Consititional Rights able to be removed? WTF

CitizenX · August 5, 2011

William needs to read about the Social Contract, I suppose.

MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains - Jacques Rousseau

Might I suggest the Philosophy Bro

John Locke's "Second Treatise on Government": A Summary

Jean Jacques Rousseau's "Discourse on Inequality": A Summary

John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice, Part I: Theory": A Summary

Hobbes' "Leviathan, Books I and II": A Summary

Pretty funny stuff

Edited August 5, 2011 by CitizenX

Shwa · August 5, 2011

MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains - Jacques Rousseau

Might I suggest the Philosophy Bro

John Locke's "Second Treatise on Government": A Summary

Jean Jacques Rousseau's "Discourse on Inequality": A Summary

John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice, Part I: Theory": A Summary

Hobbes' "Leviathan, Books I and II": A Summary

Pretty funny stuff

If man were "born free" what's with the umbilical cord?

Scrap all that crap and go straight for Bertrand Russell's 'A History of Western Philosophy.'

William Ashley · August 7, 2011

Of course. But William was questioning how it was legally possible to limit or restrict a person's rights.

I think too many people forget about Section 1 of the Charter, or don't even know it exists, and believe any imposition of the law upon them is an illegal infringement upon their rights as they see them.

g_bambino. Once again you need to stop with putting words into my mouth. Talk about you, don't talk about what you think I'm doing and pass it off as fact, another bad rhetorical device.

I'm concerned about the premise of the removal of "constitutional rights".

Specifically in this case the right to peaceable assembly, and free association, and belief.

The impossition of unconstititional RULE IS WRONG. ILLEGAL RULE IS NOT LAW IT IS WRONG.

g_bambino, there should be no infringements, only protections of others rights. That is the formation of just rule i.e. law. Infringing others rights to limit them is unjust if it does not protect the equal rights of another member of that society.

The issue raised is about restricting people from a political act known as "demonstrating", a very legal activity, that is constitutionally protected.

If the bail conditions used language such as a caution on breach of the peace, specifically as a condition breach of the bail such as inciting riot, violent insurrection etc.. it might be more reasonable, but bail conditions ought to include at default breach of the peace and a requirement to keep the peace and be of 'good behaviour' good behaviour would entitle prohibitions of breach on a basis of summary or indictable offences being undertaken. So the undertaking is either poorly worded, redundant, or a violation of their rights. It just feels like the status quo is being challenged with prohibitions on associations which are FULLY legal, that are being put into question on the basis of association in which activities are fully legal. I think the idea of tarnishing the concept of protest or demonstration with unlawful assembly and riot is a gross error on the part of the judge, OR it is just unconstitutional. I'm very draught that you would even defend this sort of action, as it compleely destroys the fabric of a free Canadian society and for that you would be scum.

The bail conditions restrict actions protected by the constitution, and thus are unjustified. That is the concern.

The fact that the trial is still not concluded after a year is equally distressing since bail conditions are amounting to a sentence, and that is also not form that should be supported in the Canadian justice system. Sadly sentencing before trial is a growing error alongside arbitrary imprisionment, and extrajudicial process by unilateral diversion by the government organs.

These are very serious breaches of civil rights and I'm very suprised people on this board are defending the system when it is using those methods. It is very unfortunate, that you simply cannot be Canadian but instead must be radical muslims or from a police state masquarading as Canadian for us to even be arguing this issue.

Edited August 7, 2011 by William Ashley

g_bambino · August 7, 2011

Once again you need to stop with putting words into my mouth.

Okay, then I'll quote you directly:

HOW THE HECK IS THAT LEGALLY POSSIBLE?

cybercoma · August 7, 2011

The bail conditions restrict actions protected by the constitution, and thus are unjustified. That is the concern.

Probation, incarceration, peace bonds and every other sentencing device is against the constitution as well. When you break the law, your rights are restricted.

charter.rights · August 8, 2011

Probation, incarceration, peace bonds and every other sentencing device is against the constitution as well. When you break the law, your rights are restricted.

