Broken Justice - these infuriating cases have it all

[guyser]

End result was a killer went free and it wasn't the police who turned him lose.

Sure was the police who turned him lose..

They broke the law. Did you forget about that?

If they had done things the way they were trained , he would be in jail.

But they didnt.

[Wilber]

Sure was the police who turned him lose..

They broke the law. Did you forget about that?

If they had done things the way they were trained , he would be in jail.

But they didnt.

The guy killed someone, have you forgotten about that? Minor detail right?

[guyser]

The guy killed someone, have you forgotten about that? Minor detail right?

No not at all a minor detail.

I just dont advocate, like others here, to allow the police to do what they want. I follow the rules, they can too.

It really is easy Wilber.But laziness and stupidity won out.

[Wilber]

No not at all a minor detail.

I just dont advocate, like others here, to allow the police to do what they want. I follow the rules, they can too.

It really is easy Wilber.But laziness and stupidity won out.

I bet you brake rules daily and don't even realize it and no, a killer won out.

[guyser]

I bet you brake rules daily and don't even realize it and no, a killer won out.

I am not going to go back and forth with this Wilber. I see your reluctance to understand the relevance of the charter .

So I will let FTA 's words say it.

FTA "When they are on the job, the police need to follow the law and when they flagrantly ignore 400 years of common law, I don't see why it's not their fault that the accused killer goes free..."

[Wilber]

I am not going to go back and forth with this Wilber. I see your reluctance to understand the relevance of the charter .

So I will let FTA 's words say it.

FTA "When they are on the job, the police need to follow the law and when they flagrantly ignore 400 years of common law, I don't see why it's not their fault that the accused killer goes free..."

You are right, we are not going to agree on this. We have different ideas as to what the primary function of the system should be. You believe that it is OK to disregard evidence and guilt for reasons that have nothing to do with the reality of the crime committed. You believe that a guilty person should be not guilty merely because someone didn't follow procedure to a T. I do not.

[guyser]

You believe that it is OK to disregard evidence and guilt for reasons that have nothing to do with the reality of the crime committed. You believe that a guilty person should be not guilty merely because someone didn't follow procedure to a T. I do not.

No that is not what I believe, and therein lies your problem.

[Keepitsimple]

No not at all a minor detail.

I just dont advocate, like others here, to allow the police to do what they want. I follow the rules, they can too.

It really is easy Wilber.But laziness and stupidity won out.

Guyser.....read the actual background - then understand that the BC Supreme Court found him guilty....it was appealed and they still found him guilty. How can you call the Police lazy and stupid when the Provincial Supreme Court twice upheld the conviction? Read the background and honestly see if you can find anything wrong with what they did. Only the Supreme Court of Canada and their interpretation of the Charter found anything wrong.....and that's where common sense seems to have been lost. Is it any wonder that cops are confused and frustrated when the courts can't even agree what's right? Just read what actually happened.

Background

On the morning of June 8, 1991, 85 year-old Frank Boyle was found dead in his Likely, British Columbia home from several severe blows to the head with a crowbar. At the scene, the police found a Sportsman brand cigarette, and later found Mr. Boyle's truck abandoned in a ditch. On a tip from local residents, the police located the driver of the truck, Michael Feeney, sleeping in a trailer behind the residence of a friend of his.

The police knocked on the trailer door, and shouted "police", but there was no reply. Guns drawn, the police entered. They found Feeney in bed and shook his leg to get his attention. The police asked him to get up and go outside where the light was better. Upon getting Mr. Feeney outside the police noticed his clothes were covered in blood. They read him his rights, he acknowledged he understood them, and they arrested him.

Upon questioning him, Mr. Feeney said that the blood was from getting hit by a baseball the day before. The police further noted the same brand of cigarettes in the Trailer as was found in Mr. Boyle's house. He was taken to an RCMP detachment, finger printed, made to use a breathalyzer, and for the first day or so was unsuccessful in contacting a lawyer. During this time he was questioned further, admitting he had hit and robbed Boyle. Once a search warrant was obtained, the police found Boyle's stolen property in the trailer. It was only after all of this that he finally met with a lawyer.

At trial in the Supreme Court of British Columbia he was convicted of second degree murder. On appeal the conviction was upheld.

