Culture Peterborough store clerk charged with aggravated assault after would-be robber beaten with baseball bat - Police chief says while case is 'unusual,' clerk's arrest was 'about the law'

A store clerk who allegedly used a baseball bat to hit a man who attempted to rob his convenience store is now facing a charge of aggravated assault, Peterborough police say.

In a news release issued Tuesday, the Peterborough Police Service said officers were called to a convenience store in the King Street and Bethune Street area around 2:30 a.m. on Jan. 5.

Upon arrival, officers learned that a male clerk was helping a customer when a second man entered the store demanding money and brandishing a baseball bat, according to the release.

"A struggle ensued and the clerk was struck with the bat before grabbing the bat away from the suspect," police said.

"The suspect then fled the store. The clerk followed the suspect out of the store and struck him several times with the baseball bat on the sidewalk."

Arrest warrant issued for 37-year-old suspect​

Police said the man who allegedly attempted the robbery suffered head injuries and is in a Toronto hospital receiving treatment, while the clerk was treated at the scene by emergency medical services.

A warrant for arrest was issued for the 37-year-old man who allegedly attempted the robbery for assault with a weapon, possession of weapon, and robbery, police said.

Meanwhile, the 22-year-old clerk from Peterborough was also arrested and charged with aggravated assault. He was held in custody and appeared in court on Jan. 6.

Peterborough police say they would also like to speak with the male customer who was in the store at the time of the incident.

'This case is unusual': police chief​

Daniel Brown, criminal lawyer and past president of the Ontario Criminal Lawyers Association, said the public may have a hard time understanding these charges, as some might think the would-be robber "had it coming.

"The person that went into the store to commit the robbery had premeditated this," Brown said on CBC Radio's Metro Morning.

"The person who was defending themselves — there was no planning, there was no deliberation … so the courts are definitely going to treat this more leniently even if he's found guilty. There are a whole bunch of extenuating circumstances that will come into play."

Brown said the maximum sentence for aggravated assault is 14 years in prison, but that the circumstances in each case do matter when it comes to sentencing.

Peterborough police Chief Stuart Betts also responded to public criticism over the clerk's arrest on Wednesday, saying commentary critical of the arrest is unfair to his officers.

While noting that "this case is unusual," Betts — who has been Chief of the Peterborough Police Service for one year —said people should follow the case in court to see what led to the charges.

"This is not about politics — politics have nothing to do with the facts. This is not about race — as some have suggested. This is not about the perception that criminals go free while victims of crime are penalized — this is about the law," Betts said in a statement posted on X, formerly Twitter.



Police are asking anyone with information about the incident to call Peterborough police at 705-876-1122, extension 555, or Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-8477.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/peterborough-robbery-aggravated-assault-1.7079418 (Archive)

 

[Onni Kalsarikännit]

Peterborough police Chief Stuart Betts also responded to public criticism over the clerk's arrest on Wednesday, saying commentary critical of the arrest is unfair to his officers.

A guy defended his property and his life against a criminal, your bastards took him into custody and he is now facing charges bc your country is a shithole. Go fuck yourself.

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

It’s not about race. It’s about ensuring that the populace doesn’t take certain police powers back.

 

[Polock]

You're correct on a moral and rational level, but the law is neither of those things. There's no way he's getting away with a self defense argument, especially in a place like Canada.

I know my position is hopelessly idealist, doubly so for Canada. Its so frustrating when people who do the right thing are punished for it.

 

[SpergioLeonne]

Made me scroll to find out who is retarded enough to act like everyone knows which Peterborough they’re referring to, found out it was Canadians.

Freeze, you Chinese overflow parking lot

 

[dick brain]

Holy shit Canada is cucked.

 

[PhoBingas]

It's hard to say. Taking a robber's bat and beating him until he can't remember his own name is based and Dreddpilled. Chasing him down on the street, while still pretty Dreddpilled, is also very obviously crossing the line past self defense, unless the guy was yelling "I'll come back with my homies" or something.

The race angle, you never know. Both parties could be black and twitter might be screaming that the only reason they arrested the clerk was because he Black . They're being very careful to release any descriptions of either party, so you know the robber was black.

It's Peterborough, so in all honesty it was probably pajeet on black.

 

[BlaireWhitesBottom2]

You're correct on a moral and rational level, but the law is neither of those things. There's no way he's getting away with a self defense argument, especially in a place like Canada.

The law is there to protect scumbags largely.. if it weren't for the law people like Bush and Kissinger and georgie soros would be swinging from a lamp post!

 

[Mordecai "3 Finger" Brown]

"The suspect then fled the store. The clerk followed the suspect out of the store and struck him several times with the baseball bat on the sidewalk."

Police said the man who allegedly attempted the robbery suffered head injuries and is in a Toronto hospital receiving treatment, while the clerk was treated at the scene by emergency medical services.

A warrant for arrest was issued for the 37-year-old man who allegedly attempted the robbery for assault with a weapon, possession of weapon, and robbery, police said.

Meanwhile, the 22-year-old clerk from Peterborough was also arrested and charged with aggravated assault. He was held in custody and appeared in court on Jan. 6.

Peterborough police say they would also like to speak with the male customer who was in the store at the time of the incident.

It's a little unclear whether the robber fled after being caved in by the bat or was still lying in a pool when the police arrived.

Given he's in a Toronto hospital (Peterborough is an hour north and has a hospital of their own) and there's weird wording about "a warrant for his arrest" given they know his location in hospital with "head injuries", he's presumably still unconscious.

I was wondering if the store clerk told on themself, leading to their arrest or if the police showed up to him standing over the body.

Given the hospital details, I'm assuming the latter.

 

[Xarpho's Return]

There's no way he's getting away with a self defense argument, especially in a place like Canada.

