• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Senior charged after turning in vandal

  • Thread starter Thread starter GAP
  • Start date Start date

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
24
Points
380
Senior charged after turning in vandal
By James Turner, QMI Agency
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2012/03/06/19469226.html

WINNIPEG -- After years of frustration in trying to clean up after vandals who wrecked his late mother’s vacant home, Edward Raflant thought he was doing the right thing by confronting and capturing a young suspect and driving him about 100 metres to the Stonewall RCMP attachment.

Now, the disabled 74-year-old faces being labelled a violent criminal after Mounties instead arrested him for assault and uttering threats against the 11-year-old boy. Raflant has pleaded not guilty.

His case is now headed for a courtroom showdown and could ultimately become a legal landmark regarding what rights regular folks have to use force in defending their property.

Provincial court Judge Rob Finlayson adjourned the trial for Crown and defence lawyers to craft arguments on the weighty rights issues the case raises.

“Whether you call it citizen’s arrest or whatever you call it, it’s still an issue to me as to how much force he was entitled to use,” Finlayson said.

The questions in the case are “very significant” and “quite complicated,” the judge said.


Police and the Crown allege Raflant overstepped the law in his dealings with the suspected vandal the evening of June 11, 2011.

The boy, who can’t be identified due to a publication ban, admits he and a group of other youths illegally entered a boarded-up home in Stonewall, a town just north of Winnipeg. But, he said, he was “just a follower” and is “too weak” to cause any damage.

The home has a yellow no-trespassing sign over a window in the front.

Spotted as the last one to leave, the boy says Raflant -- whom he didn’t know -- threatened to blow his head off. The boy claims he ran away after repeatedly apologizing to the stranger.

But shortly after, the boy said, the man drove up to him at a nearby parking lot and grabbed him by the collar. He said he was tossed into his truck while the man angrily shouted, “Why’d you go in there?”

“He threw me in and I just stayed there. I didn’t want to get into any more trouble,” the boy said.

The child said he was driven directly to the town’s nearby RCMP station and marched to the front door while the man repeatedly jabbed him with a walking cane.

Const. Blair Mompourquette testified he saw Raflant using one hand to hold the crying boy near his collar near the detachment’s locked door.

When the cop opened up, he said Raflant pushed the kid towards him, saying: “He’s all yours. Here you go.”

After a brief and somewhat heated discussion with Raflant, the constable advised him that what he did was illegal, court heard. Cops allowed Raflant to leave to be officially arrested a few weeks later. The boy was given a ride home.

Mompourquette admitted under cross-examination that over the years, there have been “numerous” acts of serious vandalism at Raflant’s property, and said he knew Raflant wanted cops to do something when he handed the boy over that night.

But, the cop said, the proper thing for Raflant to do was to call 911 and RCMP would go out and patrol for suspects.
 
This is effing disgusting... I don't even know what else to say. Sounds like the RCMP are jealous a retired man did their job better than they did.
 
I am really starting to lose my repect for the venerable RCMP. All my relations previously in the uniform must be feeling a little ill.
 
IMHO I think the RCMP there had written his previous complaints off and dismissed the idea that they go after vandals.
 
No surprise here.

It's easier to prosecute a 74 year old. Much higher chance of conviction, and never mind about justice.


An 11 year old, AFAIK, cannot be prosecuted, but only sent home with a strong warning.

 
Jim Seggie said:
No surprise here.

It's easier to prosecute a 74 year old. Much higher chance of conviction, and never mind about justice.


An 11 year old, AFAIK, cannot be prosecuted, but only sent home with a strong warning.

Whatever happened to the cops sitting the kid down and giving him a good scare with the hopes that it will be enough to deter him from doing it again?

Now the kids that were all involved are probably going to go crazy on the house knowing that the cops won't do anything.
 
The Criminal Code of Canada states:

494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant
(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or
(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes
      (i) has committed a criminal offence, and
      (ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.

(2) Any one who is
(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or
(b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property,

may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.

(3) Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-277.html#h-163

By my interpretation, he was allowed to arrest the individual(s) involved.

However, the code also says:

264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat
(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;
(b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or
(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.

(2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.
and
265. (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

If he used reasonalbe force he is good, but if what is reported in the papers is true, then, IMO, the RCMP did do the right (legal) thing and charge him.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-126.html#h-83

Do I agree with what the RCMP did, no.  Do I agree with what the gentleman did, heck yes.

Edit for formatting
 
The rules on citizen arrests are pretty strict.  You have to be very careful.  The 74 year old actually went too far according to the law.  And we are talking about an 11 year old kid.

That being said the laws on defending one's property need to be ammended.
 
GAP said:
His case is now headed for a courtroom showdown and could ultimately become a legal landmark regarding what rights regular folks have to use force in defending their property.