[Wilber]

No that is not what I believe, and therein lies your problem.

Your right, I have no idea what you believe.

[guyser]

Guyser.....read the actual background - then understand that the BC Supreme Court found him guilty....it was appealed and they still found him guilty. How can you call the Police lazy and stupid when the Provincial Supreme Court twice upheld the conviction? Read the background and honestly see if you can find anything wrong with what they did. Only the Supreme Court of Canada and their interpretation of the Charter found anything wrong.....and that's where common sense seems to have been lost. Is it any wonder that cops are confused and frustrated when the courts can't even agree what's right? Just read what actually happened.

I have read, can you say the same?

Lazy and stupid still stands when , in the cops own words, he knew he should not have entered the dwelling as he had no authority to do so.

Go back and read post #144 , FTA's post spells it all out.

Do I think it sucks? Sure I do. Would I rather the guy be in jail? If he killed someone yes, but I dont want him in jail when the police violated the law. The weight of the evidence caused the SCC to conclude that his rights were violated. Do I think the family of the deceased are furious? I would expect that.

But it is very simple.............

We either uphold all rights , or none at all. Pick which side you are on.

My choice says to defend "all rights" , and with that comes unintended consequences . I can easily live with that choice.

[Wilber]

My choice says to defend "all rights" , and with that comes unintended consequences . I can easily live with that choice.

No, your choice is to defend only Charter rights according to whichever court rules against the police.

[guyser]

No, your choice is to defend only Charter rights according to whichever court rules against the police.

Ahh Wilber , let me refresh your memory from 1:31PM earlier today.....

WILBER said "Your right, I have no idea what you believe."

That sir still holds true.

So the question is why would you try again? You failed the first time , and well, the second time too!

If you like, ask me a question and I will answer it.

Edited May 15, 2008 by guyser

[Oleg Bach]

Ahh Wilber , let me refresh your memory from 1:31PM earlier today.....

That sir still holds true.

So the question is why would you try again? You failed the first time , and well, the second time too!

If you like, ask me a question and I will answer it.

You can not defend or impliment the charter. It's a paper tiger of a document. You can fight a cause protecting the charter and useing the charter and be totally correct and just AND STILL YOU WILL LOSE..If a good man wins then evil men lose their positions to some degree..and it seems that evil men climb he highest and ambition is their disease. So fight if you will but the results are carved in stone - the good man loses everytime. That is that nature of our judical system and the orgainized crime that it is. The charter is just a feel good piece of paper that worked once...for Margret Trudeaus' impaired driving charge..that was the first and the last time it was effective...wake up guy...there is no justice..

[guyser]

You can not defend or impliment the charter. .....wake up guy...there is no justice..

Yes we have all read your story how you got screwed in court. Thus your particular take on the justice system. Get over it and understand the rest.

I have lost in court too. Didnt think I should have on both occasions, but my lawyers settled one before the trial and I did not have a choice.(civil)

But I am not whining. The courts work and justice is done 99% of the time.

[Wilber]

Ahh Wilber , let me refresh your memory from 1:31PM earlier today.....

That sir still holds true.

So the question is why would you try again? You failed the first time , and well, the second time too!

If you like, ask me a question and I will answer it.

Actually I am now convinced I do. Not one of your posts has ever been supportive of the police on any issue, in any of these threads. I'm still waiting for a learned answer as to why the Charter doesn't apply to CBSA when it comes to searching Canadian citizens on Canadian soil. No one seems to want to touch it.

[Oleg Bach]

Yes we have all read your story how you got screwed in court. Thus your particular take on the justice system. Get over it and understand the rest.

I have lost in court too. Didnt think I should have on both occasions, but my lawyers settled one before the trial and I did not have a choice.(civil)

But I am not whining. The courts work and justice is done 99% of the time.

No you did not understand..it was not me being screwed it was my stupid brother..I was a careful observer and researcher in a very complex matter. What I saw was constant cowardice..lieing - really complex and freaky fraud... Here is what I can not get over buddy..and I will NEVER respect the courts and officers of the court.. I saw a lawyer conspire and betray his own client. I saw a Judges that was fully aware of fraud taking place and turned a blind eye and infact assisted...I could go on and on..and what is the worst . is that they hid documents..and insisted that people were present in a court giving their consent when those people were NOT present..and did NOT have Knowledge of the event..even the Supreme court said..."we lie all the time so what?"

