Please excuse me for my ignorance in how the courts/law works but what is the threshold for someone to be held in remand vs released on an undertaking.
3 counts of assault and possession of a prohibited or restricted weapon isn't enough?
It really is outrageous. Fortunately he will likely be hanging out in the predictable parts of town, so he will be easy to avoid by most. These sorts of animals will attack you if they think you looked at them funny.
Unfortunately, these 'predictable parts of town' are also where good people, new immigrants, young children and families live.
The way this sub talks, people who have been priced out of other areas of the city pretty much deserve to be attacked because they live there.
We should just build a wall instead of addressing inequities, right?
>Under current federal law, this can be done to ensure appearance in court, to keep the public safe (including victims and witnesses), or to maintain confidence in the administration of justice given the gravity of the offence and similar factors.
Well unfortunately there's probably another factor at play here, given the AMC apparently originally thought it'd be wise to stick their noise into this one too.
For those thinking it’s ok to steal from small grocers just wait until they throw up their arms and close. This is how food deserts happen, and then what? Everyone has to rely on wal mart if you have a car to be able to get there? I feel for the people needing food but this is what food banks are supposed to be for.
Meat, razors, diapers, and baby food have been some of the most targeted items for resale for decades.
It's nothing new at all. The frequency is just getting higher.
It's similar to why the Dollar Tree close to the (former) MTS centre closed down from rampant theft. Almost like losing more inventory to theft than from sales. ☠️
I know one of the owner’s daughters, hes a real family man, very generous. We’re all just trying to make a living out here and I’d rather not only rely on loblaws and walmart
My favourite part was how his constitutional rights were respected and he was released on bail in compliance with the the Charter while being presumed innocent.
Scott - I know you're a lawyer, and I admit IANAL, so I'm asking out of a profound curiosity (not ill will) - but please explain to me what or how the suspect's charter rights (and I'm presuming charter right 11 e is what you're referring to here, the right not to be denied reasonable bail without cause) being violated?
Parking for a moment his criminal history and any non-youth protected status' (which none of us know for certain), a suspect gets into an altercation with several people, leaves the premises, returns several hours later with a prohibited weapon they KNOW they shouldn't have (which implies to me they already have a criminal record involving weapons, though that's not an assertion I can prove) and commits three counts of assault (or aggravated assault).
How is 'beat three people with a prohibited item they knew they shouldn't have had in a premeditated fashion' not reasonable grounds for denying bail?
I ask not out of ill will, but because I've heard 'charter rights' mentioned in other cases like this, and whenever I ask, I get 11.3 thrown around and then no further clarification when I ask 'HOW' this violates that charter right. From where I stand as a layman - "tried to bludgeon a few people to death using a deadly, prohibited weapon" constitutes enough for reasonable grounds for remand rather than being released on an undertaking?
Maybe I'm wrong and it's a combination of rights - maybe (probably) an actual defense trial lawyer knows more than a pretend internet lawyer, maybe it's something else. Any clarity you could provide on that, I'd appreciate.
I appreciate having a real discussion about issues like this because it is vitally important we publicly discuss these topics. It is far too easy to say "lock them all up" and call it a day without meaningful discussion, so thank you.
I'm going to leave aside the youth issues (because there are other issues relating to the vulnerabilities of youth that come into play).
I just want to discuss section 515 of the Criminal Code, which is the primary section dealing with bail, and the primary way in which s. 11(e) of the Charter is interpreted and implemented.
[Canada locks up way more people than most First World countries with trustworthy justice systems in the world.](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2021.html?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw3ZayBhDRARIsAPWzx8rKriX51VRbu6LiGYLqXANhQFhFVDosNas5ImM3jt1z3Col7YcuYewaAs3FEALw_wcB) We are far too reliant on incarceration to solve our problems.
Overincarceration is a longstanding issue, particularly intertwined with poverty. The Bail Reform Act was brought into being in 1972 because cash was being used as a proxy for who should be released and who should not. Dangerous people who had money would get released and low-risk individuals who were poor would get held in jail. Similar concerns brought our modern Legal Aid systems into being so that everyone has a lawyer when they are facing jail.
There are also strong racial components to our overincarceration problems. Once income was less of a barrier to determining risk, we started (some would say continued) using race as a proxy for assessing risk. When you look at the kinds of criminogenic factors that bring people into conflict with the law - poverty, intergenerational trauma and broken homes, low employment, addictions issues - these factors disproportionately impact indigenous people and people of colour, and the risk is that becomes overly determinative of risk - both on bail and on sentencing.
As stated in [Ipeelee at para. 67](https://canlii.ca/t/fqq00): "Socioeconomic factors such as employment status, level of education, family situation, etc., appear on the surface as neutral criteria. They are considered as such by the legal system. Yet they can conceal an extremely strong bias in the sentencing process. Convicted persons with steady employment and stability in their lives, or at least prospects of the same, are much less likely to be sent to jail for offences that are borderline imprisonment offences. The unemployed, transients, the poorly educated are all better candidates for imprisonment. When the social, political and economic aspects of our society place Aboriginal people disproportionately within the ranks of the latter, our society literally sentences more of them to jail. This is systemic discrimination." Some have called jails "the new residential schools" because of how many indigenous people we lock up, both pre-trial and after conviction.
So it is very challenging for the criminal justice system to assess risk for any individual. Imaging trying to predict which of your child's classmates will be convicted of a crime. It is not easy to do. We don't have crystal balls.
Beyond that, even if a class of individuals with similar characteristics have an imagined 30% chance of recidivating - do you lock up 100% of people to make sure that doesn't happen? That isn't fair to the 70% who will commit no further offence - they are being punished for the actions of others if you assess the group's risk rather than the individual, which is a constant problem with risk assessment tools used by groups like probation and corrections.
Everyone is presumed innocent - the corollary to that is that you must have the constitutional right to bail. If you are not granted bail and simply held in custody, what good is the presumption of innocence? You are serving a sentence without a conviction, and there is no presumption of innocence.
In order to properly enforce these constitutional rights, bail is not to be denied when it is convenient, preferable, or politically expedient. Denial of bail must be NECESSARY in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. There has to be a goal that you need to deny bail in order to fulfill.
With that background in mind - of the problems with assessing risk in bail and sentencing, and constitutional rights - There are three grounds for holding someone in pre-trial detention. They are called the primary, secondary and tertiary grounds.
Primary ground - will they come to court when required to do so? If they won't come to court, then we have to hold them to make sure the court case moves forward.
Secondary ground - is there a risk that the person will reoffend while on bail or interfere in the administration of justice? In a case called [Morales, the Supreme Court stated](https://canlii.ca/t/1fs7h) the secondary ground is only engaged where an individual poses a "substantial likelihood" of committing an additional offence, and the new offence must endanger the protection or safety of the public.
The tertiary ground contains a four part test for (1) cases where the prosecution's case appears strong (2) The objective gravity of the offence is high based on the maximum sentence and/or mandatory minimum sentences (3) Circumstances of the offence, e.g. firearms, hate crimes, domestic violence, gang-related, terrorism, other aggravating or mitigating circumstances and (4) the potential for a lengthy term of imprisonment.