Not quite.

"1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

First of all limits must be reasonable and the Court must be able to justify the limits as being necessary to the security of the public. Is a limit of preventing protesting reasonable and is it necessary to protect public security is the question that must be answered. Perhaps, but in all cases the Courts cannot just limit freedoms without being able to demonstrate that the limit is necessary.

I forgot to add....that there are many occasions on appeal where the Court finds that limits are unreasonable or cannot be justified.

If this guy incited a riot then perhaps, but if he was just one of many who jumped into a mob mentality then I believe the court has to go much further in proving that restricting his freedom is necessary.

Edited August 8, 2011 by charter.rights

cybercoma · August 8, 2011

I was actually saying that it's not against the Constitution, otherwise courts wouldn't be able to sentence people. Your rights are not absolute. That's why I said this above:

It goes without saying that judges restrict rights. They put people in jail. I think what some people are arguing here is whether or not it is justifiable in a free and democratic society to revoke someone's right to protest or speak out against the government. I'm sure there are times when it is justifiable, but an argument is certainly required to prove it. It doesn't just go without saying.

Edited August 8, 2011 by cybercoma

Saipan · August 11, 2011

"1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

First of all limits must be reasonable and the Court must be able to justify the limits as being necessary to the security of the public.

How is it "secure to the public" if I don't have right to my legally acquired property?

charter.rights · August 11, 2011

How is it "secure to the public" if I don't have right to my legally acquired property?

We don't have property rights under the Charter. Therefore there is nothing to protect. However, we do have legal rights which may or may not apply depending on the circumstance.

Edited August 11, 2011 by charter.rights

Saipan · August 11, 2011

We don't have property rights under the Charter. Therefore there is nothing to protect. However, we do have legal rights which may or may not apply depending on the circumstance.

I.e we have nothing. Legally speaking

William Ashley · August 15, 2011

You are twisting my example. Many newspaper and tv reports stated that the non-violent protesters ACTIVELY helped to screen a smaller group of violent protesters with their bodies!

Sorry. It happened. It was witnessed by many and is an established fact.

You'll have to come up with some other lame excuse.

This is nonsense talk Mandy Hiscocks and Alex Hundert were arrested the day BEFORE the protests. (along with many others who were arrested before the g20 happened) THE DAY BEFORE... they weren't there...

And have been denied the right to go to meetings of people to talk about issues, to be speakers at events, or to hold a sign that says something. That is a VIOLATION. The fact they were arrested a day before anything happened, is a little fishy if the case is still dragging on over a year later.

There is a lot of credible evidence that suggests the Federal Government "coordinated" the riots. I can't go into details on it however but this is one look at it (although not a full look)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20110

Now constitutional rights are being manipulated by caselaw.

Edited August 15, 2011 by William Ashley

g_bambino · August 15, 2011

Mandy Hiscocks and Alex Hundert were arrested the day BEFORE the protests.

They were arrested on conspiracy charges. Their presence, or lack thereof, at the events they were accused of orchestrating is irrelevant.

There is a lot of credible evidence that suggests the Federal Government "coordinated" the riots.

Yes, that explains it. An elaborate plan involving two governments, multiple police forces, and hundreds of players, all as a cover to arrest... Mandy Hiscocks and Alex Hundert.

[fix]

Edited August 15, 2011 by g_bambino

William Ashley · August 15, 2011

They were arrested on conspiracy charges. Their presence, or lack thereof, at the events they were accused of orchestrating is irrelevant.

Yes, that explains it. An elaborate plan involving two governments, multiple police forces, and hundreds of players, all as a cover to arrest... Mandy Hiscocks and Alex Hundert.

[fix]

Well framing them up might just be a bonus to help destabalize the TMC

http://g20.torontomobilize.org/

If they arn't under their control, then obvliously they want to weaken the opposition.

