B.C. court is soft in the head.

[Oleg Bach]

A western court said that purported gang leader who is charged with killing six people has had his charter rights violated. A "scathing ruling by the Supreme Court written by Justice Mark McEwan said that Jamie Bacon (the accused) has been kept in 23 hour lock up (that's where they always keep the killers) and that the segregation has been bad for his mental and physical health..poor boy.

Lawyers have a hard time getting to him...they won't give him a pen and paper to write with - as if he can write. AND his visitors are not allowed to cuddle with him - and perhaps his girlfriend feels bad because the guards are watching as Jamie begs for the relaxive release of a blow job from his squeeze.

Justice McEwan said that these conditions "would be deplorable in any civilized society" - perhaps the good Justice has not noticed that we do not live in a civilized society and certainly Jamie the gang banger does not.

The Justice finds that this creep is suffering cruel and unusual punishment!

Six men where killed - two of them innocent bystanders...back in October of 2007 ---------------------I GUESS IT WAS NOT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT TO DIE - TO BE SHOT DEAD - I SUPPOSE IT IS NOT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT FOR THE SURVIVING CHILDREN - MOTHERS - FATHERS AND SIBLINGS? Typical west coast old hippy judge --------'Bad boy - you must have had a drunken father - You killed a bunch of people - let me give you a hug.

[kimmy]

(link to article)

The Bacon brothers are drug thugs and their targets were also drug thugs. Some would suggest that the best thing would be to give the Bacon boys a fresh clip of ammo and tell them to get back to work. If it was just another of Vancouver's ongoing strings of drug gang assassinations, I doubt people would give it much thought, but in this case it sounds like they killed people who weren't actually involved in the drug war, so they're in for it.

However...

It also was revealed that “by accident” the jail had been monitoring Bacon’s privileged phone conversations with his lawyer.

...you can't do that.

That they "accidentally" monitored his communications with ranks with "I didn't realize the tazer went off 5 times". If the RCMP want to get people's respect again, they should stop saying stupid crap and start obeying their own rules.

-k

[dre]

(link to article)

The Bacon brothers are drug thugs and their targets were also drug thugs. Some would suggest that the best thing would be to give the Bacon boys a fresh clip of ammo and tell them to get back to work. If it was just another of Vancouver's ongoing strings of drug gang assassinations, I doubt people would give it much thought, but in this case it sounds like they killed people who weren't actually involved in the drug war, so they're in for it.

However...

...you can't do that.

That they "accidentally" monitored his communications with ranks with "I didn't realize the tazer went off 5 times". If the RCMP want to get people's respect again, they should stop saying stupid crap and start obeying their own rules.

-k

Nice job.

[Remiel]

Does the difference between " charged " and " convicted " not matter to you, Oleg?

[Oleg Bach]

Does the difference between " charged " and " convicted " not matter to you, Oleg?

It does matter but after hearing an old legalist say -"There are only the convicted and yet to be convicted"...that sort of put a damper on my respect for the system and the other line I heard an experienced lawyer say regarding the theft of my wifes inheritance..."It may be immoral but it's legal" ...now that I have given you the personal observation - I will give you what I truly believe in a legal sense - You can charge anyone in the world - the most innocent - and under our system it is as good as a conviction...getting back to personal experience...

-I sat and represented a younger brother during a pretrial - The judge was highly amused because I kept on top of the crown with words like "Our friend the crown sorely needs his pound of flesh at all cost" - After it was over and the court room was empty other than myself the crown and the accused....The crown confided in me regarding such matters "I am sorry but the policy sent from above is to convict even if we know the accused is innocent" - that's disturbing.

BUT of course in the over all - If I ran the system I would make sure that all that were charged would be treated and not in a token manner as completely innocent...and good diligent due process with out prejudice must take place!

As mentioned we live in a very touchy and dangerous legal system - for instance if I was reprimanding you and said " You are mortal and you are going to die" - I could very well be charged with threatening death and be dragged about the courts of at least a year.