Exactly.
Blue city/blue state: 85% fucked. (DA will make your life hell, but there's a slim chance you'll be acquitted or not charged by a grand jury)
Blue city/red state: 60% fucked. DA will make your life hell, but you'll have state law on your side so the chances you'll be acquitted or not charged by grand jury are higher.
Red city/any state: 15% fucked. Probably nothing unless you broke a law doing so (illegal weapon, school zone, etc.), public sympathy higher
Canada: 100% fucked.

 

[robobobo]

I had to do some digging to find any pics at all, the clerk is pajeet as people'd guessed, Tejeshwar Kalia:

Still looking for the robber, have yet to find a name or photo for him.

 

[Lord Xenu]

It amazes me that 30-40 years ago this store clerk would have been a hero, I have a family member who stopped a robbery with a baseball bat once.

In Canada, we don't need family members or self-reliance anymore, we have the state.
FYI, it wasn't always like this, there's been no change in the letter of the law, just in enforcement. For the past 8 years, it's been a constant drum beat of "the government is able to cure all ails".

Quebec man acquitted in police officer slaying
Posted: Jun 13, 2008 4:29 PM EDT | Last Updated: June 14, 2008
Basil Parasiris was acquitted on Friday by a 12-person jury at the Longueuil courthouse, on Montreal's South Shore.

He was charged with first-degree murder in the death of Const. Daniel Tessier, who died after being shot three times last spring after he entered Parasiris's Brossard home with a battering ram during a botched drug raid.

The verdict means the jury believed Parasiris's self-defence argument was enough to raise a reasonable doubt about the charges.

The father of two insisted he believed his family was being attacked by home invaders when a police team swarmed their house on March 2, 2007.

Believing the invaders were going to harm him, his wife and his children, Parasiris testified he had no choice but to shoot.

It was only after Tessier was lying on the ground that Parasiris realized he was an officer, he told the court.

Full article: CBC (Archive)

 

[Polock]

Full article: CBC (Archive)

Wow. Its gone downhill a lot since 2008 huh? I don't expect we'd see a headline like that even in the USA in CURRENT YEAR. Meanwhile, the cops can mistakenly breakdown your door and flashbang your dog and then send you the cleanup bill for the teargas on their uniforms and then hide behind qualified immunity when you sue them for ransacking the wrong place.

 

[Lobster Cult High Priest]

Good to see that DrunkenSurfer is doing well.

 

[Would]

Fuck the police. Kill cops. Behead pigs. Immolate the Fuzz. Eradicate Five-O. Crucify Babylon.

 

[Lord Xenu]

Wow. Its gone downhill a lot since 2008 huh?

Definitely. If you look at the current self-defense headlines its night & day. I'm not trying to give the impression that it was a common occurrence then, shootings in general were fairly uncommon here prior to the 2010's and it was largely contained to the cities (it still is, really). There was a change in the law in 2012 that made it much harder to use self-defense and the government has been diligently building precedence since then. Post 2016, they never skip a chance to throw everything they have at a self defense case that makes it to trial.

There's been two famous cases in the last 8 years where a (feather) indian was shot while stealing a vehicle, and the jury acquitted the shooter. After the first of those two cases, they vowed "never again". It became a BLM like social movement, with t-shirts etc. This is a quote from an article about the second of those two cases.

Boushie, a 22-year-old from the Red Pheasant Cree Nation in Saskatchewan, was shot and killed in August 2016 by Gerald Stanley, a white farmer.

A jury with no visibly Indigenous jurors reached its not guilty verdict for Stanley. The decision led to outrage across the country and a pledge from federal ministers and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to change "systemic issues" in the justice system. (italics mine)

We do not have robust "double jeopardy" laws. If you are found not guilty by a jury, the prosecution can appeal and you may face another trial. In the second case, the prosecution appealed and the man (Peter Khill) was later tried again and sentenced to prison.

Section 34 Pre-2012:

Self-defence against unprovoked assault

34 (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Marginal note:Extent of justification

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

Current Section 34:

Defence — use or threat of force

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

Marginal note:Factors

(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

(c) the person’s role in the incident;

(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

Marginal note:No defence

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

"This is not about politics — politics have nothing to do with the facts. This is not about race — as some have suggested. This is not about the perception that criminals go free while victims of crime are penalized — this is about the law," Betts said in a statement posted on X, formerly Twitter.

Then fuck the law, you cucked faggot.

 

[Mitt Doggy Dogg]

In Canada, we don't need family members or self-reliance anymore, we have the state.
FYI, it wasn't always like this, there's been no change in the letter of the law, just in enforcement. For the past 8 years, it's been a constant drum beat of "the government is able to cure all ails".

In America, it depends on what state you are in. Some states like California have fallen to the woke mind virus and its probably only a matter of time before the rest of our country is forced to follow suit but at least for now there are a few states you can protect yourself

 

[White_N]

The state fails to protect its citizens
The state punishes citizens when they protect themselves
????
Profit

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

And to think that Canadians will see this and decide to continue living in Canada. Truly, it is a failed nation and all of its inhabitants that abide it’s failures deserve what they are getting.

 

[Nate Scully 025]

And to think that Canadians will see this and decide to continue living in Canada. Truly, it is a failed nation and all of its inhabitants that abide it’s failures deserve what they are getting.

See… I partially agree, but I don’t blame every Canadian still there. After all, moving out of a country can be extremely difficult and expensive, so there’s plenty of people in Canada who didn’t vote for what is going on and would rather not be there, but can’t leave.

The people I can’t stand are those still moving to
Canada, those that read headlines like this and go ‘yeah, I’d like to go there, where my liberties are quantifiably less than someone committing a crime against me’. There are plenty within Canada I can’t fucking stand, but just because someone is still there doesn’t mean they approve of all this shit.