dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1425
share rss forum feed


Thane_Bitter
Inquire within
Premium
join:2005-01-20
reply to I_H8_Spam

Re: Parental responsibility

I am old; when I read this I could not figure out why a 15 year old male would want a pair of earrings let alone steal them.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to BonezX
said by BonezX:

except that if you paid out for a crime through the legal system, they can't come after you a second time through the civil system and have you pay them a second time, that would be an absolute abuse of the system.

You can call it an abuse of the system, but it's fair game. The criminal and civil systems are mutually exclusive in matters such as this. One can even be found not guilty criminally but still held liable civilly for the exact same thing. The burden of proof for civil matters if far lower than that for criminal charges.

To which, if the kid skipped school, Shoppers should be trying to shake down the school as they had the duty of supervision at the time this went down, not the parents. This is one situation where the parents should not be held responsible in any way, shape or form. Regardless, it's still a shakedown, and Shoppers or whoever has launched this effort will most likely walk away with a nothing but a lot of time wasted.


koira
Keep Fighting Michael
Premium
join:2004-02-16
reply to Thane_Bitter
Well I'm old too , earrings ? maybe stick to swiping candy bars


I_H8_Spam

join:2004-03-10
St Catharines, ON
reply to shrug
said by shrug :

Seems to me this drug store (and/or lawyer) is trying to set a minimum fine regardless of what any juvi court would say. Even then, I never heard of court being involved when a kid lifted something like this. Cops take name and address, kid banned from a store etc... but I never saw this before.

Will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

Not how it works, loss prevention would telephone the cops that they have a person detained; cops would take the statement + evidence. Submits to Crown, and the Crown charges for the offence.

The article states the shoplifter was charged
--
AFK: Attack, fight, kill!! The healer is telling you to go pull mobs.
WTF: Way to fight! The healer is applauding your tactical genius


koira
Keep Fighting Michael
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to Gone
said by Gone:

said by BonezX:

except that if you paid out for a crime through the legal system, they can't come after you a second time through the civil system and have you pay them a second time, that would be an absolute abuse of the system.

You can call it an abuse of the system, but it's fair game. The criminal and civil systems are mutually exclusive in matters such as this. One can even be found not guilty criminally but still held liable civilly for the exact same thing. The burden of proof for civil matters if far lower than that for criminal charges.

To which, if the kid skipped school, Shoppers should be trying to shake down the school as they had the duty of supervision at the time this went down, not the parents. This is one situation where the parents should not be held responsible in any way, shape or form. Regardless, it's still a shakedown, and Shoppers or whoever has launched this effort will most likely walk away with a nothing but a lot of time wasted.

While its fair game , is this what the shareholders want ?
OK they have some effective overreactive loss control, seems like focus is misdirected pissing money away . Shoppers need to review their internal processes and priorities.


digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2
reply to Gone
Depends if the parents had signed a waiver allowing the student to leave school property without their consent, most high schools offer that now; and if so, whether the crime was committed when the student was not scheduled to be in class, i.e. lunch or spare.
--
Logic requires one to deal with decisions that one's ego will not permit.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

1 edit
said by digitalfutur:

Depends if the parents had signed a waiver allowing the student to leave school property without their consent, most high schools offer that now; and if so, whether the crime was committed when the student was not scheduled to be in class, i.e. lunch or spare.

"Skipping" would indicate that the student was scheduled to be in class, not on a spare or lunch. Even with a waiver, the school would still be responsible party as far as supervision goes, not the parents. A student is unable to sign themselves out of class until they're 16 (or did McGuinty ever get that changed to 18?). This student was 15.

Edit - this was Alberta. As far as I gather, they're 16 like Ontario used to be. Furthermore, they may not have the same codeified parental liability laws that we here have in Ontario.


koira
Keep Fighting Michael
Premium
join:2004-02-16
LOL If it was Ontario teachers were on strike that day


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
Not all teachers in Ontario were on strike yesterday. Hamilton was on strike on Monday, Niagara was on strike on Thursday last week and Ottawa was on strike on Monday or Tuesday last week I believe.