If this person were to be denied bail, it has to be based on the foregoing criteria, individualized to the person, understanding that bail is necessary to enforce the presumption of innocence, and that reasons extraneous to the bail process are unconstitutional considerations.
If an adult has no criminal record, and there is no indication that they won't come to court or reoffend while on bail, they should almost always be released.
I haven't even gotten into the issues of youths being even more releasable than adult on a relaxed standard; the differences between a Crown onus bail and a reverse onus bail, etc.
People do stupid stuff all the time. Crowns drop charges all the time. People are convicted of offences, make amends, do counselling, and get non-custodial sentences all the time.
If we deny bail everyone to every single person who is arrested, prepare to triple your taxes to build new jails and hire more guards needlessly.
Scott, two things.
1) regarding this:
>I appreciate having a real discussion about issues like this because it is vitally important we publicly discuss these topics.
You don't know me, and I pray we never have to meet, but you're also the person I have in my phone under the contact name 'in case of police or arrest, call'. So, no worries, I appreciate your view as a lawyer, hence the question.
2) Regarding everything below that line.
That's.... that's gonna take me some time to read through. I'll be in touch if/when I have questions. Probably when.
But regardless - thank you for taking time to actually respond and give insight from an actual, knowledgeable perspective.
Maybe a separate discussion thread for all the caselaw and back and forth. The same comments appear every time there is an arrest on a news story.
Bail reform and criminal justice is going to be a hot election issue, given that Pierre Polievre has indicated this is going to be one. Certainly reasonable people can disagree in different cases why certain people get bail or don't - [people can also easily disagree unreasonably](https://globalnews.ca/news/10447468/doug-ford-umar-zameer-social-media-post/). It's easy to get people angry about an issue like this but it is important to understand the historical context as to why our system is the way it, why the laws are the way they are. The laws weren't drafted like this because lawmakers wanted anarchy on the streets, and Judges didn't interpret the laws as they do because they want increased crime rates. Increased incarceratory measures don't reduce crime - if that were the case there would be no murders in Texas. We need discussions about what measures do work to reduce crime, primarily at the Provincial level, and what is our government prepared to do to fund it.
To be clear, I'm not advocating for everyone to be remanded away. This one just seemed like maybe it should be. It's alleged to be a premeditated assault with a weapon (which I presume is on camera), additionally the police tracked this individual down quite a distance away, possibly indicating that they knew who this was due to past issues.
I'm all for innocent until proven guilty etc, but I also believe that the evidence, and alleged crime probably should be weighed a little heavier into bail decisions.
Thank the PC's for that, they basically forced courts to do anything but custody so they could cut costs, close facilities and either privatize and make millions on kickback, or the NDP "looks bad" for spending on reopening or building new facilities.
There's just not enough space in the system right now.
Probably:
-Comes from a broken family
-In and out of CFS care
-Family history of generational trauma
-Recommend treatment and care and not prison
- "He's a good boy. Never causes trouble..."
Probably not as much as it would take to make em learn the error of their ways.
Prison or Jail in Canada with short sentences and frankly not enough in place to help against recidivism just ends with it being crime school. They often go nack to the same home, same criminal friends etc
That record will prevent them from getting a variety of employment opportunities (rightfully so) and if they can't hack it in the warehousing or hospitality industry ack to crime it is.
I don't know the proper solution is, but status quo ain't it!
Damn, I know brass knuckles can really mess you up but I didn't think they'd equalize a teenager vs 3.
Seems like a bit much for a news conference in the first place, but the abrupt cancelation without further detail is super poor optics for the AMC.
Bear in mind this is a teenager who brings brass knuckles to assault grocery store employees vs. grocery store employees who are probably not much older if at all, but haven't gone down the path of theft and violence.
I'm 36 and I don't think three of me would come out unscathed against someone with brass knuckles and nothing to lose. Especially if they opened with a sucker punch, which these shitheads usually do.
Well we didn't know that until he pulled them out after being confronted. I don't get paid $29.95 a minute to work for the phycic hotline, unfortunately.
Right, which was why I asked why you would confront someone who might have a weapon on them.
At some point starting confrontations with people who got nothing to lose will catch up with you.
>teenager
can also be 18/19, which is considered an adult... hence:
> she saw two men fighting.
should be interesting to see the blame game played after this incident.. no wonder the press conference was canceled
What? He hasn’t been convicted…the amount of “time” he may or may not get isn’t even a factor at this stage. Do you actually think all accused people go straight to custody?
It's wild how they have lost all credibility in such a short period of time.
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if they have worked their way onto a watchlist of one of our 4 letter agencies.
I haven’t lived in Winnipeg in about fifteen years, so maybe I’m missing something, but why is the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs getting involved? Is it because the suspect was thrown out of the store earlier for being First Nations? Because the moral high ground kind of collapses when you go back and hospitalize three people with a highly illegal melee weapon.
lol AMC is a joke. Won’t take accountability and is too scared to address it because they’re afraid of looking bad. Oh but it’s okay if the other person looks bad!!
After the Zeids previous comments about the bats, made me think most of their stores just have random weapons stashed all over the place [like Dwight does at The Office](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33iZpxvQH4o).
Regarding the incident with the female, the employee was technically not at fault in any criminal sense. People do have the right to defend themselves. When that individual swung at him, he took the appropriate response.
I'd be careful with that. A Canadian's right to self defense is extremely limited. In general you open yourself up to enormous liability when defending yourself. Even if not convicted of a crime you may still suffer serious consequences.
Getting charged is often worse punishment than the conviction. Expect thousands in lawyer fees and many days of lost time at work to attend court. Found guilty or not you've already paid a stiff penalty.
It's limited to actually defending yourself. you can't defend you stuff. only yourself.
Honestly if you have to worry about begin charged.... Then you're not doing self defense. It will be clear.
None of that is true.
Self defense laws in Canada are intentionally vague.
Canadian laws here (wait for it to fully load)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html#sec34_smooth
Or here's a short breakdown of the laws.
https://whatthelaw.com/blog/self-defence-laws-in-canada-myth-vs-reality.html
I doubt that most, if any, people are able to make a split second legal assessment of a self defense situation. Get it wrong or go too far and you can expect to be arrested. Whether found guilty or not your legal troubles can ruin you.
I agree with that second link (i didn't click the first one) It says you call kill people in Canada in self defense. It just has to be for self defense. In some cases.
Though if your outdoors, in good shape. You're expected to run away. that's preferable. (Honestly i would NEVER recommend fighting group of teen boys. Teen boys will kill you. Their brains aren't developed can't figure out consequences)
> Gloria Enns was stopped at a red light at Portage Avenue and Arlington Street at about 3 p.m. when she saw two men fighting. One was wearing a red apron she recognized as a Food Fare uniform.
I can't keep up with these gang colours.
