General Retail News

[Acitta]

I lived across the street from it when it opened after taking it over from Zellers. It is a busy location. I seriously doubt they would close it permanently, even after the arson.

[plam]

First response has been working around the clock everyday to renovate from the fire.  I cant imagine they are spending that kind of money to close it .

Could also be insurance.

[jeffster]

It would be weird if Wal*Mart gave up that location, though it is small. Canadian Tire, if it went there, would be a smaller store, but larger than the one on Victoria.

Either way, sucks that the man who set these fires is free on bail. I've known of people that stole a chicken from Zehrs that couldn't make bail, but it shows you what money can do for you.

[ijmorlan]

Either way, sucks that the man who set these fires is free on bail. I've known of people that stole a chicken from Zehrs that couldn't make bail, but it shows you what money can do for you.

This is the kind of thing that puts the administration of justice into disrepute. Somebody who goes around setting fires clearly needs to be locked up. Now, it’s so weird and pointless a crime that I’m inclined to say they should be locked up in a mental ward, not in a jail, but they have no business being out on the street. The way I see it, either they are insane and the choice to be kept in the mental ward has to be made for them; or they’re not insane. If they are not insane, either they are unrepentant and need to be kept locked up; or they are repentant and will therefore understand and accept that we won’t let them out immediately.

[neonjoe]

Curiouser and curiouser ... there is also a more recent site plan uploaded:
https://fcr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/1...2020-2.pdf

This one shows Walmart instead of Canadian Tire, and "Coming Soon" instead of SDM.

I do remember that in the past there was a Walmart Supercentre planned for the SmartCentres property at Victoria and Fountain, but I thought that this proposal was dead and SmartCentres was trying to sell the land. If they are planning on moving itt would be a shame if another Walmart moved to the periphery of the city leaving behind the people that need their services most.
https://www.smartcentres.com/app/uploads...nd_FIN.pdf

[danbrotherston]

Either way, sucks that the man who set these fires is free on bail. I've known of people that stole a chicken from Zehrs that couldn't make bail, but it shows you what money can do for you.

This is the kind of thing that puts the administration of justice into disrepute. Somebody who goes around setting fires clearly needs to be locked up. Now, it’s so weird and pointless a crime that I’m inclined to say they should be locked up in a mental ward, not in a jail, but they have no business being out on the street. The way I see it, either they are insane and the choice to be kept in the mental ward has to be made for them; or they’re not insane. If they are not insane, either they are unrepentant and need to be kept locked up; or they are repentant and will therefore understand and accept that we won’t let them out immediately.

Oh come on, this is basic civics. Yes, someone proven guilty of the crime of multiple arson of course deserves to be locked up, and will be. That is different from receiving bail. Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental tenant of our legal system. The only reason to deny bail is if the person can be demonstrated to be an active risk to the safety of the community, or that they are a flight risk, even with bail conditions. But bail has nothing to do with whether a guilty person should be punished.

[ijmorlan]

This is the kind of thing that puts the administration of justice into disrepute. Somebody who goes around setting fires clearly needs to be locked up. Now, it’s so weird and pointless a crime that I’m inclined to say they should be locked up in a mental ward, not in a jail, but they have no business being out on the street. The way I see it, either they are insane and the choice to be kept in the mental ward has to be made for them; or they’re not insane. If they are not insane, either they are unrepentant and need to be kept locked up; or they are repentant and will therefore understand and accept that we won’t let them out immediately.

Oh come on, this is basic civics. Yes, someone proven guilty of the crime of multiple arson of course deserves to be locked up, and will be. That is different from receiving bail. Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental tenant of our legal system. The only reason to deny bail is if the person can be demonstrated to be an active risk to the safety of the community, or that they are a flight risk, even with bail conditions. But bail has nothing to do with whether a guilty person should be punished.

I’m not talking about punishment. I’m talking about someone who is obviously a danger to the community being kept in a safe and secure location, as much for their own protection as that of everyone else.

This is not a situation in which there is any real doubt as to who the perpetrator is, either; the legal guilt (and therefore liability for penalty) hasn’t been determined, but their defense isn’t going to be “you got the wrong guy”.

Of course, I also have the weird belief that trials should happen fairly promptly after the event, thus shortening the period of pre-trial detention.

Now I suppose that it actually is possible that it has been established that the chance of further offenses by this person in the immediate future is very low, in which case I withdraw my statement: bail is fine in this hypothetical. But can we at least agree that if they set another fire they should be locked up until after the trial?

[danbrotherston]

Oh come on, this is basic civics. Yes, someone proven guilty of the crime of multiple arson of course deserves to be locked up, and will be. That is different from receiving bail. Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental tenant of our legal system. The only reason to deny bail is if the person can be demonstrated to be an active risk to the safety of the community, or that they are a flight risk, even with bail conditions. But bail has nothing to do with whether a guilty person should be punished.

I’m not talking about punishment. I’m talking about someone who is obviously a danger to the community being kept in a safe and secure location, as much for their own protection as that of everyone else.

This is not a situation in which there is any real doubt as to who the perpetrator is, either; the legal guilt (and therefore liability for penalty) hasn’t been determined, but their defense isn’t going to be “you got the wrong guy”.

