A Canadian citizen is deemed guilty

[M.Dancer]

If you can't comprehend what I said, and clearly you can't, I'm afraid further explanations would be useless, so I won't waste my time.

Spend mopre time being comprehensible and less time being snitty. You post had two separate thoughts...I wanted to know which you were refering to as TRVTH.

in·va·sive (n-vsv)

adj.

Tending to intrude or encroach, as upon privacy.

Expecting people to let them in to "peek" around their house is most definitely 'intruding/encroaching upon one's privacy.'

Whether one agrees with the polices' actions or not, their actions are intrusive.

Nice that you can post a definition, better would be that you iunderstood it. Clearly the authors of the dictionary are wasting their time on you. By your ownn cnvoluted logic, anyone asking permission for anything from you is invasive

Edited November 13, 2009 by M.Dancer

[bjre]

anyone asking permission for anything from you is invasive

Not just asking permission for something, they will threat "under suspicion" or "look at more carefully" if they can not get the permission.

In Somalia, pirates ask for permission to take some money, they threat to take someone's life if they can not get the permission.

[Michael Hardner]

bjre,

In Somalia, pirates ask for permission to take some money, they threat to take someone's life if they can not get the permission.

I don't think that this is right, but perhaps after we kill everyone in the world the pirates will be dead.

[Oleg Bach]

[ Quote ] Although Nealon said Monday that people "certainly" have the right to refuse entry to the police, Sapiano told CBC News that those who deny police entry will come under suspicion.

The police service's methods mean "a Canadian citizen is deemed guilty until police are satisfied you are innocent," he said. "And a Canadian citizen who insists on exercising the rights of [a] Canadian citizen is immediately deemed a suspect."

Another criminal lawyer, James Morton, said the police force's request of residents didn't amount to "a tremendous intrusion" if there is some reason to believe Makhniashvili is alive.

"And certainly if you say no, that doesn't mean you're going to be subject to enormous police scrutiny," he told CBC News. "But it will mean that you'll be somebody the police will look at more carefully." [ /Quote ]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/11/10/mariam-search-police361.html

I had a bizzare incident take place about six months ago. It was five in the morning and my door bell goes off. The entry to the apartment is in the back alley off of Queen. The door is red with gold numbers and looks very fortified. It is a curiousity at first glance. I go down to the lower level and there are six law enforement types standing there. They claim they "triangulated" a cell phone message, concerning a woman in distress..I was very sleepy and went back in to scope my residence...anything is possible I assumed..perhaps something was going on.

As I walked up the stairway ...the cops without permission entered and began to search the apartment..that is a very elongated residence - They want to know who I am - They demand ID...I tell them "sorry but you are clearly in the wrong residence" - "NO we are not" replies the leader of the little gang. He is insistant..I quielty and politely tell him again.."You have made a mistake" - Finally I show them out...I swear they were simply curious about the place and myself who appears to be some sort of mystery man in the eyes of the novice law enforcer.

About 2o years ago I was quite preturbed with a medical practioner that was about to perform an abortion on my wife . I threatened him with legal action...within an hour I had two very large detectives who barged into my home - sat me in a chair and brow beat me for over an hour on the positive side of being pro-abortion - I finally had to agree with them to get them out of my home..It was a very stange experiece - I found out later that the particular doctor was friendly with police and acted as a pathogist for them on occassion - I guess he showed me who was boss....certainly I had no rights that day.

[Guest American Woman]

in·va·sive (n-vsv)

adj.

Tending to intrude or encroach, as upon privacy.

Expecting people to let them in to "peek" around their house is most definitely 'intruding/encroaching upon one's privacy.'

Whether one agrees with the polices' actions or not, their actions are intrusive.

Nice that you can post a definition, better would be that you iunderstood it. Clearly the authors of the dictionary are wasting their time on you. By your ownn cnvoluted logic, anyone asking permission for anything from you is invasive

I understand it fine, and if you were able to comprehend my post, then perhaps you wouldn't have made such a moronic response.

This time I emphasized the part in my quote that makes it "invasive." Hope that helps, although I doubt it will. Some people chose to remain ignorant, and then I chose not to waste any more of my time with them.

[Wilber]

Not just asking permission for something, they will threat "under suspicion" or "look at more carefully" if they can not get the permission.

In Somalia, pirates ask for permission to take some money, they threat to take someone's life if they can not get the permission.

So now the police are the same as Somali pirates? Why shouldn't the police look more carefully at a person who will not co-operate in a search? Seems to me that would be the logical thing to do. Just because you may have a right doesn't mean you should exercise it. For instance, if you get on your high horse and refuse, then they do get a warrant, they no longer have to ask you for anything. You no longer get a say in the matter.

Is your exercising a "right" just because you can, always more important that whatever else may be going on around you? Is it worth possibly jeopardizing someone else's life?