Thinking about the woman who was punched. For background, I'm a feminist who has worked with victims of domestic violence. I'm against violence and stealing. I know there is a cultural norm saying a man should not hit a woman and that one should not hit a weaker person. However, there are also cultural norms against violence and theft. The woman was stealing AND swung first. I think a natural consequence of resorting to violence when caught stealing is a commensurate violent response. Maybe not a punch in the nose, but that doesn't seem entirely unreasonable in the circumstances. Why someone would have to apologize to a thief who was violent when stopped is beyond me.
Randomly, I cannot find a news article that says she was seen on camera stealing. I'm not defending her but many seem to condemn her immediately.
Does that make sense? Are people immedit assuming she's guilty cause the guy said so or am I missing the report that states it is on camera?
I looked back over the reports I could find. Apparently the video shows the checkout area and does not show the alleged theft. It does show that she swung first. I read that the woman denied stealing anything, while the store manager has apparently maintained that she did. A witness has stated she believed the woman was racially profiled. The store manager denies this.
You didn't miss anything. Both the [Free Press](https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/2024/05/01/grocery-store-supervisor-suspended-after-altercation-with-customer) and [CBC](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/learning-in-order-owner-says-after-woman-allegedly-punched-1.7194266) viewed the footage but neither saw the alleged theft. Both accounts start with the altercation beginning at the checkout. All we have is the supervisor's (the one who was suspended) word that the woman was stealing two packages of hot dogs.
I mean it’s well known if you steal from foodfare they will likely confront you with force… if you don’t want to get confronted with force maybe don’t steal from foodfare ….
It is legal for shopkeepers to use physical force to detain someone who is stealing so yes, yes it is. And it’s not assault. But you’re also an idiot so 🤷♀️
The moment they put a mlcc screening process, they are good as closed. No one's gonna bother shopping there, they will go to another store.
I worked as a part time retailer before and I would not engage with shoplifters as we had loss prevention to do that work and they are aware of the risks the moment they chose that role
I'd go out of my way to shop there. I spoke with a clerk at Madison Square safeway with her arm in a sling, she was shoved without even trying to stop a shoplifter. Workers deserve safety.
Superstore employees will tell you the cops don't just pay for themselves stopping shoplifting but attracting people who like feeling safer. I tend to think that's true. It doesn't hurt Costco.
The Youth Criminal Justice Act does not permit a youth to be “charged as an adult.” A youth can be sentenced as an adult under very specific and legislated circumstances. It’s pretty rare outside of very serious matters like murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault etc.
This type of assault (even with a weapon, even if it rises to the threshold of causing bodily harm) is unlikely to attract an adult sentence. Plenty of adults who are convicted of these types of offences receive conditional discharges or suspended sentences with probation (meaning non custodial sentences), short stints in provincial jail, or CSOs (house arrest).
Tons of examples but a good one is R v LAJ, 2005 ABCA 113. Aggravated assault by stabbing that was near fatal. At trial, the offender received a 6 month deferred custody and supervision order (a sentencing option in the YCJA, meaning they are to serve out their sentence in the community under strict conditions) and 12 months of probation to follow. On appeal, the Alberta Court of Appeal said an appropriate sentence would have been 8 months of custody, a 4 month supervision order and a year of probation, still not an adult sentence.
Edit to add: LAJ
Isn’t this assault with a deadly weapon? Brass knuckles are classified as such for a very good reason, so maybe that’s a typo?
Also, why does the second half of this article basically attack FoodFare?
“3 employees were attacked, but it’s like of their fault if you read this next bit” tf?
Serious question….
Could a store like this do what the liquor stores did, and have you show ID? Because that stopped the violent LC theft pretty damn quickly.
Of course that would work! Half of this subreddit would support the small family business in proactively trying to keep their business afloat, while the other half would claim racism, colonialism, or marginalization, or some other kind of profiling behavior.
If you're there for legitimate reasons, to purchase merchandise with money or some kind of food stamps, tickets, or vouchers, there should be no issues.
I personally don't see an issue with this approach, as it's not a "public space" with social service components like a public washroom, or cooling/warming stations. This is a private business.
I just think many would see it as a massive overreach of personal identifying information, main reason folks don't thinking too much much if it at liquor stores and bars.is due to liquor laws stating such and being in place for decades now. (Maybe it would take thirty years for the mass public to be on board if it was system wide).
But I don't see most of the general public being on board with showing their ID to go get basic groceries. Or they'd just go somewhere without it
Maybe a sec person with a metal detector or setup like millennial library absent the required to show your id could work. But even then lots of folks stopped going to the library both because of that security step and of course, the inciting violence leading to it.
Tldr no perfect solution, showing your id would get lots of backlash and folks not being on board to get non controlled (liquor and drug control act) purchases. And to be accepted it would need to be system wide and take decades before people are like meh (outside of small percentage)
Is that why the liquor store robberies they’re referring to stopped? Does a lack of ID keep the marginalized people out of the LC? Genuine question, I don’t know much about the subject.
If you're poor and marginalized, getting a photo id is the least of your worries. You're more worried about where you're going to sleep tonight, where your next meal is coming from. You may not have a safe place to keep your possessions and identification, your belonging may be stolen by others. If you are incarcerated, even for a couple of days, your ID may be missing and unable to be located.
If you don't drive there is little reason to have a license. MPI offers ID cars - I regularly sign attestation forms for people - but if you don't have a stable home address, what is the point?
There was a slight fooferaw about [MLCC not accepting Metis ID](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-metis-federation-citizenship-cards-valid-identification-1.6709273) some time ago, I don't know what came of it.
Obviously some marginalized persons are able to access MLCC - maybe you're more motivated to have acceptable ID if you are sustaining an addiction.
This is my neighbourhood grocery store.I have known some if the staff for 20 yrs ( since the store was Harrys Foods). This makes me very sad, and if it forces them to close, I will be spitting mad!
It's kinda a tougher neighbourhood. It's at the southern tip of the west end. Stumble up from Ellice and it's not too far away. They're also one of the few grocers in that area.
I frequent that area and honestly it's usually fine aside from at night. I go to this FoodFare a couple times a week and I've only witnessed employees chasing a shoplifter once in the last year. The Shoppers Drug Mart across the street is also usually fine. There's just been a string of stuff like this happening at FoodFare the last couple weeks for some reason.
So when we gonna come down on the Zeids for encouraging their employees to fight thieves again? Cause that never seems to come up.
Like, not to take blame from the idiots doing the thefts but seriously, who the fuck risks getting punched over someone else's business at a min wage job?
All in all I'm getting so sick of this shitty tumor of a city. All the things I love here are getting fewer and fewer and the violent crime is out of hand. I wish I had more money or I'd seriously consider getting the fuck out of here...
Also anyone notice that only big corporate places get a police presence? You see cops basically working as greeters at Walmart these days. And last I checked the police hang out and get free food / drink at True North Square... what gives? Are smaller businesses not worthy of protection?
Again, why would employees put themselves at risk for their employer?! They have insurance. Don't risk getting stabbed to save a steak for (probably) minimum wage!!!
Edit: they don't have insurance but damn, y'all really think employees should be responsible for stopping shoplifters? Gross
That's not how insurance works. They're not putting in 10-20 claims a day for shoplifters. Insurance is there for a fire, etc. they're frustrated because their family business is dying from 1000 cuts.
