December 29, 2007
Villain: Tre Smith
Torontoist is ending the year by naming our Heroes and Villains of 2007––the people, places, and things that we've either fallen head over heels in love with or developed uncontrollable rage towards over the past twelve months. Get your dose, starting Boxing Day and running into the new year, three times a day––sunrise, noon, and sunset.
Let’s get something straight at the beginning: animal abuse is a horrible crime that should be enforced more vigilantly and punished more severely than it currently is, and animal abusers should be scorned and vilified. But let’s also get something else straight: determining who is, or who is not, guilty of such crimes is a matter for the courts to decide, and extremism in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
The story of Tre Smith, an investigator with the Toronto Humane Society, is a textbook example of the need to balance the ends of justice with the means of getting there.
The facts have been well reported. Smith smashed the window of an overheated car on a summer’s day in Parkdale in order to pull out a dog left inside. So far, so good. Had Smith stopped there, he'd be a hero. Then the owner, Paul Soderholm, returned to the scene. Angry words were exchanged between Smith and Soderholm. Smith decided that the dog required more care than what he could provide to it there, so he put the dog in his own vehicle in order to drive it to a clinic. Again, if this was the extent of Smith's actions, he'd be a hero. But it wasn't. Before driving off, Smith handcuffed Soderholm to the parked car where the dog had been, and left him there. After Smith left, Soderholm was beaten up by bystanders, losing three teeth and being pelted with stones. Police eventually arrived, charging Soderholm with animal cruelty and charging two men at the scene with assault.
No doubt, some people are attracted by the notion of vigilante justice: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. In their minds, Soderholm got what he deserved; some might even say that Soderholm didn’t get punished enough. And, to be fair, what Soderholm is alleged to have done—leaving an animal in a car on a hot summer's day—was cruel. If convicted in court, Soderholm should be punished.
But society, it is hoped, has moved beyond the day when someone in authority can decide to confine an accused criminal (or, for that matter, a convicted criminal)—and there is no way to view handcuffs as anything other than confinement—and then fail to concern himself with the welfare of the person whom he has confined. And Smith has publicly acknowledged that he did precisely that. He handcuffed Soderholm and left him in the company of random strangers, who, after he left, attacked.
Smith is a lucky man. Lucky that Soderholm was not beaten more severely by the mob, lucky that Soderholm did not experience any medical emergencies while handcuffed, and lucky that his only punishment was a temporary suspension from his duties.
There are no heroes in this story, only villains. If Soderholm did what he is alleged to have done, then he is indeed a villain. But villainy also takes the form of confining someone and then leaving him in the hands of people who are not police officers, and Smith has admitted that he did this. Arbitrary detention, disregard for those in confinement, and the creation of conditions conducive to mob attacks have no place in any enlightened system of justice, and no end can justify such means.
Photo by Agatha Southeil from the Tre Smith is Hot Facebook group.
|
Oooh~ you tell, 'em, Robin Rix. That'll show him!
And while you're at it, stroll on over to your sister site, Shanghaiist, and take a gander at this story, from yesterday.
http://shanghaiist.com/2007/12/28/what_one_pet_se.php
It's about a pair of pet vendors who were confronted by Shanghai's police, and began smashing the puppies and other animals into the pavement, crushing them before (comapared to Smith, witless, spineless) onlookers.
It will warm the cockles of your heart (?), Robin Rix, to see those lifeless, crushed puppy bodies. You can tell youself, oh-so smuggly, that there was no Tre Smith THERE to lock anyone to their car to save these animals.
Yeah~! Let's hear it for Robin Rix: champion of all things right and good! Will you be my Hero for 2007!? Pleeeease!?
Sorry Mir, but I don`t see why you`re so angry with this poster. I thought it was well balanced and logical look at an emotional issue.
That link is tenuously related at best with anything discussed here, mlr, and does nothing to further any argument––save for Robin's that vigilantism is totally flawed. Come on.
Smith isn't responsible for what other people did to the guy. If it has been a heart attack or something along those lines, sure. What were his other options anyway? Could he have arrested the guy and put him in his car, or what?
Robin is overlooking the larger context here in singling out Tre Smith as villain. What Smith did and the resulting vigilantism is a symptom of a much larger, graver societal problem.
If animal welfare/cruelty investigation were resourced commensurate with the need and the priority most civilized people place on this service, the funds would have been available to ensure that Mr. Smith would not have been deployed alone to the scene but have had a partner. Instead, acting alone, he was placed in the untenable position of having to choose between saving the dog's life, versus staying with the perpetrator until the police arrived. He chose saving the life of an animal in obvious distress.Many would agree that this was the right thing to do.
