M.Dancer Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 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. You forgot to mention whether the dog begged to be allowed go sniff. Until you can, this factoid just rolls over and plays dead. Noiw since we know the police are asking permission, I fail to understand why your are dogging this. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
punked Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 You forgot to mention whether the dog begged to be allowed go sniff. Until you can, this factoid just rolls over and plays dead. Noiw since we know the police are asking permission, I fail to understand why your are dogging this. You don't get to change your arguement now. Your arguement was police should ask and punish all those who refuse search. Remember? Quote
M.Dancer Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 You don't get to change your arguement now. Your arguement was police should ask and punish all those who refuse search. Remember? May I ask, what colour is the sky when you look at it. And while you are opening the fridge to see the sky, ask the toaster to show where I said those who refuse should be punished. Run along now... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
punked Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 If one does though, good for him, he has my entire the support. And so do the police who will use the extent of their rights to inspect the crap out of the moron. NO ONE SHOULD BE TARGETED FOR EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS! Quote
M.Dancer Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 If one does though, good for him, he has my entire the support. And so do the police who will use the extent of their rights to inspect the crap out of the moron. You don't get to change your arguement now. Your arguement was police should ask and punish all those who refuse search. Remember? NO ONE SHOULD BE TARGETED FOR EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS! I certainly wish at some point one of your left field claims comes true. Have you given up trying to find where I said they should be punished? Or are you seriously trying to pull a fast (in your case a very slow) one? Care to explain what targetted means...? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Guest TrueMetis Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) NO ONE SHOULD BE TARGETED FOR EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS! The person's who was kidnapped right to freedom trumps peoples right not to have there house searched for a little while. Edited November 14, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote
punked Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 The person who was kidnapped right to freedom trumps peoples right not to have there house searched for a little while. No it doesn't. Unless a court rules that under section 1 and gives those rights to the police or the war measure act suspense peoples right it just doesn't. Your feelings do not come into play here, the law is the law like it or not. Quote
Guest TrueMetis Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 No it doesn't. Unless a court rules that under section 1 and gives those rights to the police or the war measure act suspense peoples right it just doesn't. Your feelings do not come into play here, the law is the law like it or not. So to hell with the person that was kidnapped as long as your not bothered at home? It's not like it takes long to let the cops check out your house they're looking for a person, not your hidden stash. How many places could you hide a person in your house? I could hide 0 in mine. Quote
M.Dancer Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 No it doesn't. Unless a court rules that under section 1 and gives those rights to the police or the war measure act suspense peoples right it I wasn't quite sure if you knew what you were talking about. I no longer have any doubts. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
punked Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 So to hell with the person that was kidnapped as long as your not bothered at home? It's not like it takes long to let the cops check out your house they're looking for a person, not your hidden stash. How many places could you hide a person in your house? I could hide 0 in mine. It doesn't matter how you feel. Section 8 of the charter says unless I am suspected of something and there is some sort of evidence the cops can't search my house. Section 1 says that sometimes these rights can be suspended, I suspect that no court would say searching 6000 homes in hopes of something maybe possibly coming up is a reasonable suspension of those rights. See if I or any court thought something like this might actually work that might be a different story but there is nothing that shows otherwise. Quote
punked Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) I wasn't quite sure if you knew what you were talking about. I no longer have any doubts. You are right all laws under the Emergencies Act are subject to the Charter Great to hear. Edited November 14, 2009 by punked Quote
M.Dancer Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 SO you think the war measures act or the Emergencies Act whatever you want to call it now Good save...you could be in those rogers commercials..you could be te person yelling Uruguay! Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
punked Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) Good save...you could be in those rogers commercials..you could be te person yelling Uruguay! No idea what you are saying right now. Regardless I am lade to hear the Charter stays even in Emergencies any suspension of Rights in Canada is wrong. What do you know it was a Conservative government who made it that, I guess Brain did something right after all. Edited November 14, 2009 by punked Quote
charter.rights Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 The person's who was kidnapped right to freedom trumps peoples right not to have there house searched for a little while. No..it doesn't. The police may not search a home without either the permission of the owner / occupant or a search warrant. That isn't too hard to understand, now is it? No one need co-operate with police if they ask to search your home. Let them try to justify a search warrant simply because you refused them entry.....no judge would allow it on such simple suspicions. And if they use the harassment they say they would, then I would be the first in line to sue them for lots of money! The police cannot break the law in the execution of their duties and no justification before the courts would permit it. Very likely if they did, the case would get thrown out of court. Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