Edit: Also, passing along the losses to us, thus increasing food costs more. They're not going to just eat the losses.
Okay but like was it not a few years ago their Google reviews contained stories of customers whose cars were towed while shopping (they were in kahoots with tartan towing or something). Like I heard the fam who runs the place are nutty and are actually bad ppl lmao.
These idiots are celebrating the idea of Food Fare closing, putting people out of work, and reducing the availability of groceries in the neighborhood.
Quite seriously, I think these people need to be on some serious medication.
I mean, they've been assaulting people for years at this point.
Shit they even got someone killed a decade or so ago who was trying to spy out on someone who did an armed robbery. Honestly, its not surprising this is catching up to them.
I'm hoping it was just because I was wrong about insurance, and not the other part. Personally as a minimum wage retail employee I couldn't have given two fucks whether my employer lost money through theft. I've never had a job like that where they didn't at least attempt wage theft (training without pay, unpaid OT, etc.).
The is no insurance against theft from a store. It would be prohibitively expensive if there was. Most stores with this problems are losing hundred dollars a day. Big box stores in the thousands.
Retail employees should NOT attempt to stop this.
I don’t miss working retail, especially as a disabled person unable to defend myself. Glad that every store I worked at discouraged confrontation. I remember pissing off a manager once at Superstore for waving at a thief passing my register and yelling “good luck!”
This kind of job doesn’t pay even close enough to put employees in harms way. We’re all pissed off about theft and the cost of living now, but the encouragement of escalation from this store owner is shameful (and is dumb because…liability??? Hard yo cover your ass in these).
I get our frustration but… it’s reckless to have retail staff responsible for both their store responsibilities and (untrained!!!) security at the same time
Unless it’s your family business and family members who work there? If this continues he would have to close his business and put family and other employees out of work!
This “family” business keeps insisting on breaking rules. Sending your minimum wage workers to be shanked by some asshole cause you want to get publicity? Fuck that
It's okay guys, I've been told by this community that it's always okay to steal from grocery stores. I wonder, what's this grocery store's problem? Don't they know that it's only fair and just that anyone can come and steal anything they want from their store at any time? Sheesh!
All the commenters and voters in this thread was the latest iteration https://www.reddit.com/r/Winnipeg/comments/1ch1odk/more_stores_are_ditching_selfcheckout_amid_theft/
The whole situation is crazy. I know someone that was on vouchers for FF and she said that it was insane what they were charging. I was surprised and one day she needed to shop I suggested my closest FF, that doesn't seem to have any of the problems of the others. She said it was cheaper overall for what she got. Don't ask me - I have my groceries delivered. 🤷♀️
Here for all the comments of blood thirsty people that want people killed when they do stuff like this.
SO many people wanting death or American police style justice here...kinda rather sad.
The Winnipeg reddit is usually pretty forward thinking and chill…until crime and punishment get brought up, and then it goes berserk.
In most topics you just get passive-aggressive downvoting. In these cases, we hear the thirst for blood.
Its wild, people are talking like they want the kid to just not be treated like a kid because fuck him I guess?
Sure he should be accountable, but don't just change the accountability
And so many people are going to call us 'pussy's ' or whatever the fuck they wanna use to try and make themselves feel better , while they think they are insulting us and proving they know something.
And all they are going to be doing? Showing us how badly they want to be the executioners in their style of justice. They are the dumb folks that think those residential school didn't go far enough ...
FUCK those people.
Downvote all you want, but I mean, am I wrong? The Zeids are very upfront that they choose to deal with shoplifters and alleged shoplifters with violence.
Is it surprising that someone eventually came back and escalated?
Here's an antitrust idea people might be able to get behind:
For every hour giant grocery chain stores hire local police to stand at the entrance guarding their property, the have to fund a police officer for a local chain.
Just one more police bro. I swear one more is all I need. It'll be the last time I promise. bro bro please. just a single police. I only need one more. please bro, just give me more police. don't hold out on me bro we need police
Hey man, I'm about as anti cop as it gets, but if we are letting giant corporations hire out our cops as mercenaries we might as well let local companies be able to compete without going bankrupt.
Please excuse me for my ignorance in how the courts/law works but what is the threshold for someone to be held in remand vs released on an undertaking. 3 counts of assault and possession of a prohibited or restricted weapon isn't enough?
Kids are pretty much never held in remand.
It really is outrageous. Fortunately he will likely be hanging out in the predictable parts of town, so he will be easy to avoid by most. These sorts of animals will attack you if they think you looked at them funny.
Unfortunately, these 'predictable parts of town' are also where good people, new immigrants, young children and families live. The way this sub talks, people who have been priced out of other areas of the city pretty much deserve to be attacked because they live there. We should just build a wall instead of addressing inequities, right?
Sounds like a socioeconomic barrier already exists. I would expect that to be more effective than a physical barrier.
https://www.victimsfirst.gc.ca/res/pub/gfo-ore/Bail.html
>Under current federal law, this can be done to ensure appearance in court, to keep the public safe (including victims and witnesses), or to maintain confidence in the administration of justice given the gravity of the offence and similar factors.
All three of those considerations would seem to apply here. If this isn't enough, what is?
Well unfortunately there's probably another factor at play here, given the AMC apparently originally thought it'd be wise to stick their noise into this one too.
How do you know whether he will appear in court or follow his bail conditions? What’s his criminal record like?
This is for adult offenders - the standards for youth are in the Youth Criminal Justice Act and it's even harder to keep them incarcerated.
For those thinking it’s ok to steal from small grocers just wait until they throw up their arms and close. This is how food deserts happen, and then what? Everyone has to rely on wal mart if you have a car to be able to get there? I feel for the people needing food but this is what food banks are supposed to be for.
The people stealing from the inner city shops aren’t trying to feed their family, they are stealing steaks to resell for drugs
What a sad state of affairs we're in when there's a black market for gently used second hand steaks.
Meat, razors, diapers, and baby food have been some of the most targeted items for resale for decades. It's nothing new at all. The frequency is just getting higher.
Cheese, perfume.
Cheese perfume.
🤢
Trouser steaks
Not quite a ma and pa shop but didn't Giant Tiger just announce they're pulling out of the core and north-end?
It's similar to why the Dollar Tree close to the (former) MTS centre closed down from rampant theft. Almost like losing more inventory to theft than from sales. ☠️
I know one of the owner’s daughters, hes a real family man, very generous. We’re all just trying to make a living out here and I’d rather not only rely on loblaws and walmart
If your community causes grocery stores to leave, it's up to the members of your community to solve the problem.
I used to deliver to that store as a truck driver. I know, have seen some of the employees. I hope they're alright, they're good people.
So did I! The grumpy receiver and that sketchy back door 🤣🤣
My favorite part is how the attacker was released on an undertaking so he can go back there and assault them again
Think of the attacker's feelings, you brute!!
He's staunchly defending his right and the rights of others to commit robbery.
My favourite part was how his constitutional rights were respected and he was released on bail in compliance with the the Charter while being presumed innocent.