Or it could be a false flag puppet front...

fact is the players used don't represent the mission per se, but it may play into it.

A change in case law effects everyone not just them. It is new law without voting or legislation.

Police are investigating Public Interest Research Group's (PIRG's) around Canada.

The local provincial conservatives (ontario PC) set out to destroy a local university PIRG "WPIRG"

The ties between the provincial party and federal party would not lead me to believe they wouldn't use those tactics to frame up PIRG members in other parts of the country. Cops do frame people sometimes. I'm not saying they all do, or they do collectively, but I'm saying some cops are bad cops you can't expect a cop to be any more nonpartisan than a doctor a judge or a dentist. Mason's are notorious for grand conspiracy, it doesn't make it true, but Mason's and other organizations have resorted to threats to achieve their political views, if I am to believe the story of a friend whose father was a priest and attempted to be recruited by masons to help achieve political goals with their congregation.

I'm not saying that is what happened, but I am saying that it seems obvious if you research all the facts.

Sometimes deception is best achieved by making something look obvious, that is how a false flag can succeed. I don't know, I'm just talking about ducks looking like ducks, it could be a goose for all I know. I'm not a looks like is person.

Cops may not like things like

http://www.g20.torontomobilize.org/node/692

- They are watching each other. I'm just an observer of both, I'm very much neutral, I just try to support the things I believe in like freedom, fairness and a healthy society.

People don't seem to get that community activities are not a breach of the peace and not illegal, and they shouldn't be part of any bail conditions. (removal of) The right to peaceful assembly has no rational purpose of being in bail conditions.

Edited August 15, 2011 by William Ashley

Battletoads · August 16, 2011

A gunman uses your home to stage an assault, taking your family hostage. Does that mean you're aiding and abetting him?

Depends, do you lean to the left?

William Ashley · August 17, 2011

We don't have property rights under the Charter. Therefore there is nothing to protect. However, we do have legal rights which may or may not apply depending on the circumstance.

Wrong. Seizure is illegal without warrant. Search is illegal. Police cannot take your property period, it is illegal for them to do so, unless it is contraband or being used in commision of an offence, or a warrant is obtained. Same for even trying to look at it.

William Ashley · August 17, 2011

What crimes has this person done?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaggi_Singh he is a co accused. He seems to have been illegally detained for over two weeks last time.. and it is law to bring people to a judge within 48 hours for show cause, to determine if release on recognizance or bail is available except in cases where no judges exist.

"prohibited him from leading" or "organizing any demonstrations" or "using a megaphone"

These are not unique situations:

"The weapons charge was dropped, and Singh’s request in November 2003 for a stay of proceedings based on "unreasonable delay and abuse of process," was accepted two months before the case would have gone to trial in January 2004"

In his ruling, Judge Beaulieu of the Quebec Superior Court agreed with Singh’s position that: "… the bail conditions imposed on May 2001 have restrained his right to freedom, opinion, expression and the right of freedom of association as protected by article 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

These are his conditions this time

house arrest at the home of one of the garantors; handing in his passport to the authorities; he must not use a cellular phone; he must not have any contact with the 16 other activists charged with conspiracy in connection with the G20 protests

Does anyone have any info to share on what this illegal conspiracy entails?

Is it like these charges?

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/12/20/16618751.html

six months later...

I actually knew "Julian Ichim" when we were both involved in a protest against the THEN provincial conservative (haris) government as part of a highschool group students with voices (in relation to cutting extracurricular program funding)... in the mid 1990's (I was more an observor and in dialouge (having actually supported both the consevative opposition being unbiased to them and both proliberal and proreform at the time, and even supported the suggestion of the person he suggested.. steven harper as a member of council of canadians and a former liberal as leader of the party to lead a united conservative of the PC and reform party - as a strategy only in mind of a means to ofset a majority liberal government since I am and was a supporter of minority governments as a means of stemming partisan majority rule that is so wrong -and which harper himself preached against) he has done some crazy things.. but I don't really see him as someone who organizes violent protest.. I would be very suprised. While he did throw milk on a federal conservative cabinet minister, steal an octoberfest keg and a few other things... I would like to see the info. It feels so political.

