FTA Lawyer Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 I'm not sure what "PC" is. However, I can be sure that given the surfeit of vehicles on the road, the cops wouldn't search any vehicile for no reason at all. Given that most people are conservative with their time, I'm sure a cop wouldn't seach under a seat, or a glove compartment, unless there was some d@mn good reason to. I'd trust a police officer's worldly experience any day in determining who to search.Let's put it this way. If they subject an uptstanding pillar of the community to search, would that person mind it? Hardly. It would make them feel safer. You have way too much blind faith in the good faith of the police. The very case that started this thread is a cop pretending to search for alcohol in places where it is physically impossible for alcohol to have been. To me, that's searching for no damn good reason. Apparently, you have never been searched by police in the street. Face down on the pavement with cuffs on is pretty normal. The hypothetical "upstanding pillar of the community" will have no problem with that, even if done arbitrarily and without reasonable grounds? Come on jbg...you can't be serious. Since when have Americans become so limp against tyrannical behaviour? I have a uniform and a gun on so I can detain and search you without any cause and you're okay with that? In the name of letting cops charge people if they luck out and find something illegal? Wow. And Americans mock Canadians for being too polite! FTA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 You have way too much blind faith in the good faith of the police. The very case that started this thread is a cop pretending to search for alcohol in places where it is physically impossible for alcohol to have been.To me, that's searching for no damn good reason. Why would police want to search people without any cause?Apparently, you have never been searched by police in the street. Face down on the pavement with cuffs on is pretty normal. The hypothetical "upstanding pillar of the community" will have no problem with that, even if done arbitrarily and without reasonable grounds? Come on jbg...you can't be serious.No. And it's no wonder. In general, when out and about, I present an orderly composure, have business to be going about, and don't present a reason to be searched. The closest I came was when I was jogging in New Orleans, where the police are in fact notoriously brutal and arbitrary. Even there, since I am/was not known in the community, I probably should have had ID with me. The worst that happened was he wanted to know where I was staying, since I was a white jogging in a black area.Since when have Americans become so limp against tyrannical behaviour? I have a uniform and a gun on so I can detain and search you without any cause and you're okay with that? In the name of letting cops charge people if they luck out and find something illegal?Since 911 we have a wartime mentality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 The "look farther" part is where you don't seem to get it. What is the cop looking farther for? He has no lawful authority to do a complete search of the car! Thousands of cases all say the same thing...without a warrant, the cop CAN'T SEARCH BEYOND WHAT HE SEES IN PLAIN SIGHT...to do so is an illegal search. Look farther as in for more booze maybe. You still haven't answered the question, if he had reason to believe there were more illegal items in the vehicle whether he would have to get a warrant for each one? Why a body or a bomb could pass "the test is a balance of whether exclusion or admissibility would bring the greater disrepute to justice" but a couple of kilos of cocaine doesn't. In my opinion the whole damn concept brings great disrepute to justice. We didn't even have a Charter of Rights untill 1982 and I don't recall seeing or hearing tales of rampant police brutality before then. Before the Charter a cop went to work with a 38 Special and a night stick. Now he goes to work with a 9mm semi automatic, CS spray, possibly a tazer, a baton on his person plus a shot gun and assault rifle in is car. You don't really think it is totaly coincidence do you? Hell, in Britain which doesn't have a Charter like ours, the cops don't even carry firearms except for special circumstances. How uncivilized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideshow Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 (edited) s Edited March 18, 2008 by sideshow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideshow Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 (edited) s Edited March 18, 2008 by sideshow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideshow Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 (edited) s Edited March 18, 2008 by sideshow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 It was simply a PR project so someone could get immortalized. what a waste of time. Interestingly enough the same someone ever to suspend the rights of Canadians by being the only Prime Minister to invoke the War Measures Act in peacetime. So much for the respect of rights. Feeling a bit guilty maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MontyBurns Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 This is the Liberals deferring to criminals rights crap :angry:. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 The problem is that the charter of rights and freedoms is mostly a charter for dirtbags. It gets them off the hook on legal "technicalities" and provides an unlimited supply of clients for dirtbag lawyers that defend them....on the states dime. The state isnt searching the homes and vehicles of joe blow citizen going to work and such.I dont use drugs, dont do anything illegal. If the state had a reason to search my home i have no problem with it. Because i am not a dirtbag and have nothing to hide. Obviously the same cant be said of others on this site. Well thank you for showing us you have no idea of the concept of rights. Oh and the inference that only those who defend their rights are dirtbags. But rest assured , your rights should be upheld when they are violated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 These kind of liberal pansy attitudes is what make criminals walk. Even after you get all your ducks in a row and have followed all the procedures, lawyers trade charges to get a minor conviction. Thats not in the rights, so again, thanks for showing you dont understand. Perhaps cops should just be doing the least that they have to (ie. respond to calls. you see a car that is OBVIOUSLY up to no good, gang bangers inside, known drug users, etc. dont use any sort of judgement. thank them for being who they are, and send them on their way. why waste time on a warrant when some dirtbag lawyer is just going to use every hole he can, in hindsight to question it, I was not aware that a car could , oops, OBVIOUSLY be up to no good. Damn car. Was it Herbie the Love Bug? Oh, you knew the people inside were gangbangers. Kreskin is that you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideshow Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 (edited) s Edited March 18, 2008 by sideshow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideshow Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 (edited) s Edited March 18, 2008 by sideshow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideshow Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 (edited) s Edited March 18, 2008 by sideshow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 I dont use drugs, dont do anything illegal. If the state had a reason to search my home i have no problem with it. Because i am not a dirtbag and have nothing to hide. Obviously the same cant be said of others on this site.I generally agree with you, but you'd have to ask Richard Mihous Nixon if that's always true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Getting a skinner off on a charter violation....how do these d lawyers sleep at night? Probably sleep pretty good knowing they are upholding the law. Funny me, I usually think if the police did their job without violating ones rights, then there wouldnt be any "skinners off on a charter violation". but at least these kiddie diddlers, dealers, and sickos didnt have their rights violated by the big bad police. wouldnt want that. Quite right. We dont want their rights violated , that way we can jail them a long time. See how easy that is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Funny me, I usually think if the police did their job without violating ones rights, then there wouldnt be any "skinners off on a charter violation". It's the police's job to protect the public by keeping dangerous people and objects off the street or at least make it difficult as possible for them to carry out their criminal activities in spite of the obstacles put in their way. They do their job. Its the courts which decide to disallow evidence on grounds that have nothing to with whether there was a criminal act and indeed, ignore the fact a crime has been committed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 It's the police's job to protect the public by keeping dangerous people and objects off the street or at least make it difficult as possible for them to carry out their criminal activities in spite of the obstacles put in their way. They do their job. Its the courts which decide to disallow evidence on grounds that have nothing to with whether there was a criminal act and indeed, ignore the fact a crime has been committed. Not quite Wilber. The court determines if a violation of rights has occurred. Anything gleened after the violation is called :fruit of the poison tree" (or something like that) The police know your rights, and they can at times violate them. When that happens, charges get thrown. Thus everyone should be aware of thier rights. We could reduce crime a ton if we allowed cops to walk into any house,car, business at any time of the day or night. No permission granted nor needed. No one wants that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideshow Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 (edited) s Edited March 18, 2008 by sideshow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideshow Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 (edited) s Edited March 18, 2008 by sideshow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 exactly. some pervert, crack head or whatever can commit the crime, and the big "news" story will be the police officers mistake in doing the arrest. the police are the bad guy and the criminal gets off. what a crock. with a million rules and regs and laws, etc. how can the police be expected to know them all? these loopholes are nothing more the fodder for lawyers to make money keeping crooks on the streets. Oh I see, the police shouldnt know the law and the rights of individuals . Wonderful ! Utopic! Let me guess , you will stand up in court and tell the judge you didnt know you could not just walk into your neighbours house and take...oops I mean borrow his TV set. "They were away on holiday your honour, and they werent using it" Judge : " Well in that case and since you didnt know, case dismissed" Ignorance is not an excuse in the court of law. Funny how that applies to Cops too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 (edited) We could reduce crime a ton if we allowed cops to walk into any house,car, business at any time of the day or night. No permission granted nor needed. No one wants that. No one does want that but the police are also put in a position at times where they have to take a chance on evidence being tossed in order to prevent criminal activity. If that is the choice, I say go for it. Let the courts ignore criminal activity because I sure as hell don't want the police doing it. If the court wants to throw out a charge because a cop seized an illegal handgun without crossing all the T's, that's their doing but that gun cannot now be used in a crime. The cop has done his job as far as I am concerned, he put the safety of the public first. The court, well that's another matter. You don't really believe the police are going to waste their time arbitrarily harassing innocent people do you? A. They have no reason to. It may come as a surprise to you but they actually like honest people. B. They don't have the time because they could easily work 24 hours a day harassing real creeps and have lots left over. Our Charter has made sure of that. Edited March 5, 2008 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideshow Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 (edited) s Edited March 18, 2008 by sideshow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideshow Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 (edited) s Edited March 18, 2008 by sideshow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 lol...well when a criminal breaks into your home or rapes a family member of yours, hopefully his defence lawyer does a bang up job defending his rights. that way you can sleep at night knowing his rights werent violated by those terrible police. I am positive , with your reply, that you do not understand basic rights. You could always go learn them, why we have them, and why we need to protect everyones rights, but then again, it must be so much more fun to spout ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTA Lawyer Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 Actually many do want that. Because they know that the Police are not coming into their homes and businesses.....they are going in the homes and businesses of those that are actually doing the crimes. If you got nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. This isnt 1930s germany. This isn't 1930's Germany because we have democracy, common law and a constitution, and defence lawyers who argue unpopular positions to ensure that you don't have to attempt such arguments from the inside of a jail cell. You don't really want to turn this into a www search for every dirty cop story we can find do you? Most police officers are good people...most of them care when they breach someone's rights and then try to learn from their mistakes...for those that are corrupt and don't care and are as bad as many criminals they purport to be saving us from, we have defence lawyers. Every time I stop a police officer from breaking the law I'm a dirt-bag. Every time a police officer breaks the law, he or she is a victim of a bad justice system...go figure. FTA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.