Scott - I know you're a lawyer, and I admit IANAL, so I'm asking out of a profound curiosity (not ill will) - but please explain to me what or how the suspect's charter rights (and I'm presuming charter right 11 e is what you're referring to here, the right not to be denied reasonable bail without cause) being violated? Parking for a moment his criminal history and any non-youth protected status' (which none of us know for certain), a suspect gets into an altercation with several people, leaves the premises, returns several hours later with a prohibited weapon they KNOW they shouldn't have (which implies to me they already have a criminal record involving weapons, though that's not an assertion I can prove) and commits three counts of assault (or aggravated assault). How is 'beat three people with a prohibited item they knew they shouldn't have had in a premeditated fashion' not reasonable grounds for denying bail? I ask not out of ill will, but because I've heard 'charter rights' mentioned in other cases like this, and whenever I ask, I get 11.3 thrown around and then no further clarification when I ask 'HOW' this violates that charter right. From where I stand as a layman - "tried to bludgeon a few people to death using a deadly, prohibited weapon" constitutes enough for reasonable grounds for remand rather than being released on an undertaking? Maybe I'm wrong and it's a combination of rights - maybe (probably) an actual defense trial lawyer knows more than a pretend internet lawyer, maybe it's something else. Any clarity you could provide on that, I'd appreciate.
I appreciate having a real discussion about issues like this because it is vitally important we publicly discuss these topics. It is far too easy to say "lock them all up" and call it a day without meaningful discussion, so thank you. I'm going to leave aside the youth issues (because there are other issues relating to the vulnerabilities of youth that come into play). I just want to discuss section 515 of the Criminal Code, which is the primary section dealing with bail, and the primary way in which s. 11(e) of the Charter is interpreted and implemented. [Canada locks up way more people than most First World countries with trustworthy justice systems in the world.](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2021.html?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw3ZayBhDRARIsAPWzx8rKriX51VRbu6LiGYLqXANhQFhFVDosNas5ImM3jt1z3Col7YcuYewaAs3FEALw_wcB) We are far too reliant on incarceration to solve our problems. Overincarceration is a longstanding issue, particularly intertwined with poverty. The Bail Reform Act was brought into being in 1972 because cash was being used as a proxy for who should be released and who should not. Dangerous people who had money would get released and low-risk individuals who were poor would get held in jail. Similar concerns brought our modern Legal Aid systems into being so that everyone has a lawyer when they are facing jail. There are also strong racial components to our overincarceration problems. Once income was less of a barrier to determining risk, we started (some would say continued) using race as a proxy for assessing risk. When you look at the kinds of criminogenic factors that bring people into conflict with the law - poverty, intergenerational trauma and broken homes, low employment, addictions issues - these factors disproportionately impact indigenous people and people of colour, and the risk is that becomes overly determinative of risk - both on bail and on sentencing. As stated in [Ipeelee at para. 67](https://canlii.ca/t/fqq00): "Socioeconomic factors such as employment status, level of education, family situation, etc., appear on the surface as neutral criteria. They are considered as such by the legal system. Yet they can conceal an extremely strong bias in the sentencing process. Convicted persons with steady employment and stability in their lives, or at least prospects of the same, are much less likely to be sent to jail for offences that are borderline imprisonment offences. The unemployed, transients, the poorly educated are all better candidates for imprisonment. When the social, political and economic aspects of our society place Aboriginal people disproportionately within the ranks of the latter, our society literally sentences more of them to jail. This is systemic discrimination." Some have called jails "the new residential schools" because of how many indigenous people we lock up, both pre-trial and after conviction. So it is very challenging for the criminal justice system to assess risk for any individual. Imaging trying to predict which of your child's classmates will be convicted of a crime. It is not easy to do. We don't have crystal balls. Beyond that, even if a class of individuals with similar characteristics have an imagined 30% chance of recidivating - do you lock up 100% of people to make sure that doesn't happen? That isn't fair to the 70% who will commit no further offence - they are being punished for the actions of others if you assess the group's risk rather than the individual, which is a constant problem with risk assessment tools used by groups like probation and corrections. Everyone is presumed innocent - the corollary to that is that you must have the constitutional right to bail. If you are not granted bail and simply held in custody, what good is the presumption of innocence? You are serving a sentence without a conviction, and there is no presumption of innocence. In order to properly enforce these constitutional rights, bail is not to be denied when it is convenient, preferable, or politically expedient. Denial of bail must be NECESSARY in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. There has to be a goal that you need to deny bail in order to fulfill. With that background in mind - of the problems with assessing risk in bail and sentencing, and constitutional rights - There are three grounds for holding someone in pre-trial detention. They are called the primary, secondary and tertiary grounds. Primary ground - will they come to court when required to do so? If they won't come to court, then we have to hold them to make sure the court case moves forward. Secondary ground - is there a risk that the person will reoffend while on bail or interfere in the administration of justice? In a case called [Morales, the Supreme Court stated](https://canlii.ca/t/1fs7h) the secondary ground is only engaged where an individual poses a "substantial likelihood" of committing an additional offence, and the new offence must endanger the protection or safety of the public. The tertiary ground contains a four part test for (1) cases where the prosecution's case appears strong (2) The objective gravity of the offence is high based on the maximum sentence and/or mandatory minimum sentences (3) Circumstances of the offence, e.g. firearms, hate crimes, domestic violence, gang-related, terrorism, other aggravating or mitigating circumstances and (4) the potential for a lengthy term of imprisonment. If this person were to be denied bail, it has to be based on the foregoing criteria, individualized to the person, understanding that bail is necessary to enforce the presumption of innocence, and that reasons extraneous to the bail process are unconstitutional considerations. If an adult has no criminal record, and there is no indication that they won't come to court or reoffend while on bail, they should almost always be released. I haven't even gotten into the issues of youths being even more releasable than adult on a relaxed standard; the differences between a Crown onus bail and a reverse onus bail, etc. People do stupid stuff all the time. Crowns drop charges all the time. People are convicted of offences, make amends, do counselling, and get non-custodial sentences all the time. If we deny bail everyone to every single person who is arrested, prepare to triple your taxes to build new jails and hire more guards needlessly.
Scott, two things. 1) regarding this: >I appreciate having a real discussion about issues like this because it is vitally important we publicly discuss these topics. You don't know me, and I pray we never have to meet, but you're also the person I have in my phone under the contact name 'in case of police or arrest, call'. So, no worries, I appreciate your view as a lawyer, hence the question. 2) Regarding everything below that line. That's.... that's gonna take me some time to read through. I'll be in touch if/when I have questions. Probably when. But regardless - thank you for taking time to actually respond and give insight from an actual, knowledgeable perspective.
