Reader “Boudica” asks;
“Is it just me or do you find it strange that the name of the person who self immolated recently at the Toronto Tim Hortons was never released?”
Perhaps our legions of curious readers can ferret that out….
update Several commentors have pointed out that his identity has been withheld “due to the family’s wishes”.
Well, big whoop. When one chooses to exit in a manner that places the public at significant risk, which destroys the property of others and closes down part of a metropolitan area, one should expect to forfeit the “right to privacy”.
Afterthought – has anyone else forgotten the March 8 announcement of the Tim Horton’s opening at the Canadian base at Kandahar? And it’s unreasonable for people to ask who was responsible for a gasoline fueled explosion in one of their restaurants in Toronto less than a month later?
I’m sure he wasn’t named Mohammed.
The one name I’m absolutely certain he didn’t have is Mohammed, because Mohammed was the name of the one true prophet of God, who did not have sexual relations with a 9-year old bride (Aisha, whom he didn’t marry when she was 6) or joyously order the beheading of his religious enemies in the hundreds. The religion he founded, Islam, is a religion of peace.
Therefore, he could not have been named Mohammed.
Police haven’t yet positively identified a man burned beyond recognition? I don’t find that surprising. DNA identification only works if you have something to compare to. And it’s harder than it looks on CSI.
The conservatively inclined papers probably thought it was Emerson doing another jump from the frying pan…
There was talk at the time the man was of asian descent and was distraught over some family matters
Just because the police have his drivers licence and car does’nt mean that his name was Gamil Garbi,.. er, uh,… no, No,.. NO!!! hold on I mean Mark LePine, which is FRENCH, so you see he is really really Canadian and in NO way muslim in any way what so ever!!
Really!
Honest!
Now, Move along there Johnny!
And Dhimmi UP!!
Well, if it was a terrorist act of sorts, it was certainly a bizzare mode of operation.
Still, I suppose we’ve seen a great many weird things before; ie a young lad renting an SUV and running down his classroom fellows because their were non-believers.
Good question…….Not news anymore?
Maybe its just too much to expect the MSM to follow up on anything with facts , details etc…..!?
nobody has seen Paul Martin in awhile and he is probably very depressed . . .
Jut wondering if there is any connection.
They should just as Carolyn Bennett or Jenny Robinson to I.D. him, they seem to know the Majority of Canadians.
Originally there was something about the police having a difficult time finding the next of kin who are not in Canada.
Surely somebody knows.
nobody has seen Paul Martin in awhile and he is probably very depressed . . .
He had his picture in yesterday’s Sun – he was at Saturday’s Raptors game. Now that’s depressing!
OK, I don’t mean to be the heavy in this, but can we show a LITTLE compassion for the guy and/or his family in the event he was not a terrorist but rather a seriously disturbed individual?
If he was distraught over some family concerns, I would think that comments like we are seeing are not only cynical, but don’t represent the truly compassionate side that we (C)conservatives would like to think we have – with or without religious overtones. I believe that the mechanism of death shows that this individual was in some mental distress. A suicide bomber would choose a more expeditious route to the 72 virgins and everlasting glory.
Just my $.02 worth.
The responsible Toronto Police Services 53 Division has issued a number of press releases on the Horton incident. The latest is available on http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/pdfs/9696.pdf, and says in a nutshell that the family has asked that the name not be released.
You might take up any suspicions or requests for additional information with them.
For some possible background, here is the text of the Toronto Police Service news release from late last week.
(See: http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/pdfs/9696.pdf)
=====
Suspicious Death at Tim Hortons, Update, 53 Division
Thursday, April 6, 2006 – 2:01 PM
53 Division
416-808-5300
On Sunday, April 2, 2006, emergency services personnel responded to a fire at a Tim Hortons restaurant at 769 Yonge Street.
See related release. (http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/pdfs/9678.pdf)
The victim has been positively identified. At the request of the family, his identity will not be released.