I don't want to "understand the rest" I want no part of them...you would think they would have a sense of right and wrong..they don't..and I don't need associates like that nor friends like that...I would rather spend my time alone than share time with diviates..Have I made my self clear?

The big mistake made was when my brother was taken aside and in a quiet private meeting with a judge she asked "How much do you want to go a way?" The greedy brother should have taken the offer but the jerk wanted millions..at my expense. I was costing them so much in defence that they wanted out and my stupid brother did not understand the game - he was looking for justice - the fool!

[guyser]

Actually I am now convinced I do. Not one of your posts has ever been supportive of the police on any issue, in any of these threads.

Quit stepping in it Wilber.

All these threads have been about Police abuse, or Charter Violations. So yes, I do not support the police when they do that.

I suppose, although you would not know, when I am doing volunteering work alongside the police (triathlons) or hanging out with a Staff Sargeant from the TPS, or the Sargeant from the RCMP , I am heaping abuse of them?

Uh no I am not. They know me quite well, and we get in discussions about rights all the time.For the most part they agree with me. Sometimes not. But they know if push came to shove, I would help them in a minute.

It is never the policeman I have an issue with. It is the using of the Badge to commit injustice.

I'm still waiting for a learned answer as to why the Charter doesn't apply to CBSA when it comes to searching Canadian citizens on Canadian soil. No one seems to want to touch it.

I looked and could not find how that works. I looked on the CBSA website, and I googled law and the CBSA. I did not find what I needed.

But hey, it is where you and I find common ground. We both believe searches should be done, with or without permission. Detainment without charges is cool in this scenario also.

The only thing I can think of is some amendment declaring CBSA immune from prosecution at established ports of entry.

IOW, if I am now in Canada having crossed from the States thru a recognized border crossing, then I would have no worries telling the CBSA to pound sand. I would roll the window up and drive off.

There is a video on youtube where an Immigration checkpoint was set up inside the US , not at the border, and the driver schooled the ICE guard in the law. She wanted to know his citizenship, his answer was "am I free to go?" , she could not answer NO, she just asked again, he said "am I free to go?", she could not answer, and it kept up. Guess what? He drove off since that is a violation of his rights. Now had he been at a border crossing, he would have had to answer the questions.

Get it?

The law is the law. Either uphold it or face the consequences. It really isnt hard to understand.

[Oleg Bach]

Quit stepping in it Wilber.

All these threads have been about Police abuse, or Charter Violations. So yes, I do not support the police when they do that.

I suppose, although you would not know, when I am doing volunteering work alongside the police (triathlons) or hanging out with a Staff Sargeant from the TPS, or the Sargeant from the RCMP , I am heaping abuse of them?

Uh no I am not. They know me quite well, and we get in discussions about rights all the time.For the most part they agree with me. Sometimes not. But they know if push came to shove, I would help them in a minute.

It is never the policeman I have an issue with. It is the using of the Badge to commit injustice.

I looked and could not find how that works. I looked on the CBSA website, and I googled law and the CBSA. I did not find what I needed.

But hey, it is where you and I find common ground. We both believe searches should be done, with or without permission. Detainment without charges is cool in this scenario also.

The only thing I can think of is some amendment declaring CBSA immune from prosecution at established ports of entry.

IOW, if I am now in Canada having crossed from the States thru a recognized border crossing, then I would have no worries telling the CBSA to pound sand. I would roll the window up and drive off.

There is a video on youtube where an Immigration checkpoint was set up inside the US , not at the border, and the driver schooled the ICE guard in the law. She wanted to know his citizenship, his answer was "am I free to go?" , she could not answer NO, she just asked again, he said "am I free to go?", she could not answer, and it kept up. Guess what? He drove off since that is a violation of his rights. Now had he been at a border crossing, he would have had to answer the questions.

Get it?

The law is the law. Either uphold it or face the consequences. It really isnt hard to understand.

Law is only to be upheld if it is good law and if it makes life better for people and not worse - If it is bad law it is to be ignored. Those that insist that law is law and to be upheld at any cost are tyrants when the law is evil.

[Wilber]

The law is the law. Either uphold it or face the consequences. It really isnt hard to understand.