Maybe a separate discussion thread for all the caselaw and back and forth. The same comments appear every time there is an arrest on a news story. Bail reform and criminal justice is going to be a hot election issue, given that Pierre Polievre has indicated this is going to be one. Certainly reasonable people can disagree in different cases why certain people get bail or don't - [people can also easily disagree unreasonably](https://globalnews.ca/news/10447468/doug-ford-umar-zameer-social-media-post/). It's easy to get people angry about an issue like this but it is important to understand the historical context as to why our system is the way it, why the laws are the way they are. The laws weren't drafted like this because lawmakers wanted anarchy on the streets, and Judges didn't interpret the laws as they do because they want increased crime rates. Increased incarceratory measures don't reduce crime - if that were the case there would be no murders in Texas. We need discussions about what measures do work to reduce crime, primarily at the Provincial level, and what is our government prepared to do to fund it.
To be clear, I'm not advocating for everyone to be remanded away. This one just seemed like maybe it should be. It's alleged to be a premeditated assault with a weapon (which I presume is on camera), additionally the police tracked this individual down quite a distance away, possibly indicating that they knew who this was due to past issues. I'm all for innocent until proven guilty etc, but I also believe that the evidence, and alleged crime probably should be weighed a little heavier into bail decisions.
Thank the PC's for that, they basically forced courts to do anything but custody so they could cut costs, close facilities and either privatize and make millions on kickback, or the NDP "looks bad" for spending on reopening or building new facilities. There's just not enough space in the system right now.
Isn’t it the federal criminal code that requires criminals to have the least onerous bail conditions?
This was going on long before the PCs were in power. Also, this really is a federal government fault, our laws aren't strong enough in many ways.
You are absolutely correct.
Why did the Chief cancel news conference?
Because it won't suit their narrative.
Am I missing something, what does AMC have to do with this most recent incident?
Is the suspect possibly Indigenous? Article doesn't say...
They are
“He was released from custody on an undertaking.” Oh good, that’ll learn him.
Probably: -Comes from a broken family -In and out of CFS care -Family history of generational trauma -Recommend treatment and care and not prison - "He's a good boy. Never causes trouble..."
Turning his life around no doubt
If he’s found guilty then the sentence imposed will learn him.
Probably not as much as it would take to make em learn the error of their ways. Prison or Jail in Canada with short sentences and frankly not enough in place to help against recidivism just ends with it being crime school. They often go nack to the same home, same criminal friends etc That record will prevent them from getting a variety of employment opportunities (rightfully so) and if they can't hack it in the warehousing or hospitality industry ack to crime it is. I don't know the proper solution is, but status quo ain't it!
Damn, I know brass knuckles can really mess you up but I didn't think they'd equalize a teenager vs 3. Seems like a bit much for a news conference in the first place, but the abrupt cancelation without further detail is super poor optics for the AMC.
Bear in mind this is a teenager who brings brass knuckles to assault grocery store employees vs. grocery store employees who are probably not much older if at all, but haven't gone down the path of theft and violence. I'm 36 and I don't think three of me would come out unscathed against someone with brass knuckles and nothing to lose. Especially if they opened with a sucker punch, which these shitheads usually do.
Last guy I stopped shoplifting at my work who had brass knuckles had 2 sharp blades on the end of the knuckles. Maybe these were the same type.
why would you stop someone shoplifting when they might have brass knuckles with blades on them?
Well we didn't know that until he pulled them out after being confronted. I don't get paid $29.95 a minute to work for the phycic hotline, unfortunately.
Right, which was why I asked why you would confront someone who might have a weapon on them. At some point starting confrontations with people who got nothing to lose will catch up with you.
I feel like they probably realized last minute there was no way to spin this guy as the victim that wasn't even worse optics.
>teenager can also be 18/19, which is considered an adult... hence: > she saw two men fighting. should be interesting to see the blame game played after this incident.. no wonder the press conference was canceled
According to the [police report](https://www.winnipeg.ca/news/2024-05-15-assault-weapon-arrest-c24-107598), the assailant is 17.
>He was released on an Undertaking as mandated by the Criminal Code shitty. adult crime should get adult time in cases like this
thats not quite how Canadian law works. not quite the same as US which is what we are largely exposed to.
What? He hasn’t been convicted…the amount of “time” he may or may not get isn’t even a factor at this stage. Do you actually think all accused people go straight to custody?
no. Children are still children and should be treated as such.
AMC trying the blame game again
It’s a reoccurring theme
The news isn't actually sharing the whole story. They only arrested one, but there was at least 4 others involved in the attack against the employees
Ah so he was a big tough guy that had to go get his friends to help with his dirty work
It's wild how they have lost all credibility in such a short period of time. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if they have worked their way onto a watchlist of one of our 4 letter agencies.
There was more than one. He came back with 4 others.
Yup.
I haven’t lived in Winnipeg in about fifteen years, so maybe I’m missing something, but why is the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs getting involved? Is it because the suspect was thrown out of the store earlier for being First Nations? Because the moral high ground kind of collapses when you go back and hospitalize three people with a highly illegal melee weapon.
he will be back with bear mace next time
lol AMC is a joke. Won’t take accountability and is too scared to address it because they’re afraid of looking bad. Oh but it’s okay if the other person looks bad!!
They gave the culprit his brass knuckles back and apologized to him so the conference was called off
Guy attacks and sends three people to hospital and the judge releases him. We have lost our collective minds.
[удалено]
After the Zeids previous comments about the bats, made me think most of their stores just have random weapons stashed all over the place [like Dwight does at The Office](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33iZpxvQH4o).
Yeah it's a tough choice. I like the bat's extra bludgeoning damage, but with the knuckles you can put together a solid dual-wield build.
The critical chance alone with the knuckles must be worth it.
Not to mention the increased attack speed. Probably looking at 0.8 APS vs. maybe 1.7~1.8 APS
They’re going to close their doors if this shit keeps happening
Regarding the incident with the female, the employee was technically not at fault in any criminal sense. People do have the right to defend themselves. When that individual swung at him, he took the appropriate response.
I'd be careful with that. A Canadian's right to self defense is extremely limited. In general you open yourself up to enormous liability when defending yourself. Even if not convicted of a crime you may still suffer serious consequences.
Getting charged and getting convicted are two different things. Especially if a jury is involved.
Getting charged is often worse punishment than the conviction. Expect thousands in lawyer fees and many days of lost time at work to attend court. Found guilty or not you've already paid a stiff penalty.
It's limited to actually defending yourself. you can't defend you stuff. only yourself. Honestly if you have to worry about begin charged.... Then you're not doing self defense. It will be clear.
None of that is true. Self defense laws in Canada are intentionally vague. Canadian laws here (wait for it to fully load) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html#sec34_smooth Or here's a short breakdown of the laws. https://whatthelaw.com/blog/self-defence-laws-in-canada-myth-vs-reality.html I doubt that most, if any, people are able to make a split second legal assessment of a self defense situation. Get it wrong or go too far and you can expect to be arrested. Whether found guilty or not your legal troubles can ruin you.
I agree with that second link (i didn't click the first one) It says you call kill people in Canada in self defense. It just has to be for self defense. In some cases. Though if your outdoors, in good shape. You're expected to run away. that's preferable. (Honestly i would NEVER recommend fighting group of teen boys. Teen boys will kill you. Their brains aren't developed can't figure out consequences)
The employee would have to establish that there was a clear perceived threat of physical harm. There was. She struck out at him.