Constable Wendy Drummond, Public Information, for Detective Sergeant Myron Demkew, 53 Division
=====
Based on previous news releases, honouring the family’s request to withhold the identity in such cases isn’t unusual.
Psst. Agitfact. Shhhh. Don’t reign on their parade. Don’t take away a good opportunity to insult Muslims without any basis in fact or reality or any connection to this incident.
Ted
Cerberus
This man committed suicide in a manner and place that put the public and the employees there at huge risk, closing down a large part of a major metropolitan city in a wider terrorism scare. His family’s wishes should not trump the facts.
Kate, I rather doubt that its anybody in Saskatchewan’s business. And I do not see a right wing uprising in Toronto over the matter. Why don’t you go back to your fields and mind your own business?
Kate is correct.
Public safety and security are more important than privacy.
I say release the name so the people can find out for themselves whether he was connected to any groups that pose a threat to society… or not.
Another damning example of the Liberal legacy. The dangerous person(s) always get the most consideration, to hell with those at risk from them, the victims.
I’m not sure I understand the public interest angle, Kate. The police have concluded and stated publicly that:
− the circumstances leading to the flash fire were not accidental,
− the injuries leading to the man’s death were self−inflicted, and
− there are no criminal aspects to this incident.
It is normally the left clamoring for citizen review of police investigations and the right clamoring back that the police should be trusted to do their job. Other than a couple of truly moonbat/wingnut, tin foil hat brigade-types here and there, are there any grander suspicious facts out there? Am I missing something here?
Ted
Cerberus
Kate, I’m not sure I agree with you on that one. A solid conservative principle is that crimes (and the people who commit them) should be judged by what the accused intended…and not what the victim (or, in this case, the general public) sufferred.
That’s why 1st degree murder is considered worse than, say for example, negligent homicide. Even though the victim of murder may have died instantly while, in the case of negligence, the victim could have suffered for days. The law doesn’t care. Crimes are graded according to what went on through the eyes of the accused…not what the victims (or public) feels.
If you throw away this principle, then you open the door to people like the NDP who feel that harrassment should be defined as anything that offends anyone.
So, in this case…if the man was disturbed and suicidal, I would argue that his crime cannot be considered so harsh that his family should have to deal with his/their names put in the news. It does not serve the public good.
Kate was just trying to score another cheap innuendo shot which tells you something about here motives/prejudices. By the way, I hear Calvert plans on footing the bill for 5,000 Muslims to immigrate to Saskatchewan every year where I hear many plan on taking up residence on the western outskirts of Saskatoon. There goes Kates neighbourhood.
Also, they haven’t released the name of ther eight dead Bandidos. Isn’t “bandeed” Uzbek for holy warrior? Again, the MSM is hiding the truth!
More seriously, the dead guy is supposed to be South Asian. He may be Muslim. He may not. But either way, you’d have to be a very serious nut to think it was terrorism. Not every act of jaywalking-by-Muslim is terrorism.
But I have a sneaking suspicion, Kate, that you are privy to some information about the deadman’s religious and/or ethnic background — you wouldn’t walk out quite so far on this nutbar limb without some inside info.
So spill it.
Hey, Sentinel: what do you know about the deceased’s family to call them dangerous and putting the rest of us at risk? Suicide occurs all too frequently in this country. Do you have one scintilla of evidence that the police are bold-faced lying to the public here as you suggest?
Ah, but just as facts shouldn’t interfere with a right-wingers opportunity to bash Muslims, we shouldn’t let facts get in the way of a chance to blame the actions of the police (city responsibility) on the Liberal Party.
Ted
Cerberus
A guy drops in at somebody’s place.
He finds that he disagrees with most people there and begins by trying to change their minds. When they won’t he becomes rude and obnoxious. As the night wears on he becomes more incoherent and belligerent.