It's not the police who face the consequences, it's society, get it.

[FTA Lawyer]

It's not the police who face the consequences, it's society, get it.

Just a minute...I have to pick myself up off the ground...

You've finally nailed it Wilber!

Look, you are taking the pro-police side of this debate, and I'm lining up on the civil liberty side...that's fine. But what you perhaps are missing (based on your critical comments aimed at guyser) is that we are all advocating the same ideal in the end.

Police breaking the law in trying to enforce the law is bad for society. The potential for abuse is so bad that some decisions like Feeney have to be made in the greater public interest. Because no matter what the outcome society as a whole will suffer the consequences.

If Feeney was decided the other way (as a results-oriented judgment becuase of the apparent bad guy that was caught) that would have been the SCC saying to all police in the country...even if you know you are breaking the law, and you have no subjective belief that you have authority to pull your gun and enter someone's home, go ahead, just make sure that you find evidence of a crime after you get in there and we will excuse your blatantly illegal conduct.

I'm sorry, but that decision would have been disastrous for the safety and security of citizens of Canada. The motivation for good police officers to become corrupt (carrying drugs or guns to "drop", busting into the house of the guy who stole his girlfriend etc) would be massive.

Speaking from experience, when police officers realize that the best way to give a "scumbag" a free pass is to ignore the law when dealing with him, they suddenly want to become better at their job...who would've guessed!?!?

Why interfere with a suspect's right to counsel or go into his house before you get a warrant when you can not do those illegal things, take a little more time to do your work, and then nail the guy...lawfully.

Your strong attacks against the judiciary and defence lawyers for putting criminals on the street instead of in jail by acting with no common sense only really ring true if you start from the proposition that police need to break the law in order to enforce it. The fact is they don't.

FTA

P.S. The CBSA thing is premised on a lowered expectation of privacy when you cross a border...no matter what your citizenship...because sovereign states have heightened interests to protect against the importation of all things bad (including undesirable people themselves) which largely trump individual liberties.

I could find some case law on it, but it may take me a while.

[Keepitsimple]

Just a minute...I have to pick myself up off the ground...

You've finally nailed it Wilber!

Look, you are taking the pro-police side of this debate, and I'm lining up on the civil liberty side...that's fine. But what you perhaps are missing (based on your critical comments aimed at guyser) is that we are all advocating the same ideal in the end.

Police breaking the law in trying to enforce the law is bad for society. The potential for abuse is so bad that some decisions like Feeney have to be made in the greater public interest. Because no matter what the outcome society as a whole will suffer the consequences.

If Feeney was decided the other way (as a results-oriented judgment becuase of the apparent bad guy that was caught) that would have been the SCC saying to all police in the country...even if you know you are breaking the law, and you have no subjective belief that you have authority to pull your gun and enter someone's home, go ahead, just make sure that you find evidence of a crime after you get in there and we will excuse your blatantly illegal conduct.

I'm sorry, but that decision would have been disastrous for the safety and security of citizens of Canada. The motivation for good police officers to become corrupt (carrying drugs or guns to "drop", busting into the house of the guy who stole his girlfriend etc) would be massive.

Speaking from experience, when police officers realize that the best way to give a "scumbag" a free pass is to ignore the law when dealing with him, they suddenly want to become better at their job...who would've guessed!?!?

Why interfere with a suspect's right to counsel or go into his house before you get a warrant when you can not do those illegal things, take a little more time to do your work, and then nail the guy...lawfully.

Your strong attacks against the judiciary and defence lawyers for putting criminals on the street instead of in jail by acting with no common sense only really ring true if you start from the proposition that police need to break the law in order to enforce it. The fact is they don't.

FTA

P.S. The CBSA thing is premised on a lowered expectation of privacy when you cross a border...no matter what your citizenship...because sovereign states have heightened interests to protect against the importation of all things bad (including undesirable people themselves) which largely trump individual liberties.

I could find some case law on it, but it may take me a while.

