A Canadian citizen is deemed guilty

[punked]

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)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/11/13/mb-rcmp-court-gray-suing-torture-winnipeg.html

RCMP charged with torture. Innocent though until proven guilty.

[Guest American Woman]

Who said rights mean nothing? When did the police asking to enter your home become a violation of your rights?

Please don't tell me you're going to play that game, too. You know very well it's not about "police asking to enter your home," it's the expectation to be let in to look around without a warrant, and the coercion to be let in by their threat that people will be under suspicion if they don't let them look around their house-- without a search warrant.

If you don't see that as a violation of rights, then you don't understand your rights very well.

Why shouldn't they suspect someone who goes out of their way to impede them?

That's not the issue. The issue is that people shouldn't be put in that position in the first place. People either have to be ok with their rights being violated or they have to endure being under suspicion. And you see no violation of rights in that scenario?-- as you say "who said rights don't mean anything?"

Torturing and beating someone is a crime where I live, under any circumstances, asking someone to enter their home is not.

That's not answering my question, is it? I asked you "how you would feel if you were the parent." That's what you asked me, after all. So I'll ask you to answer it again. How would you feel? What is your answer?

But I'll point out again that asking and expecting are two very different things; and making sure that the asking becomes an 'invitation' (and I use the word loosely) by the use of threats is very much a violation of one's rights, and where I live, violating one's rights is against the law.

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?

Don't know what this has to do with anything that I've said or the issue being discussed. The police can assume everyone in the world is guilty, but without a search warrant, they can't enter anyone's house to look around. Bypassing that requirement by in effect coercing innocent people to let them in so they aren't under suspicion is quite another matter.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

First of all, there's no evidence that she was kidnapped. There is no evidence of foul play at this time. The girl could have left of her own free will as seventeen, almost eighteen year olds, have been known to do. So every time a teen runs away, perhaps the police should "peek around" everyone's home.

As for hiding a person ... I assume you have a bed where someone could be hidden under. I assume you have at least one closet. That requires the police to do more than "peek around the house." It requires them to open doors and look under things.

This isn't a seven year old who doesn't know how to take care of herself, so if a now 18 year old was being held against her will, I doubt if she would be calmly sitting on the couch watching tv when the police knocked on the door. If the police aren't going to actually do more than "peek around," it's a total waste of time, money, and resources.

[charter.rights]

Ah...but the problem is the police are not just looking for girl when they enter the house. They are looking for "evidence" of here disappearance, which means that they will go through your drawers, your personal papers even seize and smell your underwear if they want. They are there to try to make you nervous and be damned with your rights to unreasonable search and seizure.

[M.Dancer]

which means that they will go through your drawers, your personal papers even seize and smell your underwear if they want. They are there to try to make you nervous and be damned with your rights to unreasonable search and seizure.

If that is the case then they have....any citation to back up your kreskin like prediction?

[M.Dancer]

Please don't tell me you're going to play that game, too. You know very well it's not about "police asking to enter your home," it's the expectation to be let in to look around without a warrant, and the coercion to be let in by their threat that people will be under suspicion if they don't let them look around their house-- without a search warrant.

If you don't see that as a violation of rights, then you don't understand your rights very well.

I don't know my rights very well. Could you please show me the charter protection against expectation? Thanks....

Can I also assume that I don't have to worry about the Police expecting me not to run a red or rob a bank?

Thanks again,

[M.Dancer]

Scene: Toronto Suburban Residential Street.

Characheters: Constable Don Valley, Constable Erin Mills, Mrs B. Lond

Opening Scene, Cns Don and Erin knock on Mrs B's door, Mrs B answers...

Mrs B: (Startled to see two police constables opens door ever so slightly) Yes?

Cns Erin Mills: (cheerfully) Hello there my partner and I are canvassing the street to see if we can get any information about the vandalism that occured at your neighbours house, Mr Aggrieved. I was...

Mrs B: (interupppting) I am sorry I can 't help you (begins to close door)

Cns Don: Won't take long Mrs (looks at clip board) Mrs Lond....we're you home monday night?