I would like to find the items in the show cause but can't find them, can anyone find them.

Why are the show cause details not provided?

As said by Jaggi's lawyer " there is a concern about a lack of disclosure in these cases." I echo that.

this is a year later for christs sake.

THIS SHOULD NOT BE RATIONALIZED IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM WHEN THE CROWN SAYS THINGS LIKE

""The Crown says with justification, they have a lot of work to do in preparing disclosure, but it's now been six months since the event and we should have the substantial disclosure by now," he said. "Lack of disclosure means we don't know the full case against the accused and that inhibits our preparation for trial."

ITS BEEN A YEAR NOW!?

While there may be no statute of limitations in Canada. there is a reasonable time expanse.. especially when you have undertaken someone... and laid charges.. charges shouldn't be laid unless a case exists, it shouldn't take 6 months or a year to relay the items that make a charge justified.

It is akin to making political prisoners. To impose house arrest and remove constitutional rights.... regardless of what political leanings the accused may have.

Then you have judges saying things like:

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1038347--aggression-during-g20-rally-perpetrated-by-police-judge-rules

Green found that protesters were “harvested” by the police “punch out” tactic. Police would intermittently charge the crowd of about 300 people to force them west on Queen St. — and those who didn’t move back fast enough were seized, thrown to the ground and bound with plastic flex cuffs.

Edited August 17, 2011 by William Ashley

charter.rights · August 17, 2011

Wrong. Seizure is illegal without warrant. Search is illegal. Police cannot take your property period, it is illegal for them to do so, unless it is contraband or being used in commision of an offence, or a warrant is obtained. Same for even trying to look at it.

Those are legal rights, not Charter rights. And yes they can take your property:

Bill 203

"Police can issue an immediate seven-day driver’s licence suspension and seven-day vehicle impoundment for street racing, participating in a driving contest or stunt driving."

There are lots of laws like this where police can seize your assets...try setting up a grow-op in your house....

Edited August 17, 2011 by charter.rights

William Ashley · August 17, 2011

Those are legal rights, not Charter rights. And yes they can take your property:

Bill 203

"Police can issue an immediate seven-day driver’s licence suspension and seven-day vehicle impoundment for street racing, participating in a driving contest or stunt driving."

There are lots of laws like this where police can seize your assets...try setting up a grow-op in your house....

READ THE CHARTER AGAIN...!

PART I

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

it is under legal rights.. section 8 of the charter...

Search or seizure

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Search or seizure

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Detention or imprisonment

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

Arrest or detention

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;

( to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and

© to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_7

Bills do not override the constitution, unreasonable acts can be overturned and ruled unconstitutional and have no force at law.

Edited August 17, 2011 by William Ashley

charter.rights · August 17, 2011

READ THE CHARTER AGAIN...!

PART I

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

it is under legal rights.. section 8 of the charter...

Search or seizure

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_7

Bills do not override the constitution, unreasonable acts can be overturned and ruled unconstitutional and have no force at law.

Try again amateur.

"1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. "

Bill 203 prescribes a reasonable limit in that the police can seize your vehicle when they think you are driving recklessly. There are also many other laws that permit the police to take your property and THEN apply for a court order confirming it.

There are no property rights in the Charter and therefore nothing to protect.

Edited August 17, 2011 by charter.rights

guyser · August 17, 2011

Wrong. Seizure is illegal without warrant. Search is illegal. Police cannot take your property period, it is illegal for them to do so, unless it is contraband or being used in commision of an offence, or a warrant is obtained. Same for even trying to look at it.

Careful to both of you.

Property and property rights are different.

Real property is land and the chattels attached, your stereo is property.

Police can and do take property without warrant all the time, and legally to boot.

Booze for one should you have a case of beer in the back seat while driving home.