FTA....again, you are technically correct - actually, just plain correct - and your societal argument is a good one. It would have been so simple for the police - who were likely small town guys - to get a warrant and take it from there. But they didn't. I have no problem with the Supreme Court finding that they did not do things properly - and perhaps there should be consequences - like a suspension. But the facts were that they conducted their illegal search with reasonable cause - tips from locals identified the driver of the crashed and stolen vehicle. They didn't just smash down the door of any house that happened to be nearby. The conviction should not have been overturned. The small-town cops acted on reasonable suspicion - not some random search. The BC supreme court found that to be so twice - on the original conviction and on appeal. It was only the Supreme Court of Canada who interpreted it this way. There has to be a greater use of common sense - as was demonstrated by the BC court. Having said that, there should be consequences for Police who start to blur the line - like suspensions without pay......but I'd rather the line be slightly blurred once in a while if it results in the protection of society....after all, this was a murder, not a break-in.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[Argus]

Actually it is fundamental to your position. You are asking us to excuse the police for breaking hundreds of years old law that says they can't go into someone's home without a warrant (

Gee, you make it sound so clear-cut, one wonders how it is the judge in the case wasn't aware of this, nor the appeals court. What kind of idiots do we have on the bench when they don't understand such blindingly obvious legal precedents?

Actually, though as I said I can't remember the exact circumstances of the case, I believe that one of the ways the SC changed the law in this case was in re-defining a trailer behind a friend's home - as his "dwelling house", because he was sleeping in it at the time.

And people like you advocating the "so what if the cops don't follow the law or respect citizen's rights" approach are therefore able to be proud of "accomplishing" gross injustices like the 25 or so Canadian cases you can read about on the site of the Assoc. In Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted.

Yet you clearly have no problem with gross injustice when it falls on the other side of the fence. If the police officer did break the law then that police officer should be disciplined. I see no reason why we should set a murderer free because of an unintentioned technical violation of someone's imaginery rights. That sort of thing should be reserved for gross violations of people's rights, such as beatings.

[Argus]

Another example of a judge who doesn't take violence seriously, and a system which grossly fails the citizens of this country.

A man strangles a woman to death and gets 1 year in jail.

Family Devastated by Sentence in Killing

Edited May 16, 2008 by Argus

[sharkman]

Look, you are taking the pro-police side of this debate, and I'm lining up on the civil liberty side...that's fine. But what you perhaps are missing (based on your critical comments aimed at guyser) is that we are all advocating the same ideal in the end.

snip...

Police breaking the law in trying to enforce the law is bad for society. The potential for abuse is so bad that some decisions like Feeney have to be made in the greater public interest. Because no matter what the outcome society as a whole will suffer the consequences.

snip...

Your strong attacks against the judiciary and defence lawyers for putting criminals on the street instead of in jail by acting with no common sense only really ring true if you start from the proposition that police need to break the law in order to enforce it. The fact is they don't.

The case I cited earlier about the drug dealer whom the police were given a "unlawful search" for asking the guy to open his hand, and "no basis to re-arrest" him when they recognized him entering his car later are examples that illustrate laws that protect criminal activity at best and are damning Canadians to live with criminals who should be in prison.

The police in this case WITNESSED the drug dealer Larry, selling the drugs. A law that obstructs them from going up to said drug dealer and REQUESTING that he open his hand (he could have said no!!) is wrong. If we have such a law then I should become a drug dealer too, I will make far more than in my present line of work, and get assisted by such laws as I learn the tricks of the trade. This is a grave injustice that is harming innocents.

[Keepitsimple]

Another example of a judge who doesn't take violence seriously, and a system which grossly fails the citizens of this country.

A man strangles a woman to death and gets 1 year in jail.

Family Devastated by Sentence in Killing

You beat me to the punch. When will these judges learn? It's so maddening. Here's another account of the same story:

ST. CATHARINES, Ont. — The day after admitting he killed a woman and dumped her body on a rural road, a St. Catharines, Ont., man was released from jail.

Judge Stephen Glithero sentenced Wayne Ryczak, 55, to one day in jail on Thursday for the death of 29-year-old Stephine Beck.

The one-day sentence is in addition to time Ryczak already served since his March 5, 2007, arrest — time the judge said was equivalent to 30 months.

“Devastated, we’re devastated,” Beck’s mother, Alice Dort, said from her home in Nova Scotia shortly after a police detective broke the news by phone. “This is just so unbelievable.” “There’s no justice. None whatsoever. I’m just so disgusted.”

The Crown asked for seven to 10 years in jail.

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/News/2008/05/16/pf-5586326.html