RCMP order plane towing a banner criticizing Harper to land

[Wilber]

Is this what our country is coming to, this protesting is getting out of hand and if someone flew around saying the same thing about chretien I still would be pissed. This is nothing but childish behaviour with these signs. Actually I find it embarressing . This shit never happened during chrettien's 13 years, why because the conservatives in this country do not act like a bunch of children.People need to grow up.

That's why this was a mistake. Better to let them make asses of themselves than react to stuff like this.

[jacee]

Not your regular ole commies, “commie separatist radicals” with roots in terrorism…………A PQ separatist government, supported by the same union (PSAC) that’s former President was also the former interim leader (Nycole Turmel) of the NDP (And former member of the Bloc) and is now their party Whip in Parliament………..Ooooh those are some bad optics……….Didn’t the NDP just get in trouble over taking union money?

So we have ourselves a Ménage à trois between Separatists, radical public sector unions and the NDP……………..Aside from the CPC, the federal Liberal party could really benefit from this………

It's paranoid looneytoon gun nuts like you that are the scariest things in Canada these days. Looking for an excuse to blow someone away are you? "The English are awakening!" Is that your buddy? Are you donating to his cause?

[PIK]

It's paranoid looneytoon gun nuts like you that are the scariest things in Canada these days. Looking for an excuse to blow someone away are you? "The English are awakening!" Is that your buddy? Are you donating to his cause?

LOL Talk about be paranoid. My god man, you have really drank the cool aid when it comes to fire arms. Anyways last report thre shooter was francophone. Since we are not politicaly correct , we understand what is going on around us, where you and your politcal correctness ,won't allow you to see that. Take the blinders off or are you to scared to see what is really happening around you.

[The_Squid]

It never entered restricted airspace. NAVCAN has said as much. The pilot has said as much. All the RCMP needed to do was ask air traffic.

However, unless the Mounties come up with a better explanation, the distinct impression remains that the message was the issue in this case. And that cannot stand in a free democracy. PSAC broke no laws. And Canadians should be rightly proud to live in a country where a plane can fly around the capital criticizing the prime minister, free from undue scrutiny by authorities. He may not like it, he may even hate it, but that is price of an invaluable freedom.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Harper+PSAC/7189855/story.html#ixzz25dFF37hV

[blueblood]

It never entered restricted airspace. NAVCAN has said as much. The pilot has said as much. All the RCMP needed to do was ask air traffic.

Ther was reasonable probable grounds to have the airplane landed because of the possibility that it entered restricted airspace. However it didn't, no charges were laid and the plane was free to fly again. Wow, the system works!

[The_Squid]

Ther was reasonable probable grounds to have the airplane landed because of the possibility that it entered restricted airspace. However it didn't, no charges were laid and the plane was free to fly again. Wow, the system works!

Nope it did not. They did not need to ground the plane. They only did so because of the banner that it was towing. In fact, they told the pilot that it was "hate speech" and this is why they landed him.

You can pick the best reason from the 4 or 5 that the RCMP gave about landing the plane.... Like the article says, until they can come up with something that makes any sense, the facts seem to be pointing to an attempt to stifle free speech.

[blueblood]

Nope it did not. They did not need to ground the plane. They only did so because of the banner that it was towing. In fact, they told the pilot that it was "hate speech" and this is why they landed him.

You can pick the best reason from the 4 or 5 that the RCMP gave about landing the plane.... Like the article says, until they can come up with something that makes any sense, the facts seem to be pointing to an attempt to stifle free speech.

If there are complaints of a plane going in restricted airspace, they have every right to investigate, which means bringing the plane down. Since there was no harm no foul, the pilot was allowed to coninue, heck there was no charges. That's not stifling free speech, that's conducting an investigation.

[The_Squid]

If there are complaints of a plane going in restricted airspace, they have every right to investigate, which means bringing the plane down. Since there was no harm no foul, the pilot was allowed to coninue, heck there was no charges. That's not stifling free speech, that's conducting an investigation.

Was it hate speech that brought the plane down? Or, conveniently, and investigation into restricted airspace (which never happened)? The RCMP gave us a couple different versions...