Mrs B: I'm sorry I can't answer any questions as any questions asked of me without the presence of my attorney violates my rights, furthermore, any suspicions raised by my insistance to safe gaurd my rights shall be deemed a violation of my right not to talk to police unless in the presence of my attorney. (slams door)

[punked]

Scene: Toronto Suburban Residential Street.

Characheters: Constable Don Valley, Constable Erin Mills, Mrs B. Lond

Opening Scene, Cns Don and Erin knock on Mrs B's door, Mrs B answers...

Mrs B: (Startled to see two police constables opens door ever so slightly) Yes?

Cns Erin Mills: (cheerfully) Hello there my partner and I are canvassing the street to see if we can get any information about the vandalism that occured at your neighbours house, Mr Aggrieved. I was...

Mrs B: (interupppting) I am sorry I can 't help you (begins to close door)

Cns Don: Won't take long Mrs (looks at clip board) Mrs Lond....we're you home monday night?

Mrs B: I'm sorry I can't answer any questions as any questions asked of me without the presence of my attorney violates my rights, furthermore, any suspicions raised by my insistance to safe gaurd my rights shall be deemed a violation of my right not to talk to police unless in the presence of my attorney. (slams door)

And where I live that is how all question goes becuase the police have abused the rights of people past and they brought up that way. Guess what? It is their right to say "I don't know nothing" even before the police ask. The police have spent years in sections of my town trying to win back trust and they are doing a good job, but that is just the thing once you lose someones trust you have too earn it back.

[M.Dancer]

Guess what? It is their right to say "I don't know nothing" even before the police ask.

Wow! With this and last night's discussion on the war measures act I'm thinking you should be a civil rights lawyer....

[M.Dancer]

ACT II

Cns Erin: Mrs Lond, It would be really helpful because there was a lot of damage done to your neighbour's house...

Mrs. B. Lond: ( yells through closed door) I DON'T KNOW NOTHING.

Silence

(Constables Don and Eric walk towards Mr Aggrieved's house)

Cns Don: She knows something

Cns Erin: How do you know?

Cns Don: She said so.

Cns Erin: Of course, she said she did not know nothing...

Cns Don: Therefore...

Cns Erin: She must know something...

Cns Don: Criminals can't help leaving as the poker players say, (uses fingers to make quote s)"a tell". In this case it's...

Cns Erin: The ol double negative...

(Cns Erin knocks on Mr A's door)

Mr A answers.

Cns Don: Oh hi there again, could I ask you some questions about how you get along with your neighbours?

[punked]

Wow! With this and last night's discussion on the war measures act I'm thinking you should be a civil rights lawyer....

Yah learn something new everyday eh? Like when you learned about Section 8 of the charter and that you are either searched or your aren't there are no gray areas.

[eyeball]

So what will police do in the event they find bongs, unregistered guns, illegal immigrants or any number of other things when they inspect 6000 homes?

In terms of pot use alone 14% or so Canadians are regular users so this could potentially yield over 800 suspects out of 6000.

I guess its reasonable to conclude the people in the Toronto area that have been deemed guilty until proven otherwise will hide their bongs, guns, immigrants, kidnap victims, etc long before that fateful insistent knock comes at the door.

Edited November 14, 2009 by eyeball

[Wilber]

Please don't tell me you're going to play that game, too. You know very well it's not about "police asking to enter your home," it's the expectation to be let in to look around without a warrant, and the coercion to be let in by their threat that people will be under suspicion if they don't let them look around their house-- without a search warrant.

If you don't see that as a violation of rights, then you don't understand your rights very well.

No one here thinks the police have or should have the right to enter someones home without a warrant. There are legitimate reasons not to give them permission, standing on your rights is one of them. However, they they do have the right to expect citizens to help them in an investigation and wonder why if they won't.

That's not the issue. The issue is that people shouldn't be put in that position in the first place. People either have to be ok with their rights being violated or they have to endure being under suspicion. And you see no violation of rights in that scenario?-- as you say "who said rights don't mean anything?"

