Vigilantism at its Worst
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2006/08/03/nb-grandmanan.html
"Three men charged in connection with a fire at a reputed crack house in New Brunswick are heroes, not criminals, said many people at a public meeting with the RCMP Wednesday night." ... "Regardless of what sentence is imposed on these young individuals, never in the minds of Grand Manan people will they ever be considered criminals," said [an audience member] to applause from the crowd.
The charges against the men stem from a riot on July 22 in which about 40 people - some reportedly armed with guns, knives and baseball bats - burned a house to the ground in the island community of Castalia where drugs were allegedly being sold.
During the melee, four male residents of the home were badly beaten, and a woman was escorted off the island for her own safety. Shots were fired at a car but the driver was not hurt. Several people suffered minor injuries."
Now, the article does not state - were the people in the residence violent? Did they commit non-drug related crimes? Upon reading another article, it simply stated that the riot was a response to drugs being sold in the area. This was a "suspected" crack house... They just believed it was the place where the drugs were being sold. And now that the drug users in the area have no supplier, is that honestly going to make them stop? Every bloody city has at least one drug dealer. There is always a demand for drugs, so it's not as if rioting will change that.
Arson is arson. Violence against another person is violence. And drug dealing certainly doesn’t compare to the aforementioned crimes in terms of severity. I don't know how the hell people can be applauding the rioters in this case. What if the fire had gotten out of control and had spread further than intended? And even if the house was being inhabited by the dealers, it still is a house, still is able to be used by others, and still has property value.
Not only that, they were blindly shooting people, even though there was not absolute proof that it was the place where the selling was going on. What if an innocent bystander happened to be injured? (Which is very possible, considering that 40 people were involved, and that large of a group can easily get out of control.) Had these drug dealers actually been arrested, they could have gotten rehabilitated, or at least would have spent some years in prison. Killing them is far more extreme than simply placing them in jail for a while. And assuming that the people involved in the dealing have indeed managed to escape persecution, they'll just go into a different area and continue using. Had the rioters not been arrested, this would've set a dangerous precedent - people can turn to violent measures to persecute those they believe are committing a crime.
The residents claim that injustice is being done to the men who were arrested for destroying the house. The true injustice is against those who were assaulted by the residents without evidence, and without a trial.
"Three men charged in connection with a fire at a reputed crack house in New Brunswick are heroes, not criminals, said many people at a public meeting with the RCMP Wednesday night." ... "Regardless of what sentence is imposed on these young individuals, never in the minds of Grand Manan people will they ever be considered criminals," said [an audience member] to applause from the crowd.
The charges against the men stem from a riot on July 22 in which about 40 people - some reportedly armed with guns, knives and baseball bats - burned a house to the ground in the island community of Castalia where drugs were allegedly being sold.
During the melee, four male residents of the home were badly beaten, and a woman was escorted off the island for her own safety. Shots were fired at a car but the driver was not hurt. Several people suffered minor injuries."
Now, the article does not state - were the people in the residence violent? Did they commit non-drug related crimes? Upon reading another article, it simply stated that the riot was a response to drugs being sold in the area. This was a "suspected" crack house... They just believed it was the place where the drugs were being sold. And now that the drug users in the area have no supplier, is that honestly going to make them stop? Every bloody city has at least one drug dealer. There is always a demand for drugs, so it's not as if rioting will change that.
Arson is arson. Violence against another person is violence. And drug dealing certainly doesn’t compare to the aforementioned crimes in terms of severity. I don't know how the hell people can be applauding the rioters in this case. What if the fire had gotten out of control and had spread further than intended? And even if the house was being inhabited by the dealers, it still is a house, still is able to be used by others, and still has property value.
Not only that, they were blindly shooting people, even though there was not absolute proof that it was the place where the selling was going on. What if an innocent bystander happened to be injured? (Which is very possible, considering that 40 people were involved, and that large of a group can easily get out of control.) Had these drug dealers actually been arrested, they could have gotten rehabilitated, or at least would have spent some years in prison. Killing them is far more extreme than simply placing them in jail for a while. And assuming that the people involved in the dealing have indeed managed to escape persecution, they'll just go into a different area and continue using. Had the rioters not been arrested, this would've set a dangerous precedent - people can turn to violent measures to persecute those they believe are committing a crime.
The residents claim that injustice is being done to the men who were arrested for destroying the house. The true injustice is against those who were assaulted by the residents without evidence, and without a trial.