[Oleg Bach]

(link to article)

The Bacon brothers are drug thugs and their targets were also drug thugs. Some would suggest that the best thing would be to give the Bacon boys a fresh clip of ammo and tell them to get back to work. If it was just another of Vancouver's ongoing strings of drug gang assassinations, I doubt people would give it much thought, but in this case it sounds like they killed people who weren't actually involved in the drug war, so they're in for it.

However...

...you can't do that.

That they "accidentally" monitored his communications with ranks with "I didn't realize the tazer went off 5 times". If the RCMP want to get people's respect again, they should stop saying stupid crap and start obeying their own rules.

-k

No one has the right to murder - even if it is the devil himself you are not allowed to take a life - even the almighty who created good and evil and the devil does not kill the devil. AS for your comments regarding giving the boys a fresh clip of ammo and sending them on their way to kill more gang bangers - that is almost a tacit policy in Toronto.

Thugs carrying (human killers) - guns are released all the time - years ago if you had a gun which purpose is only to kill another human - you would never be released - no matter how impressive your presentation was at the show cause hearing..never - but they are now! I believe that there is a quiet little racist thing going on with elite white judges - that consists of send the ni**ers out to kill more of their own - problem is with this way of thinking is that people get caught in the cross fire..and the public at large are endangered - but the judiciary does not really seem to care about public safety because they live insulated privleged lives.

[Handsome Rob]

Does the difference between " charged " and " convicted " not matter to you, Oleg?

In the case of the Bacon brothers, he may as well all ready be convicted. Vancouver's own little miniature Al Capone, everybody knows, and that isn't heresy.

In addition to the fact that Bacon's colleague in the Surrey 6, Dennis Karbovanec already plead guilty to life, for a purported deal. If he testifies against Bacon, it should be over, if not, only a matter of time before he get's his conviction. Inevitable, only thing that could change that, is him finally getting one past the bulletproof vest and armored SUV.

If Bacon get's a softer sentence than Karbovanec, faith is pretty much lost.

Another interesting tidbit on Bacon human rights complaints, he couldn't see his television from his bed inside the cell. How about that eh?

[kimmy]

The reports I have read have focused on the trivial (Jamie Bacon can't see the TV from his bed, tee hee) and glossed over the more serious claims.

I don't care if Bacon can watch Coronation Street in bed, but I find it troubling that Bacon was placed in solitary without cause, has been denied access to his lawyer, that the pre-trial facility staff have been acting as agents of the police, and most appallingly that they have been recording his conversations with his lawyer.

I couldn't care less about Bacon himself, but I don't like the larger picture. This seems like part of an ongoing pattern by the RCMP.

-k

[Argus]

I couldn't care less about Bacon himself, but I don't like the larger picture. This seems like part of an ongoing pattern by the RCMP.

Aside from recording his conversations it all sounds pretty trivial. It sounds like he's being inconvenienced and perhaps not made comfortable. Notorious gang members are often isolated to prevent them from passing instructions to their gangs on the outside.

And ultimately, he's vermin, so I don't really care what happens to him.

[Non_Partisan]

What angers me is that my tax dollars are being spent to protect these guys. I don't agree with the counter argument that it's protecting the citizens. Let the guy walk unsupervised for 48 hours and bang he's dead problem solved.

http://www.financialpost.com/careers/story.html?id=1382399

I've seen the home where the Bacon Brothers grew up and its a hell of a lot nicer then the home I grew up in. These guys didn't become criminals out of abject poverty, they're new age gangster, brats, they made thier own bed let them die in it.

[Wilber]

The surveillance stuff at the Bacons has been down for some time because two of them have been in jail and it was deemed no longer necessary. There is some credence to the argument on protecting the public. There have been two attempts to kill Bacon brothers. One at their home in Surrey and Jamie had his car shot up at the entrance to a busy mall parking lot in broad daylight. LINK He was saved by his armoured Mercedes and the bullet proof vest he was wearing. I doubt any of the innocent bystanders had either. Knowing where these guys were all the time and having the other bad guys know that the police were around was very much in the interest of public safety.