There is no reason to expect that others should bear the consequences of you exercising your rights while you should bear none.

That's not answering my question, is it? I asked you "how you would feel if you were the parent." That's what you asked me, after all. So I'll ask you to answer it again. How would you feel? What is your answer?

I would expect my neighbours to do whatever they could to assist with the search and if I was a neighbour of a parent who's child was missing and it meant letting the police eliminate me as a possibility as soon as possible, I would be happy to let them in and then go on their way.

But I'll point out again that asking and expecting are two very different things; and making sure that the asking becomes an 'invitation' (and I use the word loosely) by the use of threats is very much a violation of one's rights, and where I live, violating one's rights is against the law.

I think it is the duty of the police tell people that they might become suspect if they don't co-operate because they might indeed be suspect. However I have never heard of "expectations" being a crime or a violation of anyones rights, ever.

Don't know what this has to do with anything that I've said or the issue being discussed. The police can assume everyone in the world is guilty, but without a search warrant, they can't enter anyone's house to look around. Bypassing that requirement by in effect coercing innocent people to let them in so they aren't under suspicion is quite another matter.

See above.

Every day we see someone on the tube or in print trying to justify some act that had repercussions for others by maintaining they were just exercising their rights. My usual thought is, yes it was your right but you are still an idiot. Not only that but a selfish idiot to boot.

[Wilber]

So what will police do in the event they find bongs, unregistered guns, illegal immigrants or any number of other things when they inspect 6000 homes?

In terms of pot use alone 14% or so Canadians are regular users so this could potentially yield over 800 suspects out of 6000.

I guess its reasonable to conclude the people in the Toronto area that have been deemed guilty until proven otherwise will hide their bongs, guns, immigrants, kidnap victims, etc long before that fateful insistent knock comes at the door.

You know they can't enter without a warrant so if a person has something to hide they should refuse entry. I don't see how the police warning people that refusing might make them suspect changes anything. It is perfectly logical that it would. You know that anything found during a search without a warrant or outside of the terms of a warrant is inadmissible. Courts throw it out all the time.

[punked]

You know they can't enter without a warrant so if a person has something to hide they should refuse entry. I don't see how the police warning people that refusing might make them suspect changes anything. It is perfectly logical that it would. You know that anything found during a search without a warrant or outside of the terms of a warrant is inadmissible. Courts throw it out all the time.

That is untrue if you invite the police in to "peak" around anything they find would be admissible in court.

[Wilber]

That is untrue if you invite the police in to "peak" around anything they find would be admissible in court.

That is why I say don't give them permission if you have something to hide but don't blame them if they think you may have something to hide if you do refuse.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Wilber

[eyeball]

You know they can't enter without a warrant so if a person has something to hide they should refuse entry. I don't see how the police warning people that refusing might make them suspect changes anything. It is perfectly logical that it would. You know that anything found during a search without a warrant or outside of the terms of a warrant is inadmissible. Courts throw it out all the time.

A lot of people think this should change. Generally they're the sort who defend the state every time it chips away at our most fundamental civil liberties. In keeping with this trend it is perfectly logical to expect you guys will just as fervently beat the band for changing evidentiary rules to suit this new peep sweep the police want to introduce as a tool to fight crime. How do you expect the state to really crack down hard on crime with all these rules holding it back?

So what if the courts throw it out this time, between those who are caught doing something illegal or simply because they refuse to comply on principle, the police will have flushed out oodles of new suspects for the state and its toadies to ponder. This will almost certain cause some politicians to fire up their fear and loathing machines and of course the toadies will all be out in force telling everyone civil liberties are soft on crime. Other politicians will be listening with fear in their hearts that they'll be tarred with the same brush and go with the flow rather than speak out. Such is the way of the push-me pull-you political mechanism that has been steering us straight into the hungry maw of a nascent police state for years now.

I'm just wondering how I'll ever be able to explain to my grandkids where and how everything went so wrong and why I didn't do more to stop it.

