the top speeding?
Anyway, let me understand, according to my math 79% of the unsafe driving crackdown resulted in speeding tickets, of which less than .1% (2 of 2186) were for over the top -- presumably dangerous -- speeding.
In a world where 1+1 necessarily equals 2 and where 2 is necessarily the smallest even prime number, I think this information comes remarkably close to NECESSARILY supporting the view that police are not really conducting traffic safety enforcement measures, but are really conducting tax collection measures. They do so, however, under the guise of public safety.
If law enforcement was truly interested in safety, it might have ticketed far fewer drivers patrolling highways actively searching for those engaged in actual unsafe driving. Instead, safety is justification for standing at the side of the road waving motorists in for speed infractions captured on Laser -- infractions that arguably have little or nothing to do with unsafe driving.
David G. Chow
Calgary Criminal Defence Lawyer
www.calgarydefence.com
http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2009/08/05/10365846-sun.html
As a reminder, Diotte's editorial can be found at
http://www.calgarysun.com/comment/2009/08/02/10340131-sun.html
And yet another article on an unexplained traffic accident from yesterdays newspaper can be located at
http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2009/08/04/10354476-sun.html
Interstingly, today's article suggests that police were on a crackdown over the weekend targeting "unsafe" drivers. According to the article, of approximately 2756 traffic related charges in Calgary and area, approximately 2186 tickets for "speeding". Of the 2186 speeding tickets handed out by police, the article informs that a WHOPPING 2 tickets were for "over the top speeding". The remaining 550 or so tickets were for a variety of other traffic violations, ranging from seatbelt violations, impaired driving, careless driving, stunting and presumably other traffic safety or administrative offences, such as failing to carry a copy of one's license. On this note, one is left to wonder whether the "careless driving" tickets simply accompanied the 2 drivers who were over the top speeding?
Anyway, let me understand, according to my math 79% of the unsafe driving crackdown resulted in speeding tickets, of which less than .1% (2 of 2186) were for over the top -- presumably dangerous -- speeding.
In a world where 1+1 necessarily equals 2 and where 2 is necessarily the smallest even prime number, I think this information comes remarkably close to NECESSARILY supporting the view that police are not really conducting traffic safety enforcement measures, but are really conducting tax collection measures. They do so, however, under the guise of public safety.
If law enforcement was truly interested in safety, it might have ticketed far fewer drivers patrolling highways actively searching for those engaged in actual unsafe driving. Instead, safety is justification for standing at the side of the road waving motorists in for speed infractions captured on Laser -- infractions that arguably have little or nothing to do with unsafe driving.
David G. Chow
Calgary Criminal Defence Lawyer
www.calgarydefence.com
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
(In)Justice is also blind?
I just don't know how to fairly comment on this story, because I don't want to improperly place criticism at the feet of the Calgary Police Service for a situation that was apparently started by incredibly uneducated private security personnel:http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/Gallery+Punjabi+concert+cancelled/1855359/story.html
However, I do note that CPS officers were apparently part of the privately paid security force on the night in question:
Pay duty police hired for the show called in on-duty officers to help disperse the crowd outside and clear the hall of concertgoers
What is simply impossible for me to ignore is the outrageously bad optics of the photos accompanying Jason Van Rassell's article - not even attempting to count officers I can spot inside the convention centre and further down the sidewalk - in the immediate foreground there are 8 "white" male police officers facing a crowd of understandably upset "brown" concert-goers.
I put quotes around "white" and "brown" since pure skin appearance tells us little about a person's actual ethnicity and after all, I am commenting on the simple optics of the situation.
What this writer rhetorically poses is whether this scene, apparently borne out of ignorance or intolerance or possibly both, is a function of the culture of fear being propogated by government through popular media in this City.
For, it seems to me that the mere presence of a kirpan on the person of a peaceful citizen is in no way threatening...and certainly does not justify State intervetion to the level of having:
"Police officers [ring] the entrances to the convention centre, and the HAWCS helicopter [circle] overhead."
Why have the citizens of this City become so accustomed to such police involvement in our daily lives? There appears to have been no crime committed whatsoever and yet reactions by "security" people working hard to make people "safe" led to a huge destabilization of the peaceful nature of the event.
In fact, it would appear that it was the peaceful and law-abiding mindset of the kirpan wearing "offenders" and the later ejected concert atendees which prevented a full-scale riot.
(This is why I am reluctant to too quickly attack the official CPS presence, because regardless of how the situation escalated, it did pose a potential risk of getting out of control once the large crowd was forced out into the street by security)
Newsflash - to all Calgarians (not just overzealous security officers) - the overwhelming majority of the million or so others we share this City with are non-violent, non-threatening, and generally trustworthy individuals. If it were not so, law and order would surely be powerless to do anything about it.
Security and police personnel - be on your toes at all times, no doubt, but for crying out loud, consider a boring and uneventful night to be a success...don't look for trouble where none really is. Perhaps if Lady Injustice were as blind as her twin sister, we wouldn't see so much of her meddling in the routine affairs of law-abiding citizens.
Michael Bates
http://www.ruttanbates.com/
Accidents Do Happen
In light of Kerry Diotte's Saturday commentary
http://andjusticeforall-calgary.blogspot.com/2009/08/perspective-on-traffic-safety.html
I thought this article was worth a brief mention:
http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2009/08/04/10354476-sun.html
This writer has stated over and over again that human beings -- subject to the condition of being human -- are prone to error. Even police officers can make mistakes.
Though we really have no information in this story as to how the accident happened, and the police haven't made the standard statement -- i.e., something along the lines of "we suspect alcohol is a factor" -- nor have they blamed speed as the demon cause of the crash, we are left to wonder whether this accident was caused by some criminalized or tortious manner of driving, or whether it was just a mistake. We may never know. Having said this, unless more information is revealed, there is no reason to think the collision was anything other than an accident. I just hope nobody was hurt.
David G. Chow
Calgary Criminal Defence Lawyer
wwww.albertaimpaireddrivingdefence.com
http://andjusticeforall-calgary.blogspot.com/2009/08/perspective-on-traffic-safety.html
I thought this article was worth a brief mention:
http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2009/08/04/10354476-sun.html
This writer has stated over and over again that human beings -- subject to the condition of being human -- are prone to error. Even police officers can make mistakes.
Though we really have no information in this story as to how the accident happened, and the police haven't made the standard statement -- i.e., something along the lines of "we suspect alcohol is a factor" -- nor have they blamed speed as the demon cause of the crash, we are left to wonder whether this accident was caused by some criminalized or tortious manner of driving, or whether it was just a mistake. We may never know. Having said this, unless more information is revealed, there is no reason to think the collision was anything other than an accident. I just hope nobody was hurt.
David G. Chow
Calgary Criminal Defence Lawyer
wwww.albertaimpaireddrivingdefence.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