He comes back day after day to trade insults and curse his host. What kind of weirdo fills his days conducting this kind of intercourse?
BCL you tend to be more muddled later in the day so finish the bottle up and sleep it off. You are an embarrassment to yourself.
BCL,
Why isn’t it the Canadian Public’s business to know the background of somebody that firebombed a CANADIAN PUBLIC BUSINESS? Care to explain your snippy comment? Once again you prove to be long on arrogance and embarrassingly short on substance.
a) The names of the eight dead Bandido members have been released, along with their ages and city of residence.
b) I have no inside knowledge. I simply thought it was an excellent question, considering the circumstances of the suicide. (If I did, I’d be publishing it.)
A guy set himself of fire in an admittedly public place. There is actually a difference between this “fire bombing”.
I think Kate (and many people on this Blog) yearn for an act of terrorism to justify their hatred for Muslims (or lets just say brown skin people because I doubt they could tell Muslims from from anyone else that origonated in that part of the world).
Ted: I was NOT referring to the family. Read my post more carefully. What the decedent did did indeed place others at risk.
Anyone who places the public at risk is dangerous. It’s a simple enough thing to understand.
If you wish to disagree, fine.
I made my point. No need to defame me, Kate or anyone who may see the situation differently than the left may.
Why yes, BCL – I “need to justify my hatred” of Muslims. That is why I’ve been consistantly supportive of a free and democratic Middle East, and have frequently quoted Iraqi bloggers on this site.
Now, if you persist in libeling me from the (false) security of anonymity, I can and will evict you.
Kate, I doubt you’d be a finalist for the 2006 weblogs if it was shown that you were oppressing liberals for being in the minority on your blog.
As for your support of “democracy” in the Middle East, how does this differ from the Bush plan to bomb them all into freedom?
I’m getting concerned with leftists.
They seem at every opportunity to wish to deny any danger, any threat, except that which they imagine or that of which their own peers tell them.
And I see some of this imagination at work here, and it sounds paranoid. I won’t name names, though, out of good manners.
Some leftists are attempting to defame regular folk who disagree with leftist dogma and paranoid imagination. This I’ve often written of. Seems the subjects are proving my points in real time here.
What is wrong with being genuinely concerned about public safety? How does it logically amount to hating entire groups of persons?
The left is only demonstrating its demagoguery. Unmasked, unhinged…
The police found no criminal activity? That’s strange. If I went into a Tim’s and threw gasoline around, and ran out without burning myself up, I’d be guilty of a crime called arson.
How do you suppose Tim’s insurers are going to handle this? “We need to pay a claim for fire damdage that wasn’t accidental, but no crime was committed.” I’d bet you the insurance forms say arson on them.
The public should be told who did this. If dude used carbon monoxide in his garage at home, it’d still be news. By putting other people’s lives at risk and setting fire to a public company – you’d think we’d at least have the right to the person’s name and perhaps a phychological evaluation post-mortem.
Psychological evaluation – typo
Kyla makes an excellent point.
What the f**k is with you, BCL???
It doesn’t matter if you’re a conservative or a liberal: Cheap shots and trying to goad people is for sub-human life forms. Most people here (including myself) on the right side of the spectrum. The fact that you’re on the left (and in the minority here) does not mean that you can throw out the concept of common decency.
Attacking ideas is fine…why do you have to make it personal?
The name of every other high profile suicide in this city has made the papers. A few years ago, a young physician threw herself in front of a subway along with her infant son – no privacy for that family even though it was an obvious case of post partum depression. The same with anyone who jumped from the Bloor street viaduct until the fence was installed. I’m just wondering why this individual is special enough to receive this kind of unprecedented privacy especially since this could have been a greater tragedy than the death of one obviously ill person.
Sentinel: Please don’t lump Kate into my critique. She posed a question and has explained why she asked it.