[Guest American Woman]

I'll ask you again, if it were your kid how would you feel about everyone in your neighbourhood exercising their "rights" on principle when it was making finding that kid more difficult?

Again, I never said whether or not I agree with the police's actions. Just pointing out the fact that it is against people's rights to be expected to be let inside their homes for a peek around, and to in effect coerce people into letting them into their homes by making threats that they will be under suspicion if they don't.

As to how I would feel if it were my child makes no difference in regards to my posts on this issue. Furthermore, going one step further, a parent in such a situation might feel that the police should torture/beat someone who they suspect during their "peeking into homes" in order to make them talk, but that doesn't make it "right" to do so. Or do you think people's rights mean nothing in that regard, too?

[M.Dancer]

I understand it fine, and if you were able to comprehend my post, then perhaps you wouldn't have made such a moronic response.

This time I emphasized the part in my quote that makes it "invasive." Hope that helps, although I doubt it will. Some people chose to remain ignorant, and then I chose not to waste any more of my time with them.

You are still lost. If I was to say, what that there?, You say, it's my diary and I ask, may I look at it?

Are you going to suggest that it is invasive to ask?

No of course not, If I said what's that? And you say "it's my diary and igrab it and read it, that's invasive.

Expecting people to allow the police entry is not invasive. It's a simple as that and if you can't see that. I will waste no more time with you...

(sticks nose high in the air and walks off in a pretentious fake huff...)

[M.Dancer]

Just pointing out the fact that it is against people's rights to be expected to be let inside their homes

I have to re-read the charter and find this little known clause, "The freedom from expectations"....

[Wilber]

Again, I never said whether or not I agree with the police's actions. Just pointing out the fact that it is against people's rights to be expected to be let inside their homes for a peek around, and to in effect coerce people into letting them into their homes by making threats that they will be under suspicion if they don't.

As to how I would feel if it were my child makes no difference in regards to my posts on this issue. Furthermore, going one step further, a parent in such a situation might feel that the police should torture/beat someone who they suspect during their "peeking into homes" in order to make them talk, but that doesn't make it "right" to do so. Or do you think people's rights mean nothing in that regard, too?

Who said rights mean nothing? When did the police asking to enter your home become a violation of your rights? Why shouldn't they suspect someone who goes out of their way to impede them? Torturing and beating someone is a crime where I live, under any circumstances, asking someone to enter their home is not. The police can neither charge nor convict, that is up to the court system. It is their job to investigate, not assume innocence. The opposite in fact. How many cases do you think they would solve if they assumed everyone was innocent?

[punked]

Who said rights mean nothing? When did the police asking to enter your home become a violation of your rights? Why shouldn't they suspect someone who goes out of their way to impede them? Torturing and beating someone is a crime where I live, under any circumstances, asking someone to enter their home is not. The police can neither charge nor convict, that is up to the court system. It is their job to investigate, not assume innocence. The opposite in fact. How many cases do you think they would solve if they assumed everyone was innocent?

When Deff created the Bill of Rights. That is when you got rights which DONT MAKE YOU TARGET of the police for exercising them. How many innocent people have been put in jail because the police refuse to consider someones innocents? This is why in cases police operate in evidence, testimony and not guess work. Deal with it people have rights and if you don't like it you can move to China.

[Wilber]

Yes, we all have rights. There are three mountains on the north shore of Vancouver. All of them have ski slopes, one of which will be used in the up coming Olympics. On a weekly basis volunteer rescue personnel risk their necks saving the asses of skiers who go out of bounds, hikers who ignore trail closed signs, don't go prepared for the conditions or are too stupid to check a weather forecast before they set out. All of them just exercising their rights.

Having the right to do something won't make you any less a fool for doing so, just don't involve others while making an ass of yourself. Very few people have gone to jail because police refuse to consider someones innocence but it has happened. Of course they occasionally have to use some guess work during investigations but guesses won't cut it in court. If the police have reason to suspect you of a crime, you should be a target, that is their job.

[punked]

Yes, we all have rights. There are three mountains on the north shore of Vancouver. All of them have ski slopes, one of which will be used in the up coming Olympics. On a weekly basis volunteer rescue personnel risk their necks saving the asses of skiers who go out of bounds, hikers who ignore trail closed signs, don't go prepared for the conditions or are too stupid to check a weather forecast before they set out. All of them just exercising their rights.

Having the right to do something won't make you any less a fool for doing so, just don't involve others while making an ass of yourself. Very few people have gone to jail because police refuse to consider someones innocence but it has happened. Of course they occasionally have to use some guess work during investigations but guesses won't cut it in court. If the police have reason to suspect you of a crime, you should be a target, that is their job.

