I think it sounds alot more reasonable to side with the judge... just kinda makes sense to me. He knew all the facts, we do not.

 

I accidentally ran a red light once, back when I was learning how to drive. Other than that, no, never.

 

While I'd rather not get into the debate over the level of force used, I don't think the crook should have benefited at all from the encounter given the level of injury sustained.

I can totally see the people who stopped him getting fined or disciplined for using excessive force. 2 wrongs don't make a right, and breaking some of the rules in order to stop someone from breaking other rules just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But there is also the concept of not gaining from one's wrong doings. Just as is the case that you can't kill people, and then make money off of the book rights, I think a similar restiction on this case should apply. The theif put himself in danger by attempting to steal something. He knew there were potential consequences, and yet he chose to take the action of attempting to steal. Therefore he bears a good portion of the responsibility for the eventual consequences.

 

^ I agree

The gaurds are glorified asscociates the many cases and do not know the inner working of the law and what there rights were in as far as detaining a person. In canada you can not forcably detain anyone, let alone run after them and tackle them.


I am full for harsher penalties for convicted criminal and this guy should be no different. But his penalty should not have been getting his faced smashed in. The punishment should fit the crime.

 

Well you can, but it depends on what the crime is, and what they are currently doing. Usually the rule is, you can only use as much force as they are.