punked Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 The police cannot break the law in the execution of their duties and no justification before the courts would permit it. Very likely if they did, the case would get thrown out of court. See this might be true it might not be true. Not enough Charter cases have been before the courts to prove it. Section 1 of the Charter says you only have those rights if they are "reasonable and justifiable". So suspending 6000 homes charter rights is not "reasonable" so your rights apply. However if the police actually had a reason to believe someone was in the home and were proven right even with out a warrant it might not be thrown out. This is my understanding. Random searches of 6000 homes though you can not suspend civil rights for fishing which is all that is. Quote
charter.rights Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 See this might be true it might not be true. Not enough Charter cases have been before the courts to prove it. Section 1 of the Charter says you only have those rights if they are "reasonable and justifiable". So suspending 6000 homes charter rights is not "reasonable" so your rights apply. However if the police actually had a reason to believe someone was in the home and were proven right even with out a warrant it might not be thrown out. This is my understanding. Random searches of 6000 homes though you can not suspend civil rights for fishing which is all that is. Only if the person they suspect that is in the house is in imminent danger, can they breech those rights. They cannot go on a fishing expedition - which is what this case is all about. However, when they do enter a house without warrant, they must seek the earliest opportunity to confirm their actions with a JP. Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
punked Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 Only if the person they suspect that is in the house is in imminent danger, can they breech those rights. They cannot go on a fishing expedition - which is what this case is all about. However, when they do enter a house without warrant, they must seek the earliest opportunity to confirm their actions with a JP. Glade there is someone around who understands the charter i was getting tired of talking to people about how "they feel" instead of the actual law. Quote
bjre Posted November 14, 2009 Author Report Posted November 14, 2009 The police cannot break the law in the execution of their duties and no justification before the courts would permit it. Very likely if they did, the case would get thrown out of court. "Laws are made to protect criminals, ... You know what, If you try to go and sue the government, whose funds are going to use in court? The tax payers. And what you are gonna to get money to fight them? You pocket? " --- from --- And think of the cops involved in Robert Dziekanski case, how about them? nothing even there is a life lost. Quote "The more laws, the less freedom" -- bjre "There are so many laws that nearly everybody breaks some, even when you just stay at home do nothing, the only question left is how thugs can use laws to attack you" -- bjre "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
charter.rights Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 "Laws are made to protect criminals, ... You know what, If you try to go and sue the government, whose funds are going to use in court? The tax payers. And what you are gonna to get money to fight them? You pocket? " --- from --- And think of the cops involved in Robert Dziekanski case, how about them? nothing even there is a life lost. That is a fallacy. Laws are made to protect the innocent. And the innocent (read accused) need protection from the lawlessness and tyranny of the police with personal agendas. In many cases the police form an opinion long before they gather the proper evidence and on many occasions they have gotten it completely wrong....resulting in the wrong people being convicted... As far as Robert Dzienkanski goes it isn't so much that a tragedy occurred as a result of their over zealousness but that they tried to cover it up with as fabrication, which set out to demonize and victimize the victim. I suspect that after the Inquiry there will be a hefty lawsuit to follow. It isn't reasonable to taser a guy 5 times (4 while he was convulsing on the floor)and then deny they did anything wrong. A little off topic but I heard that the CBSA Guards have drawn their weapons 54 times since August. That is all we need in society, a bunch of border cowboys killing someone because they ~looked~ suspicious.... Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
Smallc Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 Drawing your gun is not the same as shooting someone. They go through training and they have to pass examinations. I doubt they'll shoot me. Quote
charter.rights Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 Drawing your gun is not the same as shooting someone. They go through training and they have to pass examinations. I doubt they'll shoot me. It is only a matter of time. Many CBSA guards couldn't qualify as police officers...many of those because they couldn't pass the psychological examination... It is just a matter of time...and sometimes training gets ignored...and replaced with ego... Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
punked Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 It is only a matter of time. Many CBSA guards couldn't qualify as police officers...many of those because they couldn't pass the psychological examination... It is just a matter of time...and sometimes training gets ignored...and replaced with ego... You get less rights at the boarder too Quote
Smallc Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 It is only a matter of time. And to that I'll simply repeat, drawing your gun is not the same as shooting someone. Quote
Guest TrueMetis Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 It is only a matter of time. Many CBSA guards couldn't qualify as police officers...many of those because they couldn't pass the psychological examination... It is just a matter of time...and sometimes training gets ignored...and replaced with ego... It's only a matter of time before we find out a cop has been raping people, but what does that have to do with the other cops? Sure one of these guys might shoot someone and one army officer might go batshit crazy and shoot a bunch of people and cops may use excessive force and kill someone. These are the risks and we accept them because there so unlikely. (though 2 and 3 have happened but I don't think 1 has) Quote
charter.rights Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 And to that I'll simply repeat, drawing your gun is not the same as shooting someone. Typical response....."Lalalalalalala...I can't hear you..." Drawing your weapon is a precursor to shooting someone. And when it is a crazy person who is holding the gun then they can make all kinds of rationalizations for pulling the trigger. Who knows? Maybe they would even see a stapler pointed at them as being a dangerous weapon requiring greater force? Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
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.