And you shouldn't be a suspect of a crime for exercising your rights as a Canadian citizen. In fact protecting your rights is their job as well how you forget that.

[Wilber]

And you shouldn't be a suspect of a crime for exercising your rights as a Canadian citizen. In fact protecting your rights is their job as well how you forget that.

Depends what right you are exercising and when. The police have to respect your rights but respecting your rights has nothing to do with your guilt or innocence regarding a crime. Criminals have the same rights as law abiding citizens.

[punked]

Depends what right you are exercising and when. The police have to respect your rights but respecting your rights has nothing to do with your guilt or innocence regarding a crime. Criminals have the same rights as law abiding citizens.

I agree it should have nothing to do with guilt or innocence. That has been my point this whole thread. You have the right to not be searched with out a warrant under section 8 and the police should respect that and no suspect you because you exercise your right.

[M.Dancer]

I agree it should have nothing to do with guilt or innocence. That has been my point this whole thread. You have the right to not be searched with out a warrant under section 8 and the police should respect that and no suspect you because you exercise your right.

Shame that the police aren't asking to search cause your holy indignation is wasted and made irrelevant.

[punked]

Shame that the police aren't asking to search cause your holy indignation is wasted and made irrelevant.

You are right "peeping" is the term they are using isn't it? My bad I forgot if you change the word the situation changes. Next time someone is killed I hope they use the "terminated blood circulation" defense. Wow or system is so easy to beat change a few words and bam! You get away with it.

That was sarcasm btw.

[M.Dancer]

That was sarcasm btw.

There was no need to label it...cause your clever turns of phrase are sooo witty and deft no one would ever mistake your sarcasm for an idiotic statement.

A peak in is just that, a peak. When they start looking through your chest of knickers and your dvd collection, you may at long long last have found the point you have been so desparately searching for.

[punked]

There was no need to label it...cause your clever turns of phrase are sooo witty and deft no one would ever mistake your sarcasm for an idiotic statement.

A peak in is just that, a peak. When they start looking through your chest of knickers and your dvd collection, you may at long long last have found the point you have been so desparately searching for.

There isn't a line you cross you are either searched or you aren't. You might not agree with me but guess what the supreme court does. A year ago the supreme court called drug dogs sniffing bags in public places unlawful searches. The police didn't even take a "peak" in the bags it was the dogs hitting a scent in a public place and the charter protected those who were busted on it. So get off your high horse and come down to where freedom rules. You are either searched or you aren't a peak is a search. Of course if you give them permission then they can peak all they want. However if you don't it is a search.

[M.Dancer]

There isn't a line you cross you are either searched or you aren't.

Great, you must agree with me then, they ain't

You might not agree with me but guess what the supreme court does. A year ago the supreme court called drug dogs sniffing bags in public places unlawful searches.

At what point did the handlers ask permission for the dogs to sniff?

Thanks for that!

The police didn't even take a "peak" in the bags it was the dogs hitting a scent in a public place and the charter protected those who were busted on it. So get off your high horse and come down to where freedom rules. You are either searched or you aren't a peak is a search. Of course if you give them permission then they can peak all they want. However if you don't it is a search.

v

As Enetrtaining and informative as that factoid was it is still irrellevant.

Tell me....have you ever had your bags search ed at an airport without your permission?

[punked]

Great, you must agree with me then, they ain't

At what point did the handlers ask permission for the dogs to sniff?

Thanks for that!

v

As Enetrtaining and informative as that factoid was it is still irrellevant.

Tell me....have you ever had your bags search ed at an airport without your permission?

Airports operate under different laws do you really not know this? When you buy a ticket you are giving consent to a search if needed. Samething goes for when you into a club they may ask to frisk if you don't want to be frisked you don't have to go into that club. It isn't the same thing as the police "peeping" into your home. Under the charter they can't do that.

I personally like the police to respect the law as judged by the courts. I know you favor law breaking, but where would our country be if anarchist who have no respect for the law like you ran it really?

Edited November 14, 2009 by punked

[M.Dancer]

Airports operate under different laws do you really not know this?

I just wanted to see if you could recognise an irrelevancy if it wasn't your own.

[M.Dancer]

Under the charter they can't do that.

Could you cite speciffically the part in the Charter that forbids police asking permission to peak?

Thanks in advance

[punked]

Could you cite speciffically the part in the Charter that forbids police asking permission to peak?

Thanks in advance

I can cite the part of the Charter that forbids the police to peak if someone says "No thank you". That has been my arguement all along and that no should be punished for saying no thank and exercising their Charter rights. It is section 8 BTW.

[punked]

I just wanted to see if you could recognise an irrelevancy if it wasn't your own.

The dog searches showed that either something is a search or it isn't a search and you can read that in their ruling on it. There is no "lucky hits" if you want to find something on someone you have either get their permission to search or have just cause to search them.