Inability to prove ownership can result in seized goods.

charter.rights · August 17, 2011

Careful to both of you.

Property and property rights are different.

Real property is land and the chattels attached, your stereo is property.

Police can and do take property without warrant all the time, and legally to boot.

Booze for one should you have a case of beer in the back seat while driving home.

Inability to prove ownership can result in seized goods.

I am very aware of the term "property". That is my point. Any protection of property comes through the law itself i.e. legal rights and not through the Charter.

Edited August 17, 2011 by charter.rights

William Ashley · August 18, 2011

Bill 203 prescribes a reasonable limit in that the police can seize your vehicle when they think you are driving recklessly. There are also many other laws that permit the police to take your property and THEN apply for a court order confirming it.

There are no property rights in the Charter and therefore nothing to protect.

People have full property rights and are fully protected by the constitution from unreasonable search and seizure. As stated this is in the Charter Part I, section 8. It reads:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Where in Bill 203 is this not the case?

Section 8 means the government can't steal your stuff. You have to consent for them to take it. A judge needs to be involved, or it becomes expropriation. The reasonable unreasonableness if disputed is determined in court if challenged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expropriation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

see: CPR v. Vancouver

The bottom line is that exchange of property should be by consent only unless it is forfeited. However acts should not be passed that infringe individuals right to privacy of their property as well as to their possession and use of that property, except when there is an instance of a public safety threat - as such prohibitions on certain goods that are dangerous to the public, or more specifically goods being actively used in the commission of an offense.

In a civilized society all forms of theft by the government (expropriation) should be reasonable, that is the theft needs to "protect society". The same idea of reasonable limits. Unfortunately it seems you aren't reasonable and shouldn't be involved in anything related to expropriation.

Bear in mind if you want to repossess your property from the theif whether a government or agent or not you are able to... but you may need to challenge more than just the original theft in court if you do so. Cops tend to fight back so unless you knock them unconcious or entrap them you likely will have a dead cop on your hands in an attempt to protect your property.

1. You have the right to maintain possession of your property. It doesn't matter if a cop or person off the street steals, you have the right to possess your property.

2. If police use unlawful force against you (assaults you) without cause, you can use as much force as is required to defend yourself (the cop however will use greater force if you use any force if available - keep that in mind)

3. You have legal defences to defence against use of unreasonable force, as well as force to stop the unlawful seizure of goods without your consent, as well as the right to enter any property to retrieve your goods. If goods are locked or held secure against your consent you may legally break that property to retrieve your goods. Cops require court order to stem that protection, and individuals have right to petition for redress of court order. That is the courts need to rule an actual change of possession as to enact an expropriation of property (or make legal the theft)

Edited August 18, 2011 by William Ashley

William Ashley · August 18, 2011

Careful to both of you.

Property and property rights are different.

Real property is land and the chattels attached, your stereo is property.

Police can and do take property without warrant all the time, and legally to boot.

Actually THEY MUST HAVE REASONABLE GROUNDS.. get that.. cops can't just take stuff legally. It is illegal and you can take it back from them. If they try to stop you by using force, they are open to be stopped from application of use of force. Due to force +1 the cop will escalate but you are in right if you take the cop down - incapacitate them from unreasonable application of force against you

If they put it in storage you can open their storage facilities if it means cutting or breaking the door. If the cops attack you for that you can once again use force against them legally, because the base cause is illegal theft of your property.. (it is reasonable to be civil and request it back, but if they deny and don't show you a court order, it is illegal) Normally cops have "civil processess" for people to reclaim unlawfully siezed goods, so it isn't all T2 bear in mind. But we do have the right to protect our property and privacy against theft, cops can't break the law - they only have immunity while legally exercising their duties, and their immunity is for their acts, not against our acts against them.

While I understand your pussification of the way things work.. the bottom line is, no the cops legally can't.. they may illegally do it, but they are stealing, not following the law. And we have rights against illegal conduct, whether a cop or anyone. The grounds of citizens arrest, and application of legal defences for assualt, do not have exemptions against state agents as to give them more rights than you or I.

5. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if

(a) he uses the force

(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and

(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;

( he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

Hopefully you are not challenging my statements that the only grounds for police to take goods is if they pose a danger to the general public (contraband-prohibited and restricted goods) or are being used in a breach of the peace. That that dispossession should only exist as is required to stem off the breach or the goods no longer represent a threat to public safety.

Otherwise a court order is required, and the courts ought to take into account the reasonableness of allowing such an order, as it is an expropriation - or unconsented theft being made by the government - and that quite frankly is uncivilized - and a move to socialism and loss of individualism or the concept of private property.

That is not a free society.

Take a look at these..

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-140.html (hit next to see them all)

Its still theft if there are no reasonable grounds as it isn't a legal exercise of their duties.

Lawful possession of property can be changed but colour of right must be exercised, when there is no standing grounds, judges have the capacity to "allow" a possession order, or to convert ownership. Cops don't determine reasonableness, judges do. They exercise judgment, but it isn't legal if they are wrong, if there is malice involved it is criminal - that is a misconduct.

There are cases such as cops taking garbage that are "more or less fully lawful" as finders law -(at common law and in statute exists" That is if goods are disposed of legally. Example books are thrown out due to being kept unlawfully on someone property. Someone takes those books after they have been thrown out onto a sidewalk, or trail, etc.. It depends on finders law in your jurisdiction but in those instances, colour of right is maintained. Police walking into your house and taking your computer cause they don't like you.. not legal.

While I don't purport anyones opinion but my own.. the begining of this sounds about right

http://www.torontodefencelawyers.com/police_misconduct.html

Edited August 18, 2011 by William Ashley

guyser · August 18, 2011

Actually THEY MUST HAVE REASONABLE GROUNDS.. get that.. cops can't just take stuff legally. It is illegal and you can take it back from them. If they try to stop you by using force, they are open to be stopped from application of use of force. Due to force +1 the cop will escalate but you are in right if you take the cop down - incapacitate them from unreasonable application of force against you

If they put it in storage you can open their storage facilities if it means cutting or breaking the door. If the cops attack you for that you can once again use force against them legally, because the base cause is illegal theft of your property..

Sure , you try breaking the police storage door and see what happens.

You have no right to break in somewhere just because your goods may or may not be inside, but if you wish to , knock yourself out.

William Ashley · August 18, 2011

Sure , you try breaking the police storage door and see what happens.

You have no right to break in somewhere just because your goods may or may not be inside, but if you wish to , knock yourself out.

Oh you do have the right to enter to retrieve your property that right exists at common law. It is actually an exemption to tresspass as you have the lawful right to enter to retrieve, it therefor is not break. I'm not saying do it.. but I am saying if all other recourses are exhausted then you have the ability to enter in. An easy example is a ball that goes into your neighbours yard or animal... you can legally go in to get the ball or animal. This extends to cars, jackets, children etc.. You need to be careful with these things because they are "legal defences" meaning you don't actually commit the offence because it is an exemption.. but cops don't often recognize exemptions in some cases, so they may still arrest you, since some cops arn't lawyers or judges. However if a cop goes gungho, and won't communicate, you can defend yourself, but it can be a very dangerous situation use discretion.

They could ask for compensation for the damage, but police likewise who break down peoples doors, even the wrong doors, may or may not pay to replace it. People can seek court order remedy though.

It plays into defence of necessity and "defence of property" say for instance an intending crushing of a vehicle or incineration of goods.

I would think that it would have to be very extreme, or a highly duress based situation to go to those lengths. Defences would exist though - if you survived. In all reasonableness cops should just give the stuff back, unless there is more to it. Not all cops are leathernecks, some actually have grey matter.

Here is an example on tresspass http://ssrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca/aripley/Law12/TortLawJan7/Defences_for_Trespass.doc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_property

Edited August 18, 2011 by William Ashley