You on the other hand have said that “the dangerous person always get the most consideration, to hell with those at risk from them, the victims”. So it begs the question: who are the dangerous people getting the most consideration? And who are the victims?
Since he is dead, it’s not out of consideration for him that the police are withholding the name. In fact, as the police themselves have said out of consideration for the family, his name was withheld. The clear implication is that you meant to call the people who are being given the consideration, i.e. the family, dangerous. You seem to be backing off of that now, so I won’t press the point any more.
Since there was only one victim of this death, the deceased by his own hands, I’m surprised you consider the people who heard a scream and witnessed a fire to be victims, given that I’m assuming you are a good conservative don’t put much faith in people who would whine and complain about “suffering” and “victimization” when there is no physical harm. But maybe you are a different kind of conservative. I have no problem with that and won’t press that either.
But then it comes to the view you hold that the police are somehow endangering our safety and security because… um… they… er… won’t release the name of a depressed suicide. The police have said there is nothing criminal in the incident and you say there is a threat to our security. So you are saying they are lying or hiding something. That I have an issue with and that accusation I don’t withdraw.
Ted
Cerberus
Boudica’s right: what’s so bloody special about the Tim’s decedent that special treatment is accorded whereas it is NOT standard practice to not release the name, regardless of familial wishes?
It is suspicious.
Kate is absolutely right in this. If I rob your house, you have a right to know who I am. By the same principle, if someone commits a crime against the public, the public has a right to ID the perp.
Conversely, if anyone commits suicide privately, then no-one else is harmed, and the privacy is to be respected.
Kyla:
Suicides are not generally considered news. Unless the person is famous or does it in a public way that cannot be ignored…the name and details are almost never published. In this case, the guy’s actions could not escape public notice. But, he wasn’t famous and didn’t write his name on the sidewalk outside…so the police and media try to keep the personal details under wraps. This is not a new concept.
Anyone who lives in a big city (with a subway/LRT system) can tell you that there are a couple of dozen service disruptions per year (note that the public is inconvenienced) when jumpers leap in front of the train. Their names are never released and the act is never mentioned on the news.
Yes, technically speaking, a crime was committed here (actually arson AND suicide are both crimes). But, the offender cannot be “brought to justice” on either count. Therefore, he is not a threat to society…and so the “regular” suicide rules apply. If it’s not in the public interest to know (and suicide details never are – unless a homicide was also involved).
“Kate, I’m not sure I agree with you on that one. A solid conservative principle is that crimes (and the people who commit them) should be judged by what the accused intended…and not what the victim (or, in this case, the general public) sufferred.”
Bryceman, I’m sure where you obtained your definition of crime, but it sure wasn’t in law school.
For example, you punch another person, intending to hurt him. He dies. You are liable for a charge of manslaughter. It’s know as the “thin skull” principle…you have to accept your victim as he is, not as you think he is.
Another. You set fire to your business, hoping to collect insurance. The fire spreads to a nearby hotel, and several people die. You’re liable to a charge of murder.
Sorry pal, you have it backwards.
“who are the dangerous people getting the most consideration? And who are the victims”
–The criminals do get more consideration than the victims, thanks to the Liberal state regime from which Canadians have suffered. The rights of offenders have long been given priority over the rights of victims.
It’s not only about whether actual harm was actually done to others… it’s about having placed them at risk that is the actual unacceptable thing.
Oh come on, Bryce, a guy kills himself, the family requests that his name not be released, and a drooling cybermob comes howling demanding that his name be released on the off chance he might be a muslim? Don’t talk to me of subhuman. Don’t talk to me of “personal either”. I’ve endured all sorts of slights here. You don’t here me whining about them. I would appreciate the same kind of courage and self control from your side.
Suicide is not a crime.
It was decriminalized many years ago in order not to prevent suicide attempt survivors from seeking medical care.
Aiding someone else’s suicide or advising suicide remains a crime.