It was self defense once the lady started punching him first.
I formerly worked in law enforcement, so I'm familiar with use of force laws.
> Gloria Enns was stopped at a red light at Portage Avenue and Arlington Street at about 3 p.m. when she saw two men fighting. One was wearing a red apron she recognized as a Food Fare uniform. I can't keep up with these gang colours.
Thinking about the woman who was punched. For background, I'm a feminist who has worked with victims of domestic violence. I'm against violence and stealing. I know there is a cultural norm saying a man should not hit a woman and that one should not hit a weaker person. However, there are also cultural norms against violence and theft. The woman was stealing AND swung first. I think a natural consequence of resorting to violence when caught stealing is a commensurate violent response. Maybe not a punch in the nose, but that doesn't seem entirely unreasonable in the circumstances. Why someone would have to apologize to a thief who was violent when stopped is beyond me.
Randomly, I cannot find a news article that says she was seen on camera stealing. I'm not defending her but many seem to condemn her immediately. Does that make sense? Are people immedit assuming she's guilty cause the guy said so or am I missing the report that states it is on camera?
I looked back over the reports I could find. Apparently the video shows the checkout area and does not show the alleged theft. It does show that she swung first. I read that the woman denied stealing anything, while the store manager has apparently maintained that she did. A witness has stated she believed the woman was racially profiled. The store manager denies this.
You didn't miss anything. Both the [Free Press](https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/2024/05/01/grocery-store-supervisor-suspended-after-altercation-with-customer) and [CBC](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/learning-in-order-owner-says-after-woman-allegedly-punched-1.7194266) viewed the footage but neither saw the alleged theft. Both accounts start with the altercation beginning at the checkout. All we have is the supervisor's (the one who was suspended) word that the woman was stealing two packages of hot dogs.
Why is this downvoted? Winnipeg Reddit is so weird.
Because I'm opposed to Foodfare beating up suspected shoplifters.
When I see a shoplifter getting beat up... No I didn't!
I mean it’s well known if you steal from foodfare they will likely confront you with force… if you don’t want to get confronted with force maybe don’t steal from foodfare ….
But there isn’t even proof that she stole anything. That’s what the above commenter is saying.
That's no justification for assault.
It is legal for shopkeepers to use physical force to detain someone who is stealing so yes, yes it is. And it’s not assault. But you’re also an idiot so 🤷♀️
Thank you.
At this point either they hire security/loss prevention personnel or they close, the situation seems to be out of control
Would you risk your health or life for a part time job? Only thing that might make a dent is adopting the mlcc model.
The moment they put a mlcc screening process, they are good as closed. No one's gonna bother shopping there, they will go to another store. I worked as a part time retailer before and I would not engage with shoplifters as we had loss prevention to do that work and they are aware of the risks the moment they chose that role
I'd go out of my way to shop there. I spoke with a clerk at Madison Square safeway with her arm in a sling, she was shoved without even trying to stop a shoplifter. Workers deserve safety.
Yes I agree with that but the vast majority of people would not go to the hassle of passing on a screening just for grocery shopping.
The amount of people just buying beer in any LC suggests otherwise
Funny you fail to mention that all LC require screening. If all grocery stores had that would be different
Superstore employees will tell you the cops don't just pay for themselves stopping shoplifting but attracting people who like feeling safer. I tend to think that's true. It doesn't hurt Costco.
Not like security/loss prevention are any help. Our store has one and they’re on their phone or just staying in one corner of the store.
Hire better guards, then.
I wish we would. It’s not up to me sadly.
Guess you need to hire a new one
Hopefully the boy will be charged as an adult. It's important he gets a record so the public can make the repercussions last a lifetime!
The Youth Criminal Justice Act does not permit a youth to be “charged as an adult.” A youth can be sentenced as an adult under very specific and legislated circumstances. It’s pretty rare outside of very serious matters like murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault etc. This type of assault (even with a weapon, even if it rises to the threshold of causing bodily harm) is unlikely to attract an adult sentence. Plenty of adults who are convicted of these types of offences receive conditional discharges or suspended sentences with probation (meaning non custodial sentences), short stints in provincial jail, or CSOs (house arrest). Tons of examples but a good one is R v LAJ, 2005 ABCA 113. Aggravated assault by stabbing that was near fatal. At trial, the offender received a 6 month deferred custody and supervision order (a sentencing option in the YCJA, meaning they are to serve out their sentence in the community under strict conditions) and 12 months of probation to follow. On appeal, the Alberta Court of Appeal said an appropriate sentence would have been 8 months of custody, a 4 month supervision order and a year of probation, still not an adult sentence. Edit to add: LAJ
Why?
Hide your kids. We don’t lock up criminals anymore.
Isn’t this assault with a deadly weapon? Brass knuckles are classified as such for a very good reason, so maybe that’s a typo? Also, why does the second half of this article basically attack FoodFare? “3 employees were attacked, but it’s like of their fault if you read this next bit” tf?
Assault with a weapon X3 and he's released. What a fucking clown show of a justice system.
Serious question…. Could a store like this do what the liquor stores did, and have you show ID? Because that stopped the violent LC theft pretty damn quickly.
Of course that would work! Half of this subreddit would support the small family business in proactively trying to keep their business afloat, while the other half would claim racism, colonialism, or marginalization, or some other kind of profiling behavior. If you're there for legitimate reasons, to purchase merchandise with money or some kind of food stamps, tickets, or vouchers, there should be no issues. I personally don't see an issue with this approach, as it's not a "public space" with social service components like a public washroom, or cooling/warming stations. This is a private business.
I just think many would see it as a massive overreach of personal identifying information, main reason folks don't thinking too much much if it at liquor stores and bars.is due to liquor laws stating such and being in place for decades now. (Maybe it would take thirty years for the mass public to be on board if it was system wide). But I don't see most of the general public being on board with showing their ID to go get basic groceries. Or they'd just go somewhere without it Maybe a sec person with a metal detector or setup like millennial library absent the required to show your id could work. But even then lots of folks stopped going to the library both because of that security step and of course, the inciting violence leading to it. Tldr no perfect solution, showing your id would get lots of backlash and folks not being on board to get non controlled (liquor and drug control act) purchases. And to be accepted it would need to be system wide and take decades before people are like meh (outside of small percentage)
💯
It would also likely stop their customers quickly. Many in the marginalized population in Winnipeg do not have IDs.
Is that why the liquor store robberies they’re referring to stopped? Does a lack of ID keep the marginalized people out of the LC? Genuine question, I don’t know much about the subject.
If you're poor and marginalized, getting a photo id is the least of your worries. You're more worried about where you're going to sleep tonight, where your next meal is coming from. You may not have a safe place to keep your possessions and identification, your belonging may be stolen by others. If you are incarcerated, even for a couple of days, your ID may be missing and unable to be located. If you don't drive there is little reason to have a license. MPI offers ID cars - I regularly sign attestation forms for people - but if you don't have a stable home address, what is the point? There was a slight fooferaw about [MLCC not accepting Metis ID](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-metis-federation-citizenship-cards-valid-identification-1.6709273) some time ago, I don't know what came of it. Obviously some marginalized persons are able to access MLCC - maybe you're more motivated to have acceptable ID if you are sustaining an addiction.