[blueblood]

Was it hate speech that brought the plane down? Or, conveniently, and investigation into restricted airspace (which never happened)? The RCMP gave us a couple different versions...

What is an investigation supposed to take weeks and cost thousands of dollars?

Here's probably how the investigation went...

"did you fly into restricted airspace"

"no"

Checked with the control tower about how the plane went, found it didn't violate restricted airspace. And the plane was back on it's way. It took what maybe an hour.

THis is like a vehicle being pulled over for a licence and registration check and the driver not getting ticketed because he has the DL and registration.

[scribblet]

Come on guys, much ado about nothing. Try flying a plane over the White House and see what happens

[The_Squid]

What is an investigation supposed to take weeks and cost thousands of dollars?

Here's probably how the investigation went...

"did you fly into restricted airspace"

"no"

Checked with the control tower about how the plane went, found it didn't violate restricted airspace. And the plane was back on it's way. It took what maybe an hour.

They could have asked air traffic control if it violated restricted airspace without bringing it down. They could have asked the pilot over the radio. They probably should not have mentioned that his banner was hate speech.

[The_Squid]

Come on guys, much ado about nothing. Try flying a plane over the White House and see what happens

red herring. he was not in restricted airspace.

[guyser]

What is an investigation supposed to take weeks and cost thousands of dollars?

If thats what is necessary then yes.

Here's probably how the investigation went...

"did you fly into restricted airspace"

"no"

Checked with the control tower about how the plane went, found it didn't violate restricted airspace. And the plane was back on it's way. It took what maybe an hour.

Here how it should have gone, and which you dont get...

RCMP-Hey control tower, did that plane go in restricted airspace?

CT-Nope

RCMP-Nevermind

THis is like a vehicle being pulled over for a licence and registration check and the driver not getting ticketed because he has the DL and registration.

You are exactly right but do not know it.

Both are illegal.

[blueblood]

If thats what is necessary then yes.

Here how it should have gone, and which you dont get...

RCMP-Hey control tower, did that plane go in restricted airspace?

CT-Nope

RCMP-Nevermind

You are exactly right but do not know it.

Both are illegal.

No, a car may be pulled over and a request for drivers licence may be made. In some provinces driving without a drivers licence is an arrest able offense. There must be a lawful reason to pull a vehicle over, an investigation whether a driver of a motor vehicle has a licence or not is a reasonable excuse and a driver shall provide a drivers licence on request of a peace officer.

There was rpg to land the plane based on the complaints and conduct a quick investigation. Boo hoo some lefties got their knickers in a knot.

Edited September 5, 2012 by blueblood

[The_Squid]

No, a car may be pulled over and a request for drivers licence may be made. In some provinces driving without a drivers licence is an arrest able offense. There must be a lawful reason to pull a vehicle over, an investigation whether a driver of a motor vehicle has a licence or not is a reasonable excuse and a driver shall provide a drivers licence on request of a peace officer.

There was rpg to land the plane based on the complaints and conduct a quick investigation. Boo hoo some lefties got their knickers in a knot.

They over reached again.... what about the "hate speech" reason? And they easily could have found out that the pilot was doing nothing wrong without landing the aircraft. In fact, landing the aircraft gave them no further details as to where the aircraft was flying than if they had left it up, since there was actually no issue whatsoever.

Nice try.

[guyser]

No, a car may be pulled over and a request for drivers licence may be made.

NO it may not. Check your laws.

What must be present , and you never stated is that...

There must be a lawful reason to pull a vehicle over.

But then you shoot yourself in the foot by saying, incorrectly of course....

an investigation whether a driver of a motor vehicle has a licence or not is a reasonable excuse and a driver shall provide a drivers licence on request of a peace officer.

When in fact it is not a reason to stop a car,

There was rpg to land the plane based on the complaints and conduct a quick investigation. Boo hoo some lefties got their knickers in a knot.

Agan, not how it should have played out.

As for the bold part, dont try and mock someone or something when you are plain wrong, not once but now three times.

Makes you look intolerant of education

Ever heard of the phrase "papers please' ? It is what you advocate as good. And you have no idea why its the worst of the worst.