It is worthwhile to note that there is more to Ontario than just the GTA.


koira
Keep Fighting Michael
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Yup. My heros were off in Peel yesterday, halton today
Lots of shop lifting going on in them there places


CrazyCanuckz

@reliablehosting.com
reply to I_H8_Spam
Criminally this is difficult to prove unless you have a video as proof even then it can be difficult. F*** Shoppers. I don't go there that much anyways. I am not going to support voltage like idiots.

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to BonezX
said by BonezX:

...they can't come after you a second time through the civil system and have you pay them a second time, that would be an absolute abuse of the system.

Think of OJ. Also in the criminal system there are stand alone restitution orders that have the same legal effect as a judgement in a civil case and allow you the victim to initiate your own enforcement actions such as garnishment of wages.


BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
kudos:1
said by peterboro:

said by BonezX:

...they can't come after you a second time through the civil system and have you pay them a second time, that would be an absolute abuse of the system.

Think of OJ. Also in the criminal system there are stand alone restitution orders that have the same legal effect as a judgement in a civil case and allow you the victim to initiate your own enforcement actions such as garnishment of wages.

yes, but if you already have a settlement through a criminal case, it doesn't make sense that you can approach the civil court for a second settlement for the same thing. it would completely defeat the purpose of the criminal procedure giving restitution or applying fines in the first place.

either way, this is entirely a lawyer trying to pad his wallet at the expense of the company he is on retainer for.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by BonezX:

yes, but if you already have a settlement through a criminal case, it doesn't make sense that you can approach the civil court for a second settlement for the same thing. it would completely defeat the purpose of the criminal procedure giving restitution or applying fines in the first place.

It may not make sense to you, but that's just the way things are. Criminal liability and civil liability are not mutually exclusive.


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
reply to I_H8_Spam
said by I_H8_Spam:

If I'm at work, and my child skips school and does this action. How am I directly liable?

Because you raised yourself a delinquent.

If you want them to be treated as an individual adult - then full brunt of adult laws should apply. In other words this child's future is effectively over before it begins.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by CanadianRip:

Because you raised yourself a delinquent.

Fine then. So I take it that when one considers that children are sent to school for eight hours a day and spend just as much time there as they do with their parents, you are of the opinion that a school should be held just as liable for "raising" a delinquent as well, right?


Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2
You may not be far off on that statement.


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
reply to Gone
said by Gone:

Fine then. So I take it that when one considers that children are sent to school for eight hours a day and spend just as much time there as they do with their parents, you are of the opinion that a school should be held just as liable for "raising" a delinquent as well, right?

This is the problem with Socialism, you get this idea that someone other then you is responsible for what happens in your life.

Assuming the school is instructing the children to commit crimes, yes it's your responsibility as a parent to ensure they follow the law.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by CanadianRip:

Assuming the school is instructing the children to commit crimes, yes it's your responsibility as a parent to ensure they follow the law.

You are legally required to send your children to school and anyone who does not is subject to criminal sanctions. How can you be held liable for their conduct when you are legally required to entrust them to someone else's custody for half the waking day? How can do you justify a parent being 100% responsible for the conduct of a delinquent child when that parent isn't even legally allowed to keep custody of them the entire day?

And really, before you go throwing around the word "socialism" like some kind of smartass, you could do us all a favour and actually know what it is before using the term and realize it has zero do to with topics such as this.


agtle

@teksavvy.com
said by Gone:

How can do you justify a parent being 100% responsible for the conduct of a delinquent child when that parent isn't even legally allowed to keep custody of them the entire day?

I would respectfully argue that it is the parents basic responsibility to instill a particular set of values in their children; and teach their children to understand their educational experience in a certain context. I, for one, do not hand off all responsibility to the school system.

