Parental responsibility - Canadian Chat | DSLReports Forums (Page 2)

Author	All Replies
Thane_Bitter join:2005-01-20 London	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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-12-19 22:40:56 ·

Gone Premium join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON kudos:3 Reviews: ·Start Communicat..	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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-12-19 22:46:51 ·
fast4ward Diesel Premium join:2004-02-16	reply to Thane_Bitter Well I'm old too , earrings ? maybe stick to swiping candy bars
	to forum · permalink · 2012-12-19 22:48:51 ·
I_H8_Spam join:2004-03-10 St Catharines, ON Reviews: ·Start Communicat..	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
	to forum · permalink · 2012-12-19 22:50:15 ·
fast4ward Diesel Premium join:2004-02-16	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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-12-19 22:53:31 ·
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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-12-19 22:55:15 ·
Gone Premium join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON kudos:3 Reviews: ·Start Communicat.. 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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-12-19 22:59:42 ·
fast4ward Diesel Premium join:2004-02-16	LOL If it was Ontario teachers were on strike that day
	to forum · permalink · 2012-12-19 23:09:59 ·
Gone Premium join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON kudos:3 Reviews: ·Start Communicat..	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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-12-19 23:22:32 ·
fast4ward Diesel 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
	to forum · permalink · 2012-12-19 23:32:43 ·
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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-12-20 01:32:38 ·
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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-12-20 09:24:32 ·
BonezX Basement Dweller Premium join:2004-04-13 Canada	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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-12-20 21:25:29 ·
Gone Premium join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON kudos:3 Reviews: ·Start Communicat..	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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-12-20 21:35:45 ·
CanadianRip join:2009-07-15 Oakville, ON Reviews: ·TekSavvy DSL ·Cogeco Cable	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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-12-20 21:37:10 ·
Gone Premium join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON kudos:3 Reviews: ·Start Communicat..	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?
	to forum · permalink · 2012-12-20 21:44:43 ·
Juggernaut Irreverent or irrelevant? Premium join:2006-09-05 Kelowna, BC kudos:2	You may not be far off on that statement.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-12-20 21:46:41 ·
CanadianRip join:2009-07-15 Oakville, ON Reviews: ·TekSavvy DSL ·Cogeco Cable	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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-12-20 21:52:12 ·
Gone Premium join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON kudos:3 Reviews: ·Start Communicat..	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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-12-20 21:59:19 ·
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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-12-20 22:50:59 ·

O Canada! > Canadian > Canadian Chat > Parental responsibility

Re: Parental responsibility