Wilber Posted November 15, 2009 Report Posted November 15, 2009 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. Read it again. It says that persons "charged" have the right to be presumed innocent. Explain how presumed innocence before that could result in anyone ever being charged. There is no requirement for the police to presume innocence. Quite the opposite, doing so would make their job impossible. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bjre Posted November 16, 2009 Author Report Posted November 16, 2009 (edited) Read it again. It says that persons "charged" have the right to be presumed innocent. Explain how presumed innocence before that could result in anyone ever being charged. There is no requirement for the police to presume innocence. Quite the opposite, doing so would make their job impossible. No matter for what reason, police should not mass intrude public, even if because they are too stupid to find any clue to be able to do their job, or because they just want to tell public that they did not rest when they receive salary from taxpayers. Edited November 16, 2009 by bjre 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
bjre Posted November 16, 2009 Author Report Posted November 16, 2009 Over the next two to three weeks, police hope to canvas 6,000 homes in an area between Bathurst Street, Eglinton Avenue, Shalamar Boulevard and Chaplin Crescent in hopes of finding her. Do you think police believe they can find her in the 6000 homes? I don't think so, because they send this message to media before their action, isn't that tell possible criminal (if he is there) to clean up all possible clue before they come? That is not normal style when they feel they can do the job, when they rush to the place before any message leak out. 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 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 Read it again. It says that persons "charged" have the right to be presumed innocent. Explain how presumed innocence before that could result in anyone ever being charged. There is no requirement for the police to presume innocence. Quite the opposite, doing so would make their job impossible. The police should assume innocence (which they often don't). What tips the scale for them is "reasonable belief", which is subjective for investigation, and much more stringent for search warrants and courts. However, since the police could not investigate and come up with viable suspects in the past, they have resorted to all kinds of illegal (well... marginally legal) and immoral (lying, entrapment, intimidation) means to fish people out. If we held police to the some standard that made those things illegal, then it is likely they wouldn't take the easy route, would have a greater chance at conviction, and would not contribute the wrongfully convicted. Recently, a teenager was charged and then released with all charges dropped for using an infrared camera to spy on the teen aged girl next door. Many think it was an outrage that the Crown would not proceed with charges. However, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2005 that police could in fact use infrared technology to spy on grow labs, negating the plaintiff's allegation that it was an invasion of privacy. We all know that what the boy did was sleazy, but who here doesn't think what the police do is also sleazy, and immoral? The point is that the police use a marginally legal and immoral technique to route out criminals and the end result is a similar case being thrown out of court. When justice goes down the tubes, it affects everyone.... 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
Wilber Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 (edited) The police should assume innocence (which they often don't). What tips the scale for them is "reasonable belief", which is subjective for investigation, and much more stringent for search warrants and courts. However, since the police could not investigate and come up with viable suspects in the past, they have resorted to all kinds of illegal (well... marginally legal) and immoral (lying, entrapment, intimidation) means to fish people out. If we held police to the some standard that made those things illegal, then it is likely they wouldn't take the easy route, would have a greater chance at conviction, and would not contribute the wrongfully convicted. Recently, a teenager was charged and then released with all charges dropped for using an infrared camera to spy on the teen aged girl next door. Many think it was an outrage that the Crown would not proceed with charges. However, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2005 that police could in fact use infrared technology to spy on grow labs, negating the plaintiff's allegation that it was an invasion of privacy. We all know that what the boy did was sleazy, but who here doesn't think what the police do is also sleazy, and immoral? The point is that the police use a marginally legal and immoral technique to route out criminals and the end result is a similar case being thrown out of court. When justice goes down the tubes, it affects everyone.... How could the police recommend charges against anyone if they didn't think they were guilty? How many crimes do you think they would solve if they started off by presuming everyone was innocent? The police have an obligation to try and establish the facts, not presume innocence. Edited November 16, 2009 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
charter.rights Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 The police are REQUIRED to assume that EVERYONE is innocent until evidence and facts create a reasonable belief that a particular suspect is not. Most of the time, however, the police do it backwards - assuming everyone is guilty in the hopes of routing out someone is is more guilty. This results not only in wrongful convictions (in almost all of the cases where it occurs) but in intimidation, immoral behavior (lying and entrapment) and in demeaning those police who try to do good. You are correct that it is their job to collect evidence, not determine guilt. However, they don't do their jobs because they generally determine guilt first and then try to collect evidence that supports their assumption. That is wrong, and it it infringes upon our rights as citizens. No doubt the future will see lots more lawsuits against police for the kinds of tactics they have been using. Complaints and lawsuits are already up from 20 years ago and the future looks much more intense if they keep up their illegal and immoral methods. 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
eyeball Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 Do you think police believe they can find her in the 6000 homes? I don't think so, because they send this message to media before their action, isn't that tell possible criminal (if he is there) to clean up all possible clue before they come? That is not normal style when they feel they can do the job, when they rush to the place before any message leak out. I honestly don't believe finding her is the only goal here. This kidnapping is just one more galvanizing event that moral entrepeneurs are using to justify the state's never-ending efforts to get people to question their expectations of basic rights and freedoms. Of course the kidnapper is going to act to hide any evidence. The only way to avoid tipping off criminals is to NOT announce that police will be indiscriminately coming through people's doors. We can probably expect calls for allowing that in a few more years. Sometimes you have to grease the slope to make it slippery, which calls for lots of toadies. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