The unanticipated twist to the story is that a random collection of bystanders had been so enraged by what they witnessed that they took matters into their own hands and assaulted the dog's owner after Mr. Smith left. Mr. Smith did not direct them to do so and it is doubtful that he expected that they would.
When this story broke, a number of things crossed my mind: a) we have antiquated animal cruelty legislation that most of us KNOW results in offenders being let off far too lightly for their crimes; b) with weak legislation, governments are not compelled to adequately resource animal welfare investigation and prosecution, which fosters a climate where animal abuse, torture, neglect are tolerated or ignored because the welfare agencies cannot keep up with the case load; c) most caring people are painfully aware that their politicians are failing their citizenry by repeatedly refusing to pass cruelty legislation "with teeth" and that d) it is within such a context that you have the combination of conditions: an idiot pet owner ignorantly and negligently abandoning their dog in a convection oven on four wheels on a hot summer's day, a lone cruelty investigator who should be with a partner at all times but isn't because we'd rather have low taxes than law enforcement, an angry conglomeration of citizens who happened to be at the scene and who know that the owner is going to get off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. It's a perfect storm for an unpleasant outcome. But to blame Tre Smith for it is overlooking the larger societal context that led to this event and that's a big mistake.
While I'm not sure I would call Tre Smith a villain I did always wonder why he felt the need to handcuff the guy to the car. Surely the man wasn't going to flee the country to avoid a pet abuse charge. I understand that Soderholm acted in the spur of the moment and I don't particularly care that he got knocked about, but, as Rix points out, Smith was lucky nothing worse happened.
I completely understand wanting to take care of the dog, I just don't know why Smith felt the need to spend time handcuffing the guy to a car. The dog was already in his car, just drive off.
I wonder about something, I was just reading in the *Ottawa* Humane Society newsletter that the OHS only recently got the ability to trace licence plates to the owners so that charges could be laid where the car is identifiable but the person is not. Could be completely different in Toronto, but might there have been a problem if the owner left the scene, in tracking him down afterward to lay charges hence the necessity to keep detain him?
Any law enforcement agency that issues handcuffs to it`s employees as part of their duty gear, is also responsible for the training of the employee in their proper use, prohibitions, etc. This (usually) includes specific prohibitions against handcuffing anybody to a vehicle.
If Mr. Smith was trained properly and chose to ignore the policies and training, then he is accountable.
I`m also sure this particular animal abuser would not hesitate to sue because of that.
As for legislation with "teeth", I agree, but since our courts don`t adequately protect people, I`m not optomistic about their willingness to protect animals.
Ottawan makes an excellent point that current animal cruelty laws are underenforced. More resources should be devoted to apprehending and catching those responsible for crimes against animals, and two officers working in tandem would have solved this problem entirely.
All I wish to state is that people in authority have to take responsibility for the welfare of those whom they take into their custody. The fact that Soderholm was attacked after Smith handcuffed him to an immobile object and left him there is proof that Smith failed in this responsibility. It doesn't matter that Smith didn't actually throw the stones or land the punches that broke Soderholm's teeth. (Responsibility isn't limited to what you physically do: if it were, a lot of very bad people would be innocent of some very bad things.)
I'll repeat my earlier sentiment that animal abuse is wrong, and I hope that Soderholm, if guilty, is punished severely. But vigilantism, or encouraging it, just isn't cool in an enlightened society. Had Smith just driven off with the dog, noting the license plate number for followup investigation by him or the police, he'd have been a hero.
Well, Robin, I was ready with a snarky reply, but I think your post here was well written, and I'd be wrong to not treat it with respect.
You argue that he was responsible for what other (cowardly) people did after he was handcuffed. I disagree - I see too many people shut off their morals for less. I'm an expat in a country where few officials have the guts to do the right thing in the first place, and certainly don't care enough about animals to motivate them to want things to change here. Where men walk around with their girlfriends and kick dogs to show them how tough they are.
I guess I just wish Tre Smith was here. Faults and all.
(And anyway, when is a link in the IST-a-verse ever tenuous?)
Tre Smith may have screwed up while doing his job and it cost some guy a few teeth, but how many Toronto cops are out and out corrupt assholes? Did they all turn to saints this year? None deserve to be Villainized more than Smith? What about the CCTV camera creeping downtown?