[Wilber]

You guys can read whatever conspiracy theories you like into this but basically all I am trying to say is people have an obligation to consider how standing on their "rights" effects others. There are times when "it's my right" just isn't a good enough answer.

[punked]

You guys can read whatever conspiracy theories you like into this but basically all I am trying to say is people have an obligation to consider how standing on their "rights" effects others. There are times when "it's my right" just isn't a good enough answer.

It isn't a conspiracy. The Charter exists, it gives us our freedoms and rights. As for this "There are times when "it's my right" just isn't a good enough answer." I agree that is covered in Section 1 of the charter I implore you too read it. There is a limitations clause there. I bet that random searches of 6000 houses does not stand up the the reasonable limits test so it is "just good enough"

[Wilber]

It isn't a conspiracy. The Charter exists, it gives us our freedoms and rights. As for this "There are times when "it's my right" just isn't a good enough answer." I agree that is covered in Section 1 of the charter I implore you too read it. There is a limitations clause there. I bet that random searches of 6000 houses does not stand up the the reasonable limits test so it is "just good enough"

The police are asking, you have the right to refuse. If you refuse, they may believe you have something to hide in respect to this case. If you refuse the police will have to get a warrant if they want to search your home. If they don't have a good enough reason, they won't get it. What's the problem? Do you now want rights you don't have?

[punked]

The police are asking, you have the right to refuse. If you refuse, they may believe you have something to hide in respect to this case. If you refuse the police will have to get a warrant if they want to search your home. If they don't have a good enough reason, they won't get it. What's the problem? Do you now want rights you don't have?

I want the police to do their job and not target people solely on the fact they are exercising their rights. Section 11 of the Charter provides the right to be presumed innocence. This is why to get a warrant or to be suspected of a crime police usually need evidence unless there is some outlandish circumstance and reasonable limits of section 1 is used. Agian I don't think random searches fall under the category of reasonable limits. I don't want rights I don't have I just want the rights that are guaranteed to me.

[Guest American Woman]

No one here thinks the police have or should have the right to enter someones home without a warrant.

Yes, people evidently do think the police should have that right; because they think people should let them. Obviously if you think people should let them, you think they have the right. You're playing with words here.

There are legitimate reasons not to give them permission, standing on your rights is one of them. However, they they do have the right to expect citizens to help them in an investigation and wonder why if they won't.

Letting people into their homes without a warrant goes beyond "helping them in an investigation." There's a reason why police aren't allowed in to look around without a warrant, and that reason is based on people's rights. So "looking around people's houses without a warrant" goes beyond "helping in an investigation;" it enters the area of "people's rights," and the police have no reason to "expect" people to "give up their rights" in "helping them in an investigation." Why have rights if it's ok for the police expect people to give them up?

Furthermore, stating that they will be under suspicion if they don't is beyond "wondering why" people won't let them in; it's something different entirely to be "under suspicion." Furthermore, as I already stated, some people may have 'something to hide' that has nothing to do with this case, and the police have no business "wondering" about anything beyond this case.

Again, it's the expectation and the coercing to be 'invited in' with 'threats' that steps on people's rights.

There is no reason to expect that others should bear the consequences of you exercising your rights while you should bear none.

I don't know what you're saying here. Could you please elaborate?

I would expect my neighbours to do whatever they could to assist with the search and if I was a neighbour of a parent who's child was missing and it meant letting the police eliminate me as a possibility as soon as possible, I would be happy to let them in and then go on their way.

That's fine. If that's the way you feel, so be it. It's expecting others to feel the way you do, it's expecting others to be fine with letting the police in to "look around" without a warrant, that's wrong. Your "expectations" don't make you right and them wrong. It's why we have "rights." What good would rights be if every time someone "expected" you to give them up, you had to give them up?

That's why I asked you how you would feel if the police suspected someone who wouldn't talk; if you would "feel" they should use physical force to get answers. You still haven't answered that question, and it's telling to me that you haven't. Funny that you made it about "legalities" instead, yet you make this issue all about "feelings."

I think it is the duty of the police tell people that they might become suspect if they don't co-operate because they might indeed be suspect. However I have never heard of "expectations" being a crime or a violation of anyones rights, ever.