Kyla:
I think, by “no criminal aspects of this incident”, the police mean there was no criminal intent for arson or other ancillary criminal activity. With all due respect, that seems to be more logical meaning to the answer since suicide by any means (gun, poison, etc.) is obviously technically “criminal”.
But since when do ordinary members of the public have a right to information relating to a police investigation? That’s what I honestly don’t get in the positions being taken here. On what basis do we assume, does anyone make the assumption, that there is an underlying security concern in this suicide as opposed to any of the other hundreds (thousands?) of suicides each year?
(And BTW Sentinel, not seeing a great security/terrorist risk in a suicide is not the same as being oblivious to real security risks. I’ve been clear over at Cerberus that we all need to wake up to some new realities: here, here and here, for just three examples. So careful with the “unhinged, unmasked demogoguery” and dafamation when you go on whining about “unhinged, unmasked demogoguery” and dafamation.)
Ted
Cerberus
Ted
Cerberus
Big City Lib is here not add to debate, but to get a rise out of the others who are here to discuss issues. He can be described as a trouble maker and general pain in butt.
He is like a court jester only with a nasty tone.
Please evict this fool. He has had ample warning from almost every sane commenter here and now from Kate.
Otherwise, I suggest we all completely ignore him even though the urge to give him a digital bitch-slapping is hard to resist.
One point to BCL. I am brown and don’t feel the least bit pursecuted here or anywhere else. Most people judge you by your behaviour once they get passed what you look like. I don’t need or want you defending my skin color. I, like most well-adjusted humans can take care of our problems.
Do not feel the necessity to carry the “white Man’s Burden” … Take the rest of your sorry life off and go to Africa where fools like your welcome. You can empty AIDS infested latrines for the Doctors without borders. If you do this, you will be fullfilling your mandate to “help” the less fortunate. We don’t need your help to discuss points of interest here.
I’m sure Kate doesn’t need my advice, but eviction would be the humane thing. After all, he has endured many slights here, and perhaps he’d be happier if he was assisted with his strange craving for abusive attention.
Remember, Ted, I said I wasn’t naming names. It’s not my fault you believed that it applied to you. Why would you necessarily assume it meant you?
Geez… whenever I give an opinion wrt the left, individual leftists take it personally. Man!
Whoa Bruce:
I’ll go head to head with you on your knowledge of law.
First, the “thin skull principle” (which, from old British common-law says, “you take your victim as you find them”) is a part of civil law…it does not in any way apply to criminal law. It is used to justify special damages when a victim suffers injury that another (not-so-susceptible person) would not have suffered. That has no place in this discussion. So, it is you who has this one backwards.
There would likely be a charge of second degree manslaughter…yes. But, the definition of that means that you intended to harm the person…ended up killing them, and the Crown just can’t prove that killing was your intent.
Second, your arson example:
It is true that you would face a charge of second degree murder in this case. But the actual charge in the US and Britain is “depraved indifference to human life”. This is considered EQUIVALENT to 2nd degree murder. Canada just decided not to make this official distinction. But, at trial, the argument put forth by the Crown would be that you (the offender) should have known better. You see, in the eyes of the offender, the offender should have known what their act could cause (endangering human life) and you did it anyway. This does not weaken what I said…it reinforces it.
With the exception of the recently created “harrassment” crimes genre, I challenge you to show me one case in our criminal law where what the victim suffered is part of the grading of the crime.
I think we have a right to know who this person was
Anderson Says
Kate was just trying to score another cheap innuendo shot which tells you something about here motives/prejudices.
Just like the lefty thinks? I was surprised to see no mention of GWB and the rest of the evil gang.
I don’t hate muslim and I can’t speak for kate, however I see no prejudice in kate’s writings.
We on the Right, just see the danger that Islam
represents to the free world. we don’t go around with our heads in the sand, and don’t pretend
that there is not a real problem.
Even though you are timid and refuse to see the danger, we will do our best to keep you safe from yourself.