I'm also not happy with the idea that my property taxes were going toward helping keep these creeps safe but if these people are allowed to remain out on the street pending their court cases, I don't see much alternative .

[Wilber]

I've seen the home where the Bacon Brothers grew up and its a hell of a lot nicer then the home I grew up in. These guys didn't become criminals out of abject poverty, they're new age gangster, brats, they made thier own bed let them die in it.

Bacon brothers Father

Their mother is/was? a manager at a local credit union.

Well done mom and dad. Just the guy you want working with your kids at school. Ya see son, my kids have got this little business going and they sure would be interested in having someone like you working with them.

[Non_Partisan]

Bacon brothers Father

Their mother is/was? a manager at a local credit union.

Well done mom and dad. Just the guy you want working with your kids at school. Ya see son, my kids have got this little business going and they sure would be interested in having someone like you working with them.

Point taken on public saftey, it just angers me that my money was going to protect a living scumbag. Wow! the mom works at a credit union and the dad is employed by the Abbotsford School District, what hardship the Bacon Brothers must have endured growing up playing their Nintendo.

If there was ever an argument that we need tougher criminal laws in this country the Bacon Brothers are it. But I suppose some sociologist will come along and argue that they are victims of society.

[eyeball]

Point taken on public saftey, it just angers me that my money was going to protect a living scumbag. Wow! the mom works at a credit union and the dad is employed by the Abbotsford School District, what hardship the Bacon Brothers must have endured growing up playing their Nintendo.

If there was ever an argument that we need tougher criminal laws in this country the Bacon Brothers are it. But I suppose some sociologist will come along and argue that they are victims of society.

Not victims of society, just suckers for the profits of prohibition.

[Wilber]

Not victims of society, just suckers for the profits of prohibition.

No, just criminals who are willing to kill each other and anyone else who gets in the way in order to profit from others misery.

[Non_Partisan]

Not victims of society, just suckers for the profits of prohibition.

Ah! the prohibition debate, the never ending argument!!!

i don't like a system that creates predators and victims either eyeball, but you'de have to convince me that the pro's of restricted legalization outweigh the cons, in other words drug use and addiction would go down, not up if legalized.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Non_Partisan

[eyeball]

Ah! the prohibition debate, the never ending argument!!!

i don't like a system that creates predators and victims either eyeball, but you'de have to convince me that the pro's of restricted legalization outweigh the cons, in other words drug use and addiction would go down, not up if legalized.

I suspect this would be a fool's errand.

[eyeball]

No, just criminals who are willing to kill each other and anyone else who gets in the way in order to profit from others misery.

Come and talk to me when the government finally starts going after those who profit from alcoholism and tobacco addiction, maybe then you'll have a case to make.

[sharkman]

I'm not surprised to find that yet another thread about soft-on-criminals-courts turns out to be in B.C. Out here on the left coast, it's one of the best places in the west to be a criminal. Case after case of idiot judgements are made with basically no outcry from our populace, save from those lefties who are converted to the truth when their bystanding son or daughter gets hit, shot, or mistakenly attacked by our burgeoning underworld. One can't help but feel sorry for them, but the greater outrage is that a civilized society allows caught in the act hardened criminals to be set free while families of the slain are given a life sentence.

[Wilber]

Come and talk to me when the government finally starts going after those who profit from alcoholism and tobacco addiction, maybe then you'll have a case to make.

Come and talk to me when the govenment starts shooting people in mall parking lots and front yards.

[dre]

Ah! the prohibition debate, the never ending argument!!!

i don't like a system that creates predators and victims either eyeball, but you'de have to convince me that the pro's of restricted legalization outweigh the cons, in other words drug use and addiction would go down, not up if legalized.

You have that backwards sir. The pro legalization crowd is the one in favor of costly and never ending government action. The owness is on THEM to prove that prohibition is good public policy and worth the massive ammount of money spent on enforcement, litigation, and incarceration.

And they have utterly failed to do so.

[eyeball]

Come and talk to me when the govenment starts shooting people in mall parking lots and front yards.

Why? What difference would that make?

[Non_Partisan]

I suspect this would be a fool's errand.

