Dealing with "Paintball Rambo"
By John Mohan

A week ago today in the Osborne Village area, an unknown man (assumed to be homeless) is "dumpster diving."

It's a slang term for searching through residential trash cans or commercial dumpsters in search of food or something of value that can be sold for a few dollars. Recycling in its most primitive form.

However, an unimpressed local resident yells at the down-on-his-luck man to get lost. Partially complying, the man shuffles off a short distance to another potential pot of gold. Now the self-appointed "block cop" is really angry and is going to deal with this nuisance once and for all.

Marching inside, he grabs his trusty paintball gun, which has enough power to seriously injure someone. A paintball capsule can travel almost the length of a football field in one second.

"That'll teach that worthless piece of whatever not to mess with my neighbourhood's garbage," he vows.

However, "Paintballing Rambo" doesn't count on a witness, who for some strange reason feels the dumpster diver is a real person who shouldn't be treated as target practice. The police are called and charges are laid. But the homeless man is long gone.

Although encouraged to do so, he may not come forward to testify. Possibly because he feels he'll be blamed for the incident. Possibly because past experiences tell him he won't be treated respectfully. Possibly because he has outstanding warrants and doesn't want to be anywhere near a police station.

With or without a victim's complaint, the accused may still be convicted of being in possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. But if found guilty, what will the sentence be? Will it have the same severity as if he shot at an upstanding, tax-paying citizen?

Will it send a broader message that the homeless are also valued citizens and entitled to the same protections as everyone else? Or will it be a mockery of equal justice, like the 3.5-year slap-on-the-wrist Michael Cochrane got for the savage murder of the homeless Guy Cloutier in a downtown bus shelter in 2005?

While left to the discretion of the judge, I have a creative suggestion for sentencing if there is a guilty verdict. How about the convicted be sentenced to living on the streets for a month?

Sentence conditions will be the same as those who do live on the streets. His only possessions must fit into a backpack. Credit cards, cash and personal identification are prohibited. He is permitted to stand in a line with hundreds of others for a free meal. Since public urination is illegal, he will have to convince business owners to allow him to use their washrooms. He can sleep under a bridge, be at Siloam Mission by 9 p.m. for a free bed, or go to Main Street Project for a floor mat.

And he will have four options for income. Welfare is a possibility. Hopefully $441 per month, including housing, is enough. A temp employment agency may have work for minimum wage -- if he's there by 6 a.m. The third option will be panhandling on Portage Avenue. That's an easy gig, except for the abuse he'll get from passersby.

Or lastly, he could head over to Osborne Village to do some dumpster diving. You never know what he might find to eat or sell. And he can hope nobody over there has a paintball gun.

Originally printed in the Winnipeg Sun, Wednesday, February 27, 2008.
Reprinted with the permission of Sun Media Corporation.