In the face of social media outrage, Peterborough police chief Stuart Betts has continued to defend the decision of his officers to charge a store clerk for assaulting and seriously injuring a man who attempted to rob a convenience store early last Friday morning (January 5).
At around 2:30 a.m. last Friday, officers were called to the Circle K convenience store at the corner of King and Bethune streets in downtown Peterborough. After arriving, officers learned the store clerk had been helping a male customer when another man entered the store brandishing a baseball bat and demanding money.
A struggle ensued, and the clerk was struck with the baseball bat before taking it away from the would-be robber, who then fled the store. The clerk pursued the man onto the sidewalk and struck him several times with the baseball bat. While the clerk was treated by paramedics at the scene, the robbery suspect suffered head injuries and was airlifted to a Toronto trauma centre for treatment.
Police subsequently issued a warrant for the arrest of the 37-year-old suspect for robbery, assault with a weapon, and possession of weapon, and arrested and charged the store clerk, a 22-year-old Peterborough man, with aggravated assault.
After Peterborough police issued a media release on Tuesday afternoon about the incident, there was immediate backlash on social media against the police and their decision to charge the store clerk, who was identified on social media as being a person of colour.
On Tuesday evening, Peterborough police chief Stuart Betts posted a public statement on his personal account on X (formerly Twitter), defending his officers and their decision to charge the clerk with aggravated assault.
Public Statement: I would not normally release a message of this kind, but the commentary that has taken place following our media release today, in relation to a store clerk also being charged following an attempted robbery (https://t.co/driE7iidYc), is unfair to the men and… https://t.co/wBeVI05vWp
— Chief Stu Betts, Peterborough Police Service (@PtboChiefBetts) January 10, 2024
“In a world where security cameras are everywhere, do you really think we would not have seized and reviewed the footage as part of the investigation and prior to laying charges?” Betts wrote. “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.”
“I encourage you to stop and think about things before determining what you think has happened, or that an injustice has taken place, because I’m quite confident that not one person who has made a comment about this case has seen the video or has access to the actual facts.”
Betts’ post has since been viewed more than 105,500 times and has attracted more than 280 comments, many of which continue to object to the decision to charge the store clerk.
On Thursday morning, Betts appeared on CBC Radio’s Ontario Morning where he spoke to host Mike Crawley about the police decision, the reaction, and his social media post.
“The intent of my message was to try to address the runaway commentary on social media around vigilantism and then vilifying the police for the decision the officers made to charge the clerk, particularly from a position where people weren’t in possession of the facts,” Betts said. “In fact, the only one — other than my investigators — who’ve seen the video is me. I’ve watched it from beginning to end, so I am in possession of all the evidence that led up to this charge.”
Betts said he had no issue with how the store clerk disarmed the would-be robber inside the store, but it was what happened after the suspect fled the store that resulted in the aggravated assault charge.
“The clerk and the witness actually effectively removed that person from the store, and they did a good job,” he said. “I have no concerns whatsoever with how they dealt with that individual to get him out of the store. The problem is, once they were out of the store, things took a much more dangerous turn … this is what has led up to the (clerk) being charged with aggravated assault. I’m just happy that it didn’t turn out to be anything more serious.”
Betts added that aggravated assault is the most serious assault charge, just one level down from a charge of attempted murder.
“You’ll see that definition (or aggravated assault) includes ‘maims, disfigures or endangers the life’ — that’s what we were dealing with,” he explained. “This would-be robber was transported by air ambulance to a trauma centre (in Toronto) to address the scope of their injuries. The injuries sustained by this individual were disproportionate to their actions within the store.”
As for the outrage related to the police decision to lay a charge against the clerk, Betts said he was “not unsympathetic to the feelings that people have right now” and “can understand and appreciate why people are angry and why they feel that way.”
However, he rejected accusations the police decision was related to politics, police incompetence, or race.
“I needed to support my officers,” he said. “They made the right decision. They consulted with a Crown attorney along the way. This (decision to charge the clerk) wasn’t made in haste. There was the obtaining of evidence. I felt that, within the context I could, I hoped to be able to provide some assurance to people.”
Betts “absolutely, unequivocally” rejected the criticism that race was involved, and claimed that most of the outrage is coming from outside of Peterborough.
“Quite frankly, the outrage, if you will, that seems to have been generated, it is generated elsewhere outside of our community, which would suggest to me that our community has a very good understanding of what’s happening and confidence in what we’re doing here,” Betts said.
He added that he had hoped posting a public statement on social media would help people understand the police decision and “put an end” to the commentary.
“It sadly has had the opposite effect,” he admitted.
Betts said the courts will see the evidence that led to the police’s decision to charge the store clerk, including the video footage that Betts himself has watched.
“Any of the commentary that’s out there on social media, or mainstream media for that matter, do not know what’s happened,” he pointed out. “I can say from beginning to end — all the interactions — I have seen it all on video.”
The negative reaction to the Peterborough incident is reminiscent to the public outrage that followed a 2009 incident in Toronto, where David Chen, the owner of a grocery store in Chinatown, was charged with kidnapping, carrying a dangerous weapon, assault, and forcible confinement after he and two employees caught and confined a man who had earlier stolen plants from the store and returned to the store. Chen and his employees conducted a citizen’s arrest even though the suspect was not caught in the act of committing a crime — something that was not allowed under the criminal code at the time.
While police later dropped the kidnapping and dangerous weapon charges, the case went to trial in 2010 and the three men were acquitted on the remaining charges of assault and forcible confinement.
That case led to the 2013 passing by the Stephen Harper government of Bill C-26, the Citizen’s Arrest and Self-Defence Act, which allows people to make a citizen’s arrest within a “reasonable” period of time after witnessing a crime. Bill C-26 also made additional amendments to the criminal code sections for self-defence and defence of property, replacing the previous definitions of “necessary” and “proportionate” force with “reasonable in the circumstances.”
Canadian self-defence law differs from American law, which includes both “stand your ground” and “duty to retreat” laws in different U.S. states. Stand your ground laws allow people to use deadly force when they reasonably believe it is necessary to defend themselves or their property against certain violent crimes, while duty to retreat laws prohibit using deadly force if it is possible to avoid the danger with complete safety by retreating. Currently, 38 U.S. states have stand your ground laws and 11 states have duty to retreat laws.
In Canada, there is no stand your ground or duty to retreat law. Instead, the criminal code considers the act of self-defence itself and whether a “reasonable person” placed in the same situation would have acted in a similar manner. In general, Canadian courts find a “stand your ground” decision to be unreasonable in situations where retreat is available. Canadian courts have also unambiguously found that it is not reasonable to use deadly force in defence of property alone, where there is not a simultaneous threat to human life or safety.
An exception is in Alberta, where the 2019 Trespass Statutes (Protecting Law-Abiding Property Owners) Amendment Act provides civil immunity to property owners who employ force, including lethal force, in defence of homes and other premises.
This story has been updated to correct a misspelling of Mike Crawley’s name.