Not necessarily, I don’t adhere to any one rigid political ideology, to me it’s about choosing the most cost effective policies in curbing crime and disease for the tax payer. If it can be proven that restricted legalization is more effective than prohibition than it’s worth looking at.

If you are going to go the route of prohibition though, you need tough laws to curb criminal involvement in the drug trade, otherwise you create a moral hazard.

The Bacon Brothers like many new age gangsters who belong to the Red Scorpions and the UN gang are not growing up in abject poverty. They are middle and working class kids who do not fear the law and therefore do not fear the consequences of becoming drug pushers. They are suckers for the profits of prohibition only because they get petted with the velvet glove instead of smacked with the iron fist.

[eyeball]

I'm not surprised to find that yet another thread about soft-on-criminals-courts turns out to be in B.C. Out here on the left coast, it's one of the best places in the west to be a criminal.

That's probably because B.C.'s the best place in Canada to grow pot, given our growing conditions and it's proximity to a bottomless market. Given the economic incentive to invest in this industry that prohibition provides it's no wonder so many gangs are being drawn here. About the only thing I can think of that might draw investors to B.C. as fast would be to completely scrap all our environmental regulations - funnily enough the governments most likely to preach a hard-line on pot are also the likeliest to do just that.

Case after case of idiot judgements are made with basically no outcry from our populace, save from those lefties who are converted to the truth when their bystanding son or daughter gets hit, shot, or mistakenly attacked by our burgeoning underworld.

What? You've obviously overlooked a small but shrill sub-culture of right-wing fundies that are just about the only driving force left in Canada's electorate that's behind maintaining the prohibition against pot. I'm sure there's also a certain number of people within our enforcement-industrial complex that will never vote for killing the goose that lays their eggs.

One can't help but feel sorry for them, but the greater outrage is that a civilized society allows caught in the act hardened criminals to be set free while families of the slain are given a life sentence

I kind of feel sad for the Bacon boy's parent's. I can't imagine there's anymore shell-shocked victims of the war on drugs than these two. The greatest outrage to me is that the Conservatives are so beholden to the fundies in their midst while the Liberals are so afraid of appearing soft on whatever the Conservative's want to appear hard on.

It's enough to drive one to drink.

[eyeball]

Not necessarily, I don’t adhere to any one rigid political ideology, to me it’s about choosing the most cost effective policies in curbing crime and disease for the tax payer. If it can be proven that restricted legalization is more effective than prohibition than it’s worth looking at.

If you are going to go the route of prohibition though, you need tough laws to curb criminal involvement in the drug trade, otherwise you create a moral hazard.

No, this issue is already completely morally fubar, God forbid we should put rigid political ideology on top of that. Speaking of hazardous morality - and I'm glad to see you're primarily interested in curbing crime and disease by the way - consider the huge number of prisoners currently in jail who were born with fetal alcohol syndrome. Almost all of them were likely poisoned in the womb by alcohol the government sells. Assuming society is actually being protected from harm by prohibition I'd argue that the rights of people with FAS to equal protection before the law has been violated by the government. If only fetus' had rights.

Tough on crime? What crime?

For economic arguments against prohibition that really make sense I recall the Fraser Institutes observation that prohibiting drugs and thereby trying to defy the law of supply and demand is akin to trying to defy gravity. But what do they know? I seem to recall the Fraser Institute also telling us we should loosen up restrictions on selling alcohol, so consumers could have more choices, or some such noble thing.

The Bacon Brothers like many new age gangsters who belong to the Red Scorpions and the UN gang are not growing up in abject poverty. They are middle and working class kids who do not fear the law and therefore do not fear the consequences of becoming drug pushers. They are suckers for the profits of prohibition only because they get petted with the velvet glove instead of smacked with the iron fist.

Smack them as hard as you like, there will always be two or more for every one you do. Evolution will also insure these only become more ruthless over time, look at Mexico, hell look at the Bacon Bros. Speaking of iron fists, society in turn could also evolve in the same direction and who knows what measures we might entertain to eliminate drug use?