It's the "expectation" along with the threat of "being under suspicion." I've made that clear. No one should be "under suspicion" for not allowing the police in their homes to look around without a warrant. That's the issue. There's a reason why a warrant is required for that type of thing.

Furthermore, if people voluntarily let police in their house to "look around," as has already been pointed out, anything the police find can be used against those people. They don't need a warrant when the person voluntarily let them in. It's why people are advised of their rights to a lawyer, because anything they "volunteer" can, and will be, used against them.

Every day we see someone on the tube or in print trying to justify some act that had repercussions for others by maintaining they were just exercising their rights. My usual thought is, yes it was your right but you are still an idiot. Not only that but a selfish idiot to boot.

And you have the right to think that. That doesn't make them wrong. Furthermore, they don't have to try to "justify" anything that was within their rights. The fact that it was within their rights is the only "justification" that's necessary.

Again. There's not even evidence of foul play in this girl's disappearance. She was almost 18 when she went missing, and she is now 18. Do you think the police should be able to enter anyone and everyone's home to look around every time a teen goes missing? I think the reaction, especially in light of the fact that it's two months later, is extreme for the situation; I can't even say "crime" because there is no evidence a crime was committed.

Yet people are being expected to let the police in to look around their homes, or suffer being "under suspicion" by the police-- which really, could mean any number of things.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Perhaps its finally time to start talking about our constitution. The only rights we have are defined in that document. In my view it is not our rights that need to be altered but instead the powers and authority of government.

[eyeball]

Perhaps its finally time to start talking about our constitution. The only rights we have are defined in that document. In my view it is not our rights that need to be altered but instead the powers and authority of government.

Ditto that.

[Wilber]

Yes, people evidently do think the police should have that right; because they think people should let them. Obviously if you think people should let them, you think they have the right. You're playing with words here.

No, I am saying they have the right to ask.

Letting people into their homes without a warrant goes beyond "helping them in an investigation." There's a reason why police aren't allowed in to look around without a warrant, and that reason is based on people's rights. So "looking around people's houses without a warrant" goes beyond "helping in an investigation;" it enters the area of "people's rights," and the police have no reason to "expect" people to "give up their rights" in "helping them in an investigation." Why have rights if it's ok for the police expect people to give them up?

They are allowed to look around without a warrant. With your permission. They can expect whatever they want, just as you can.

Furthermore, stating that they will be under suspicion if they don't is beyond "wondering why" people won't let them in; it's something different entirely to be "under suspicion." Furthermore, as I already stated, some people may have 'something to hide' that has nothing to do with this case, and the police have no business "wondering" about anything beyond this case. Again, it's the expectation and the coercing to be 'invited in' with 'threats' that steps on people's rights.

It is the police's job to suspect and wonder. Not letting them in may or may not be justification to suspect and wonder. Or do you prefer the Sergeant Shultz approach from your police force?

I don't know what you're saying here. Could you please elaborate?

I think it is pretty clear. You think about it.

That's why I asked you how you would feel if the police suspected someone who wouldn't talk; if you would "feel" they should use physical force to get answers. You still haven't answered that question, and it's telling to me that you haven't. Funny that you made it about "legalities" instead, yet you make this issue all about "feelings."

I'll only say it one more time. Asking to enter a persons house is not a crime. Using physical force to get information is.

It's the "expectation" along with the threat of "being under suspicion." I've made that clear. No one should be "under suspicion" for not allowing the police in their homes to look around without a warrant. That's the issue. There's a reason why a warrant is required for that type of thing.

A warrant is required to enter the house. The police or anyone else can suspect whatever they want, including you.

Furthermore, if people voluntarily let police in their house to "look around," as has already been pointed out, anything the police find can be used against those people. They don't need a warrant when the person voluntarily let them in. It's why people are advised of their rights to a lawyer, because anything they "volunteer" can, and will be, used against them.

True, that is why I have said twice on this thread, if you have something to hide, don't let them in but don't be surprised if they think you have something to hide as a result.