charter.rights Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 I honestly don't believe finding her is the only goal here. This kidnapping is just one more galvanizing event that moral entrepeneurs are using to justify the state's never-ending efforts to get people to question their expectations of basic rights and freedoms. Of course the kidnapper is going to act to hide any evidence. The only way to avoid tipping off criminals is to NOT announce that police will be indiscriminately coming through people's doors. We can probably expect calls for allowing that in a few more years. Sometimes you have to grease the slope to make it slippery, which calls for lots of toadies. That is assuming she was kidnapped or murdered, which is a theory.... There is still a reasonable possiblity that she left on her own and doesn't want to be found... 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
Wilber Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 The police are REQUIRED to assume that EVERYONE is innocent until evidence and facts create a reasonable belief that a particular suspect is not. Most of the time, however, the police do it backwards - assuming everyone is guilty in the hopes of routing out someone is is more guilty. This results not only in wrongful convictions (in almost all of the cases where it occurs) but in intimidation, immoral behavior (lying and entrapment) and in demeaning those police who try to do good. You are correct that it is their job to collect evidence, not determine guilt. However, they don't do their jobs because they generally determine guilt first and then try to collect evidence that supports their assumption. That is wrong, and it it infringes upon our rights as citizens. No doubt the future will see lots more lawsuits against police for the kinds of tactics they have been using. Complaints and lawsuits are already up from 20 years ago and the future looks much more intense if they keep up their illegal and immoral methods. Well if they assume everyone is innocent who do they investigate first? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
charter.rights Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 Well if they assume everyone is innocent who do they investigate first? No one. They follow the evidence. 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
Wilber Posted November 17, 2009 Report Posted November 17, 2009 No one. They follow the evidence. How do you get the evidence if you have to assume everyone is innocent. If you have to assume that everyone is innocent it follows that no one is guilty. You say they are assuming everyone is guilty in the hope of finding someone who is more guilty. I say BS. Wrongful convictions happen but they are very rare compared to the ones they get right and the compared to the number of guilty persons who are not convicted. It is also unfair to blame the police in every wrongful conviction, the rest of the system often shares the blame. I would like to a see a third verdict as used in some other countries. Not proved. It would more accurately describe many of not most acquittals. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
punked Posted November 17, 2009 Report Posted November 17, 2009 I guess they didn't find her in the 6000 houses, now they plan to interview all 1000 students at her school. http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/11/16/11763736.html Quote
eyeball Posted November 17, 2009 Report Posted November 17, 2009 http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/11/16/11763736.html Detectives are currently going door-to-door in Mariam's neighbourhood for a second time as well, this time asking to take a peak inside the 6,000 homes in the area. How's this going over? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
ToadBrother Posted November 17, 2009 Report Posted November 17, 2009 How do you get the evidence if you have to assume everyone is innocent. If you have to assume that everyone is innocent it follows that no one is guilty. You say they are assuming everyone is guilty in the hope of finding someone who is more guilty. I say BS. Wrongful convictions happen but they are very rare compared to the ones they get right and the compared to the number of guilty persons who are not convicted. It is also unfair to blame the police in every wrongful conviction, the rest of the system often shares the blame. I would like to a see a third verdict as used in some other countries. Not proved. It would more accurately describe many of not most acquittals. You know, I really wonder if half you guys fell asleep in your civics/social studies class. The Assumption of Innocence is not at the investigative level, it's at the trial level. At the investigative level, the police are free to assume everyone is a suspect. That's how investigations start, with an open mind as to potential suspects. You gather evidence, you narrow it down. When you think you've got the guy, you go to the Crown who either says "arrest him" or "you don't have enough evidence". The assumption of innocence is only a meaningful quantity during the trial, when the judge and jury (not the cops or the prosecutors, mind you) have to have demonstrated to them beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is in fact guilty. Come on people, this ain't a tough concept. Quote
ToadBrother Posted November 17, 2009 Report Posted November 17, 2009 The police are REQUIRED to assume that EVERYONE is innocent until evidence and facts create a reasonable belief that a particular suspect is not. No they're not. As I said in the previous post, the police, being investigators, are not bound by that assumption. Neither, in fact, is the Crown. It's the judge and/or jury (depending on the kind of trial) who are required to act based on the assumption of innocence. For a guy that seems to fashion himself some sort of legal wiz around here, you know jack squat about certain basic legal notions. Quote
dlkenny Posted November 20, 2009 Report Posted November 20, 2009 [ 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 The police have long since forgotten their job in this country is to collect evidence and arrest suspects, not to prove your guilt. Today, they simply arrest someone of interest to make them look like they've gotten their man. Image is more important than their job and innocent until proven guilty has long since gone out the window. The police sometimes use incredible amounts of force while in the field to get people to confess, sometimes to crimes they didn't commit. I was told by a lawyer once that it has become the unwritten job of the police to prove you guilty because they're the only ones authorized to use force. Like a salesman who "assumes the sale" the police always assume you're guilty. Whenever a person gets arrested, or is asked by the police for anything the best thing to do is to remain completely silent (do not say even one word) and to call a defense. It is not the police's job to prove you innocent and you have a legal right to a defense in this country. It is the job of the prosecutor, not the police to prove your guilt. Quote If you understand, no explanation necessary. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.
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.