We keep having these kind of cases in Canada, and they always say this about them... but nothing ever changes...
 
ballz said:
We keep having these kind of cases in Canada, and they always say this about them... but nothing ever changes...

Easier to prosecute the old man than it is the poor misunderstood little lad who only wants a cup of hot chocolate and a hug.

Yes sarcasm intended.
 
The cops' hands are just as tied by lawyers as are the property owners. Following the route they chose merely reduced the likelihood of a pack of jackels lawyers decending upon the Stonewall RCMP detachment.

As it is, I don't discount 'human rights' lawyers showing up to bankrupt the 74 year-old for traumatizing the brat kid. This is society's latest version of buying lottery tickets -- can't get rich quick? Sue someone.
 
Strike said:
Whatever happened to the cops sitting the kid down and giving him a good scare with the hopes that it will be enough to deter him from doing it again?
Now the kids that were all involved are probably going to go crazy on the house knowing that the cops won't do anything.
Worked for me when I was about 10-11 and got inside a Bell Telephone van and dumped a jar of tadpoles (and water) on the radio destroying it. Three of us were sat down with our parents and two Oakville cops in someone's living room later that evening. It actually worked on all 3 of us now that I think about it.
 
If that was my kid I would discipline the child for entering someone else's property. He would learn this is not acceptable behavior.

If the guy had simply held the kid in place and called the police I doubt there would have been any issue.

From the article, the elderly man chased an 11 year old boy down,  made death threats against the boy, and tossed him in a trunk of a car.  I would have more than a few words with the 74 year old man.  This is not acceptable behavior either, and he should know better.


 
 
Pieman said:
If that was my kid I would discipline the child for entering someone else's property. He would learn this is not acceptable behavior.

If the guy had simply held the kid in place and called the police I doubt there would have been any issue.

From the article, the elderly man chased an 11 year old boy down,  made death threats against the boy, and tossed him in a trunk of a car.  I would have more than a few words with the 74 year old man.  This is not acceptable behavior either, and he should know better.

Pretty naive there, buddy.
 
Pieman said:
If that was my kid I would discipline the child for entering someone else's property. He would learn this is not acceptable behavior.

If the guy had simply held the kid in place and called the police I doubt there would have been any issue.

From the article, the elderly man chased an 11 year old boy down,  made death threats against the boy, and tossed him in a trunk of a car.  I would have more than a few words with the 74 year old man.  This is not acceptable behavior either, and he should know better.

I didn't read that.  Pretty sure that's because it wasn't there.
 
Pieman said:
From the article, the elderly man chased an 11 year old boy down,  made death threats against the boy, and tossed him in a trunk of a car.  I would have more than a few words with the 74 year old man.  This is not acceptable behavior either, and he should know better.

You didn't get most of that from the article. There's a bold line between "truck" and "trunk of a car."

Also, these "death threats" are yet to be proven. The only evidence of it so far is the accusation of an 11 year old who likes to break into a senior's property and vandalize it.

EDIT: Strike beat me to it.
 
My bad, I read 'trunk' not truck as it is.

I still believe the man should have held the boy, stayed put and called the police. Isn't that how citizens arrests are supposed to work?

I'm not speaking about the charges laid against the elderly man, just think he could have played it a lot smarter.

 
I have found the RCMP in a few areas are very reluctant to charge kids, even knowing full well that they'll be laughed out of the court room by the  Crown and or judge.  Kids are well aware of what they're doing, but according to the law they don't.  I tired to have my kid busted a couple of times but the cops wouldn't do it.  I guess doing the right thing vs path of least resistance makes things go away?  I think some scared straighht programs would be great to have in some areas, but apparently the social workers think that would harm their little psyches - that's their excuse in BC anyway.

As for this case, most of us here over the age of about 30 know and emember what would have happened if someone had caught us doing that - they'd likely toss us around a bit, then our parents would have laid the boots to us - problem likely solved. 

MM
 
ballz said:
You didn't get most of that from the article. There's a bold line between "truck" and "trunk of a car."

Also, these "death threats" are yet to be proven. The only evidence of it so far is the accusation of an 11 year old who likes to break into a senior's property and vandalize it.

EDIT: Strike beat me to it.

And from what I can tell the fact that he vandalized the property has yet to be proven as well...the only evidence is the acusation of a fed up 74 year old who takes the law into his own hands.
 
Crantor said:
And from what I can tell the fact that he vandalized the property has yet to be proven as well...the only evidence is the acusation of a fed up 74 year old who takes the law into his own hands.

"admits he and a group of other youths illegally entered a boarded-up home."

Fine, you're right, there is no proof that he vandalized anything, but he did confess to a B&E.
 
Back
Top