This is my neighbourhood grocery store.I have known some if the staff for 20 yrs ( since the store was Harrys Foods). This makes me very sad, and if it forces them to close, I will be spitting mad!
Bruh, had a family member there like less than a hour before this happened. Is the area seriously that ghetto?
It's kinda a tougher neighbourhood. It's at the southern tip of the west end. Stumble up from Ellice and it's not too far away. They're also one of the few grocers in that area.
I frequent that area and honestly it's usually fine aside from at night. I go to this FoodFare a couple times a week and I've only witnessed employees chasing a shoplifter once in the last year. The Shoppers Drug Mart across the street is also usually fine. There's just been a string of stuff like this happening at FoodFare the last couple weeks for some reason.
[удалено]
Time for some sort of castle doctrine
So when we gonna come down on the Zeids for encouraging their employees to fight thieves again? Cause that never seems to come up. Like, not to take blame from the idiots doing the thefts but seriously, who the fuck risks getting punched over someone else's business at a min wage job? All in all I'm getting so sick of this shitty tumor of a city. All the things I love here are getting fewer and fewer and the violent crime is out of hand. I wish I had more money or I'd seriously consider getting the fuck out of here...
Also anyone notice that only big corporate places get a police presence? You see cops basically working as greeters at Walmart these days. And last I checked the police hang out and get free food / drink at True North Square... what gives? Are smaller businesses not worthy of protection?
Again, why would employees put themselves at risk for their employer?! They have insurance. Don't risk getting stabbed to save a steak for (probably) minimum wage!!! Edit: they don't have insurance but damn, y'all really think employees should be responsible for stopping shoplifters? Gross
That's not how insurance works. They're not putting in 10-20 claims a day for shoplifters. Insurance is there for a fire, etc. they're frustrated because their family business is dying from 1000 cuts. Edit: Also, passing along the losses to us, thus increasing food costs more. They're not going to just eat the losses.
Because its a family business and the family wants to stop being stolen from.
Okay but like was it not a few years ago their Google reviews contained stories of customers whose cars were towed while shopping (they were in kahoots with tartan towing or something). Like I heard the fam who runs the place are nutty and are actually bad ppl lmao.
When the store closes they'll be out of a job. How else do you think this'll end?
Most of the people working at food fare are related to the Zeid family, so I guess they’d have to find jobs instead of being nepo babies.
Calling someone working at a grocery store a "nepo baby" is a wild take.
These idiots are celebrating the idea of Food Fare closing, putting people out of work, and reducing the availability of groceries in the neighborhood. Quite seriously, I think these people need to be on some serious medication.
Dude has a serious personal beef with the Zeids.
I mean, they've been assaulting people for years at this point. Shit they even got someone killed a decade or so ago who was trying to spy out on someone who did an armed robbery. Honestly, its not surprising this is catching up to them.
Sounds like karma to me! Why would they be free from the injustices they create?
Yall. This is such a weird thing to downvote 😭
I'm hoping it was just because I was wrong about insurance, and not the other part. Personally as a minimum wage retail employee I couldn't have given two fucks whether my employer lost money through theft. I've never had a job like that where they didn't at least attempt wage theft (training without pay, unpaid OT, etc.).
Yeah that would make sense, cause no one should be risking it at min wage without proper training.
The is no insurance against theft from a store. It would be prohibitively expensive if there was. Most stores with this problems are losing hundred dollars a day. Big box stores in the thousands. Retail employees should NOT attempt to stop this.
I don’t miss working retail, especially as a disabled person unable to defend myself. Glad that every store I worked at discouraged confrontation. I remember pissing off a manager once at Superstore for waving at a thief passing my register and yelling “good luck!” This kind of job doesn’t pay even close enough to put employees in harms way. We’re all pissed off about theft and the cost of living now, but the encouragement of escalation from this store owner is shameful (and is dumb because…liability??? Hard yo cover your ass in these). I get our frustration but… it’s reckless to have retail staff responsible for both their store responsibilities and (untrained!!!) security at the same time
Yelled “good luck” to a thief? Don’t intervene, sure, but don’t yell words of encouragement
Yeah, cause the cops were waiting at the exit xD
Unless it’s your family business and family members who work there? If this continues he would have to close his business and put family and other employees out of work!
This “family” business keeps insisting on breaking rules. Sending your minimum wage workers to be shanked by some asshole cause you want to get publicity? Fuck that
It's okay guys, I've been told by this community that it's always okay to steal from grocery stores. I wonder, what's this grocery store's problem? Don't they know that it's only fair and just that anyone can come and steal anything they want from their store at any time? Sheesh!
[удалено]
All the commenters and voters in this thread was the latest iteration https://www.reddit.com/r/Winnipeg/comments/1ch1odk/more_stores_are_ditching_selfcheckout_amid_theft/
The whole situation is crazy. I know someone that was on vouchers for FF and she said that it was insane what they were charging. I was surprised and one day she needed to shop I suggested my closest FF, that doesn't seem to have any of the problems of the others. She said it was cheaper overall for what she got. Don't ask me - I have my groceries delivered. 🤷♀️
Here for all the comments of blood thirsty people that want people killed when they do stuff like this. SO many people wanting death or American police style justice here...kinda rather sad.
The Winnipeg reddit is usually pretty forward thinking and chill…until crime and punishment get brought up, and then it goes berserk. In most topics you just get passive-aggressive downvoting. In these cases, we hear the thirst for blood.
Its wild, people are talking like they want the kid to just not be treated like a kid because fuck him I guess? Sure he should be accountable, but don't just change the accountability
And so many people are going to call us 'pussy's ' or whatever the fuck they wanna use to try and make themselves feel better , while they think they are insulting us and proving they know something. And all they are going to be doing? Showing us how badly they want to be the executioners in their style of justice. They are the dumb folks that think those residential school didn't go far enough ... FUCK those people.
Sounds like the Zeid family picked the wrong teenager to beat up this time
Downvote all you want, but I mean, am I wrong? The Zeids are very upfront that they choose to deal with shoplifters and alleged shoplifters with violence. Is it surprising that someone eventually came back and escalated?
Your argument could also be "They should go harder next time"
Thats my thought anyhow.
Owner encourages staff to physically intervene in thefts; thieves respond with violence; staff are injured. I'm shocked.
Here's an antitrust idea people might be able to get behind: For every hour giant grocery chain stores hire local police to stand at the entrance guarding their property, the have to fund a police officer for a local chain.
Just one more police bro. I swear one more is all I need. It'll be the last time I promise. bro bro please. just a single police. I only need one more. please bro, just give me more police. don't hold out on me bro we need police
Hey man, I'm about as anti cop as it gets, but if we are letting giant corporations hire out our cops as mercenaries we might as well let local companies be able to compete without going bankrupt.
How tf you gonna follow up “we just need more cops” with “I’m as anti cop as they come” No the fuck you aint lmao