Edited September 5, 2012 by guyser

[cybercoma]

Ther was reasonable probable grounds to have the airplane landed because of the possibility that it entered restricted airspace. However it didn't, no charges were laid and the plane was free to fly again. Wow, the system works!

Or they could have just contacted NavCan.

[blueblood]

NO it may not. Check your laws.

What must be present , and you never stated is that...

But then you shoot yourself in the foot by saying, incorrectly of course....

When in fact it is not a reason to stop a car,

Agan, not how it should have played out.

As for the bold part, dont try and mock someone or something when you are plain wrong, not once but now three times.

Makes you look intolerant of education

Ever heard of the phrase "papers please' ? It is what you advocate as good. And you have no idea why its the worst of the worst.

My link

Refer to section 209.1

Things may be different in ontario

[blueblood]

And s 39 and 276 which shows which section is arrestable

Peace officer may request a car to stop and And request a DL as it's a Lawful execution of their duty.

Edited September 5, 2012 by blueblood

[guyser]

My link

Refer to section 209.1

Things may be different in ontario

Same as in Ontario.

But they cannot stop you to check a licence. Nor does 209.1 say they can. It says they can check that status while conducting a legal stop....ie they had a reason to pull you over.

If no reason exists, they cannot check jack shit and I would tell them that.

You can be a sheep all you want, but I wont. I like my rights and exercise them ....as you should!

[guyser]

And s 39 and 276 which shows which section is arrestable

Peace officer may request a car to stop and And request a DL as it's a Lawful execution of their duty.

No one is saying that a driver w/out a licence cannot be arrested, we all know they can.

But a legitimate stop must be performed first. Ie a contravention of the HTA.

A cop cannot stop you because he wants to see a DL.

[blueblood]

Same as in Ontario.

But they cannot stop you to check a licence. Nor does 209.1 say they can. It says they can check that status while conducting a legal stop....ie they had a reason to pull you over.

If no reason exists, they cannot check jack shit and I would tell them that.

You can be a sheep all you want, but I wont. I like my rights and exercise them ....as you should!

Requesting a driver to surrender their DL is a lawful execution of duty. That means they can under s 209.1 pull your ass over and ask for a DL.

Read 39(1) again. A driver SHALL provide a DL at the request of a peace officer.

Checking a DL is part of the lawful execution of duty, which means red and blue lights if they wish to check for licences. Only a dumb ass who wants to be put in haandcuffs would tell them the they can't check jack shit. Motorist SHALL provide DL upon request. It's dirty pool but it's the law.

Edited September 5, 2012 by blueblood

[guyser]

Requesting a driver to surrender their DL is a lawful execution of duty. That means they can under s 209.1 pull your ass over and ask for a DL.

OH ffs , learn about the HTA and Police duties and come back.

Do you have any idea what probable cause is? It is the only reason they can pull you over.

Explain to us how Probable Cause can be determined when all they want is to check a licence.

Not a damn thing youve shown helps you in any way.

Heres the skinny. You are wrong and stubborn to see why.

But dont cry when you wake a 4amand the cops standing over your bed...."hey,. we want to check some status.

All good, we will leave now."

Edited September 5, 2012 by guyser

[blueblood]

OH ffs , learn about the HTA and Police duties and come back.

Do you have any idea what probable cause is? It is the only reason they can pull you over.

Explain to us how Probable Cause can be determined when all they want is to check a licence.

Not a damn thing youve shown helps you in any way.

Heres the skinny. You are wrong and stubborn to see why.

But dont cry when you wake a 4amand the cops standing over your bed...."hey,. we want to check some status.

All good, we will leave now."

I showed you the Tsa of SK. I am not wrong, and requesting a DL is probable cause. The tsp is quite clear, a peace officer may request a vehicle to stop provided that the peace officer is readily identifiable and is in the lawful execution of his duty. Requesting a driver for his DL is part of his duty.

Boo hoo!!

[blueblood]

I showed you the Tsa of SK. I am not wrong, and requesting a DL is probable cause. The tsp is quite clear, a peace officer may request a vehicle to stop provided that the peace officer is readily identifiable and is in the lawful execution of his duty. Requesting a driver for his DL is part of his duty.

Boo hoo!!

If one wants to drive on the road, one plays by the rules.