Teachers can influence children, but proper parenting should count more.

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to BonezX
said by BonezX:

yes, but if you already have a settlement through a criminal case, it doesn't make sense that you can approach the civil court for a second settlement for the same thing. it would completely defeat the purpose of the criminal procedure giving restitution or applying fines in the first place.

What you have in a criminal case, if there is no restitution order, is a dispute between society and the perp. The courts main consideration is the imposition of sentence under the criminal code and not making the victim whole financially. Lets say some dude walks up and says, "heh there's that BonerX dude that lives in mommies basement jerking off all day lets put the smack down on him". And they do and you miss a week of work and the judge locks them up for a month. Then you go, "that sucks dude, I'm out $400.00 for a weeks pay.


BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
kudos:1
said by peterboro:

said by BonezX:

yes, but if you already have a settlement through a criminal case, it doesn't make sense that you can approach the civil court for a second settlement for the same thing. it would completely defeat the purpose of the criminal procedure giving restitution or applying fines in the first place.

What you have in a criminal case, if there is no restitution order, is a dispute between society and the perp. The courts main consideration is the imposition of sentence under the criminal code and not making the victim whole financially. Lets say some dude walks up and says, "heh there's that BonerX dude that lives in mommies basement jerking off all day lets put the smack down on him". And they do and you miss a week of work and the judge locks them up for a month. Then you go, "that sucks dude, I'm out $400.00 for a weeks pay.

that's the thing though, if restitution is already handled by the criminal case(which we don't know if it is or not in this case) why should the party be able to get a second restitution is what my issue is.

if the kid has been charged for shoplifting (which means they were caught and the product returned to the store) fines have been levied and restitution has been set by the court (if they were caught and the goods returned it would make sense for it to be zero being there was no actual loss) what right does a party that already has restitution assigned by the court or the court has found no loss on their part as the victim (being stolen goods recovered in condition that allows for sale) have that allows them to literally circumvent the system and basically "double dip" any restitution payments that the criminal court has given, or get restitution where the criminal courts have proven that there is no loss.

in the case of assault, you are given restitution as part of the original case, if the court does not give you restitution where there has been loss, then there was a gross miscarriage of justice on the courts part.

get what I'm saying ?

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
Restitution, and stand alone restitution orders are not that common and the victim has to press the Crown to argue for them. Often even with a restitution order the perps don't pay and you have to go to civil court.

But if there is a restitution order you won't prevail in civil court until the probation period is extinguished.


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
reply to Gone
said by Gone:

And really, before you go throwing around the word "socialism" like some kind of smartass, you could do us all a favour and actually know what it is before using the term and realize it has zero do to with topics such as this.

Absolutely it does - it's part of a mindset that society shares the responsibility for each other's well being. In this case, apparently it includes raising each other's children through school.

I'm going to assume you haven't raised any children to adulthood. So with that in mind I'll let you spend some time reflecting on this question. If a teacher has more influence over my own child then I do, am I a good parent?

If you answer yes to that question, something has already gone terribly wrong in your parenting attempts.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by CanadianRip:

If you answer yes to that question, something has already gone terribly wrong in your parenting attempts.

To which, you have already proven that something went terrible, terribly wrong with your education in those schools that your parents were legally required to send you for most of the day during weekdays, which in turn has produced a rather skewed and simplistic understanding of the world around you.

But whatever, simplistic one-dimensional thinking and intellectual dishonesty - either intentionally or through ignorance - is particularly rife among people who blame everything on "socialism" without even knowing that socialism actually is.

If you have raised children to adulthood, I hope they have had the benefit of a better education and a better depth of understanding of the world around them than you have.


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
said by Gone:

If you have raised children to adulthood, I hope they have had the benefit of a better education and a better depth of understanding of the world around them than you have.