Of course, I also have the weird belief that trials should happen fairly promptly after the event, thus shortening the period of pre-trial detention.

Now I suppose that it actually is possible that it has been established that the chance of further offenses by this person in the immediate future is very low, in which case I withdraw my statement: bail is fine in this hypothetical. But can we at least agree that if they set another fire they should be locked up until after the trial?

How are they "obviously a danger to the community". They have neither been proven guilty of the crime you believe them to have committed, nor is it clear they would do it again.

This "no real doubt" is irrelevant, we all think the police probably have the right person, and they probably do. But legally they are innocent until that guilty verdict is achieved. It is very important that these protections exist, it is the basis of how we have freedoms in this country. If the police got to decide who gets locked up, that's a very dangerous situation...it's exactly what we see happening in the US, and it's fucking terrifying.

I would want those protections if I was accused of a crime, therefore, I must fight for those protections for everyone.

As for shortening trial dates...absolutely. Having someone in detention tends to shorten the dates, because the cost of being wrong (i.e., charging an innocent person) is higher (i.e., you'd detained someone innocent for longer).

If the person was accused of setting another fire, I believe bail would be reevaluated.

[Coke6pk]

I think the issue noted is that being wealthy can get you released, while the poor will suffer.

The comment about "stealing a chicken from Zehrs" seems odd, as unless there were really unusual circumstances, a theft under $5000 charge would be a release with a court date, and not to be held pending bail.

If the Wal-Mart arsonist was a visible minority living in community housing, they would likely be locked up.

Coke

(Just watched "13th" on Netflix last night, which discusses the above. Some of that footage made me sick to be a human being, especially one with white privilege...)

[ijmorlan]

How are they "obviously a danger to the community". They have neither been proven guilty of the crime you believe them to have committed, nor is it clear they would do it again.

A person who has set multiple fires, essentially randomly, is obviously a danger to the community.

This "no real doubt" is irrelevant, we all think the police probably have the right person, and they probably do. But legally they are innocent until that guilty verdict is achieved. It is very important that these protections exist, it is the basis of how we have freedoms in this country. If the police got to decide who gets locked up, that's a very dangerous situation...it's exactly what we see happening in the US, and it's fucking terrifying.

Yes, I’m not quite sure how this should be handled. I guess the answer is the bail hearing, where the person is brought before a judge very soon after arrest.

And actually, my hope is that the judge did make a good evaluation of the situation and that it really is true that the person is not an imminent threat. If that is true, then as I said I withdraw my assertion that this brings the administration of justice into disrepute. However, my impression is that there is a class of criminals who know that they won’t spend any significant amount of time away from their usual life even if they commit many crimes.

So ultimately I’m not sure in this case, although your points are all well taken in general.

I would want those protections if I was accused of a crime, therefore, I must fight for those protections for everyone.

As for shortening trial dates...absolutely. Having someone in detention tends to shorten the dates, because the cost of being wrong (i.e., charging an innocent person) is higher (i.e., you'd detained someone innocent for longer).

If the person was accused of setting another fire, I believe bail would be reevaluated.

Well, it’s not just about the accusation. Suppose that they did set another fire, and bystanders tackled the person and held them on the floor until the police arrived, while the entire interaction was captured on high-quality surveillance footage. It’s absurd to then say “the person accused”; legally they might only be “accused” of the crime of arson, but as a matter of fact they are the person who set the fire, and it would be absurd at that point to let them out of custody.

Even the word “accused” has a legal definition, doesn’t it? I mean, are they officially “accused” if they haven’t been charged yet? Or is the arrest (“for …”) enough to call them “accused”?

On a related note, I’ve always found it weird when the news reports that a convenience store was held up by somebody with a gun, and then refers to “suspects” caught on video, not, say, leaving the store, but clearly holding up a gun and pointing it at the clerk. In that situation, the people on the video are not suspects but rather perpetrators. The only question is perpetrators of what legal crime, exactly; and is the suspect Joe Smith that the police picked up 2 hours later actually one of the people caught on surveillance pointing the gun.

[panamaniac]

Danbrotherston has it exactly right on this one.

[jamincan]

Yeah, he's right, but let's not confuse lawful and legal as just.

[Coke6pk]

I was going to say it makes no sense for a Shoppers to go into Stanley Park Mall since there is one kitty-corner, but judging by the design of the construction there, I'd bet dollars to donuts that an SDM is exactly what is going in there!

   

Coke

[danbrotherston]

Yeah, he's right, but let's not confuse lawful and legal as just.

I entirely agree, and I find it frustrating when people try to excuse people's bad behaviour as "legal", as if only things for which you are found guilty of in a court of law count as "bad".

We can see this in things like where people lose a job because of sexual harassment, people scream "but he wasn't found guilty".

So I'm the first one to argue that we should not look to the justice system as the arbiter of right and wrong.

I certainly have no positive opinions about the accused person, but when it comes to legal questions like imprisonment by the state, yeah, I'm totally on board with the protections in our legal system.

I realize in a world with corporations as powerful as states, ubiquitous surveilance, and social media, this does raise some different concerns, but I am comfortable holding this position with respect to this particular individual right now.

[jamincan]

Perhaps Loblaw is able to get a better deal on their lease by having both Shoppers and Zehrs in the same building.