Let’s take the kown facts from what the police have said, and develop an alternative narrative, just as likely as the one Ford espoused, by filling in the gaps with just as valid conjecture.
Mary (obviously no real names are used) is being abused by her boyfriend Bob. Mary decides to move out, and Bob is angry. He will not let her take any of her belongings.
Mary enlists the help of her somewhat nefarious acquaintance, Peter, who has had dealings with Bob on the past and they do not like each other.
So Peter, at Mary’s behest, goes to Bob’s place to collect Mary’s rightfully owned possessions, using force if becessary, because after all they do Belong to Mary. (Bailiffs do this all the time, it is a grey area of law - >Bailiffs and assistant bailiffs generally cannot use force or the threat of force when carrying out their duties. Under the Repair and Storage Liens Act, if the bailiff is acting under a writ of seizure, they may use reasonable force to enter land and premises in some circumstances If so, then other rules may apply.
Bailiffs and assistant bailiffs must leave if you tell them to. If they don’t leave, you may wish to contact your local police and inform them that the bailiff or assistant bailiff does not have your consent. In these cases, the repossession or seizure is not deemed “peaceful”. Afterwards, you can also file a complaint with the ministry. https://www.ontario.ca/page/your-rights-when-dealing-bailiff). Bob lets Peter in, reluctantly, but objects to what Peter is taking (ownership is in dispute). A fight breaks out. Peter has taken tools to disassemble some of Mary’s belongings, which can also be classified as break-and-enter or dangerous weapons (a screwdriver). Bob decides to teach both Peter AND Mary exactly who is the boss. So Bob gets the worst of it, neighbors call in the police, Bob gets taken to the hospital, and Peter claims ‘self-defense’. The police, having knowledge of all of them, decide to charge everybody and let the detectives, attorneys, forensics, and the Judge to sort everything out.This is a mix of family, civil and criminal law and the boundaries are blurred…
So Peter not only has regularly beaten the crap out of Mary, he has beaten the crap out of Peter, and somehow he is the victim?
I would submit that this is not actually an uncommon occurrence, that the police, attorneys, and courts deal with regularly. Except that someone ended up in the hospital, perhaps the most innocent Samaritan of all…
Suddenly, the media tables are turned. Who does the media side with? Does Peter now have the unmitigated right to defend his home with any amount of force necessary against this battered spouse’s representative ‘invading’ her own home to get her belongings back?
Let’s take the kown facts from what the police have said, and develop an alternative narrative, just as likely as the one Ford espoused, by filling in the gaps with just as valid conjecture.
Mary (obviously no real names are used) is being abused by her boyfriend Bob. Mary decides to move out, and Bob is angry. He will not let her take any of her belongings.
Mary enlists the help of her somewhat nefarious acquaintance, Peter, who has had dealings with Bob on the past and they do not like each other.
So Peter, at Mary’s behest, goes to Bob’s place to collect Mary’s rightfully owned possessions, using force if becessary, because after all they do Belong to Mary. (Bailiffs do this all the time, it is a grey area of law - >Bailiffs and assistant bailiffs generally cannot use force or the threat of force when carrying out their duties. Under the Repair and Storage Liens Act, if the bailiff is acting under a writ of seizure, they may use reasonable force to enter land and premises in some circumstances If so, then other rules may apply. Bailiffs and assistant bailiffs must leave if you tell them to. If they don’t leave, you may wish to contact your local police and inform them that the bailiff or assistant bailiff does not have your consent. In these cases, the repossession or seizure is not deemed “peaceful”. Afterwards, you can also file a complaint with the ministry. https://www.ontario.ca/page/your-rights-when-dealing-bailiff). Bob lets Peter in, reluctantly, but objects to what Peter is taking (ownership is in dispute). A fight breaks out. Peter has taken tools to disassemble some of Mary’s belongings, which can also be classified as break-and-enter or dangerous weapons (a screwdriver). Bob decides to teach both Peter AND Mary exactly who is the boss. So Bob gets the worst of it, neighbors call in the police, Bob gets taken to the hospital, and Peter claims ‘self-defense’. The police, having knowledge of all of them, decide to charge everybody and let the detectives, attorneys, forensics, and the Judge to sort everything out.This is a mix of family, civil and criminal law and the boundaries are blurred…
So Peter not only has regularly beaten the crap out of Mary, he has beaten the crap out of Peter, and somehow he is the victim?
I would submit that this is not actually an uncommon occurrence, that the police, attorneys, and courts deal with regularly. Except that someone ended up in the hospital, perhaps the most innocent Samaritan of all…
Suddenly, the media tables are turned. Who does the media side with? Does Peter now have the unmitigated right to defend his home with any amount of force necessary against this battered spouse’s representative ‘invading’ her own home to get her belongings back?