If you blame anyone other then yourself for anything in your life, you're already setup with a mindset of failure on any topic. If you wish to look at the single largest difference between someone who is successful at something versus not - you'll note the key difference is who they hold accountable for their successes or failures. Until you move forward in your life with that key understanding, you're doomed to mediocrity at best.

Understanding the nuance behind mindset and what Marx actually wrote is the difference between an evaluative understanding versus a textual one. While Socialism at it's root was intended as an economic system, in modern days it's been perverted to represent a ground of people who think their environment to provide for them.

We obfuscate the fact that the only one responsible for anything in this world is you.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
Wrong. There are plenty of things other than just "you" that can be responsible for the problems in your life that are beyond your control. Acknowledging this fact of life does not lead to failure. It is only how you respond to those issues and tackle those problems that is your responsibility alone and the response itself is a direct reflection on your character and your success in life, not the problem.

And socialism is still an economic system. Period. Claiming it is anything beyond that goes back to the intellectual dishonesty I mentioned earlier. Just because someone repeatedly says something untrue does not suddenly make it true.


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
said by Gone:

And socialism is still an economic system. Period. Claiming it is anything beyond that goes back to the intellectual dishonesty I mentioned earlier. Just because someone repeatedly says something untrue does not suddenly make it true.

Fair enough - but it still doesn't represent the cultural understanding of the word. Unless you're one of those people that believes grammar and language does not change.

said by Gone:

Wrong. There are plenty of things other than just "you" that can be responsible for the problems in your life that are beyond your control. Acknowledging this fact of life does not lead to failure. It is only how you respond to those issues and tackle those problems that is your responsibility alone and the response itself is a direct reflection on your character and your success in life, not the problem.

You have no control of those things, the only thing you can control is you. So everything outside of you is completely irrelevant. If you want to be happy and successful you need to focus only on you.

Simple example: There is no food in this area because of drought.

Solution: You migrate to greener pastures.

Problem: The school I send my child too is training bad habits about how to set goals.

Solution: You spend 2 hours per evening re-training your child on goal setting.

See how that works?


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

1 edit
said by CanadianRip:

Fair enough - but it still doesn't represent the cultural understanding of the word. Unless you're one of those people that believes grammar and language does not change.

No, I am merely one of those people who believes that people can't use their own opinions and modify a word to mean something that it doesn't actually mean.

said by Gone:

See how that works?

To quote,

said by CanadianRip:
If you blame anyone other then yourself for anything in your life, you're already setup with a mindset of failure on any topic.
I can blame my lack of food on the drought all I want, and I can bitch and moan and whine about it. The dought isn't my fault. It is only my response that I have direct control. This does not mean I'm not allowed to bitch about the drought, though, and my bitching does not mean I have failed.

A better example is this: Someone who is physically or mentally disabled and unable to work isn't the one to blame for the fact that they now rely on government assistance to live and are unable to work. Living within their means and attempting to remain relevant and contribute what they can to their community is the only thing directly under their control in their life. The fact that this is all they can accomplish due to circumstances beyond their control does not make them a failure.

Edit - to which, it doesn't matter what you do with your child if you're sending them right back to the source of a problem and have no ability to change that despite all your efforts. The end result does not mean you have failed, no matter what you may think.

Get it? Or does such pragmatism make me a socialist?


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
said by Gone:

Get it? Or does such pragmatism make me a socialist?

Not really, because in your original comment you where stating it's the schools fault and not the parents which seems to contradict what you're saying in this post.

We can all waste our time bitching and complaining, God knows I do enough of it. But it's always a mistake. End of the day whatever the circumstance is, it's our fault.

If you're a quadriplegic and you want to be the worlds fastest triathlete, it's your fault for attempting such an incredible and you should be more realistic. You will likely fail at this task.

There's a big difference between complaining, and assigning accountability. Absolutely where you assign accountability determines success or failure. If you're not accountable for something, it's never on you to take care of business.