guyser Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 I showed you the Tsa of SK. I am not wrong, Thats sentiment of one who has no idea what he is talking about so....yeah, you may think that but you are dead wrong. and requesting a DL is probable cause. Ok, lets take this premise right here as an example. Please tell us how a cop could have any idea of the validity or existence of an improper DL when said cop is following you, ie probable cause . How could a Cop have any idea thus PC to do a stop? 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. Again, you dont get it and have it backasswards. The bold part is key,and thats because a cop must have PC to pull you over (not a spotcheck which is constitutional) Pulled over because some cop wants to look at your DL? Uh no. and if the cop is caught on tape or camera, bye bye job! Section 7 of the CCoR -see mobility Boo hoo!! Really, stop embarassing yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) If one wants to drive on the road, one plays by the rules. No one disputes that. If one wants to drive on the roads., one should know their rights and the law. Otherwise they'll make foolish mistakes. Edited September 6, 2012 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 If there are complaints of a plane going in restricted airspace, they have every right to investigate, which means bringing the plane down. Why not just look at the radar screen that's monitoring said airspace to verify the complaint's validity before launching the sidewinders? 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. Shouldn't someone like you be more concerned about investigating the waste of taxpayer dollars that were squandered by who knows how many overzealous out of control bureaucracies that were involved in this case? Like I said a simple phone call and the above-mentioned glance at the radar could have prevented our loss of who knows how many thousands of dollars. How much is the real cost of these security theatrics? The big chase in the Blues Brothers movie comes to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 Or they could have just contacted NavCan. They did, and were told he was not in restricted air space. So the RCMP asked him to land because the sign 'might' be hate speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 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 skies above Ottawa are monitored by about 4 different airports including Macdonald-Cartier International. You cannot get over the city without permission from that specific tower. There are two VERY SMALL restricted airzones above Ottawa, and you can fly through one in a matter of seconds. This was 100% a political ploy to ground the plane because of the sign. That pilot was experienced and knew where the zones where, that apparently was discussed before the banner ever flew. Maybe we need to do for Ottawa what London had for the 0lympics?? Missile batteries on building rooftops? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 The skies above Ottawa are monitored by about 4 different airports including Macdonald-Cartier International. You cannot get over the city without permission from that specific tower. There are two VERY SMALL restricted airzones above Ottawa, and you can fly through one in a matter of seconds. This was 100% a political ploy to ground the plane because of the sign. That pilot was experienced and knew where the zones where, that apparently was discussed before the banner ever flew. Maybe we need to do for Ottawa what London had for the 0lympics?? Missile batteries on building rooftops? And how do you know there aren’t See 4th AD regiment and OP PODIUM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 And how do you know there aren’t How do you know that there are? I have not heard any info regarding roof top missile defence here in Ottawa. See 4th AD regiment and OP PODIUM Nothing about missile defence over Ottawa http://www.army.gc.ca/iaol/143000440002249/143000440002250/index-Eng.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 Thats sentiment of one who has no idea what he is talking about so....yeah, you may think that but you are dead wrong. Ok, lets take this premise right here as an example. Please tell us how a cop could have any idea of the validity or existence of an improper DL when said cop is following you, ie probable cause . How could a Cop have any idea thus PC to do a stop? Again, you dont get it and have it backasswards. The bold part is key,and thats because a cop must have PC to pull you over (not a spotcheck which is constitutional) Pulled over because some cop wants to look at your DL? Uh no. and if the cop is caught on tape or camera, bye bye job! Section 7 of the CCoR -see mobility Really, stop embarassing yourself. The checking of the DL is the reason. Driving without a DL is an arrestable offense. A driver SHALL present a DL when requested to do so when driving. It also says a peace officer may require a vehicle to stop if the peace officer is readily identifiable as a peace officer and is in the lawful execution of his duties and responsibilities - asking a driver for their DL is a lawful duty. A peace officer has no idea whether a person is carrying their DL on them, that's why the TSA allows a Peace Officer to request for a Driver's License and a driver SHALL present it to one. In order for you to be correct, there would not be the parts of the TSA stating that a driver has to present his DL to a peace officer upon request and that you must carry a DL while driving. This is in Saskatchewan, Ontario may be different. I think you have that confused with a person walking down the road and arbitrarily asking for I.D. That you can't do, there is no licence to walk down the road. However since driving without a Driver's license is an offense, not to mention an arrestable one, they can pull over cars to make sure they're following the law. And last time I checked the TSA of Saskatchewan hasn't been ruled unconstitutional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) One last time ....and nicely since it appears not to be getting through... The checking of the DL is the reason. The police simply cannot pull a traffic stop to check the validity of a DL. Not in Sask, alta On Q, nor anywhere else in this country. They simply cannot do it. Driving without a DL is an arrestable offense. A driver SHALL present a DL when requested to do so when driving. No one is arguing otherwise. Well, except for the arrestable part. It s a citation not an arrest. This next paragraph is key... It also says a peace officer may require a vehicle to stop if the peace officer is readily identifiable as a peace officer and is in the lawful execution of his duties and responsibilities - asking a driver for their DL is a lawful duty. Whatyou keep glossing over is the fatc that a cops duties and responsibilities are to pull over people seen commiting traffic offences or criminal acts or they cop feels that a criminal act is about to occur. So in order to check the DL, an offence has to be seen to be committed or a criminal act et al as outlined above. Police need probable cause to pull one over. That can be as simple as the wheels touchiung the yellow line, or a light out. In other words, something has to have occured. A peace officer has no idea whether a person is carrying their DL on them, And? It none of their f'ing business if all else the driver is legal. The cop will have no idea until an offence is seen to be committed. In order for you to be correct, there would not be the parts of the TSA stating that a driver has to present his DL to a peace officer upon request and that you must carry a DL while driving. This is in Saskatchewan, Ontario may be different. No, dont put the cart before the horse. A cop can ask for my DL, after I have been seen to have committed an offence under the Highway Traffic Act. I think you have that confused with a person walking down the road and arbitrarily asking for I.D. That you can't do, there is no licence to walk down the road. However since driving without a Driver's license is an offense, not to mention an arrestable one, they can pull over cars to make sure they're following the law. And last time I checked the TSA of Saskatchewan hasn't been ruled unconstitutional. All sorts of wrong there too. Edited September 6, 2012 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunrutz Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 This was 100% a political ploy to ground the plane because of the sign. I suppose your evidence of that is in the same place as the evidence that proves the cpc purposely corrupted the last election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 I suppose your evidence of that is in the same place as the evidence that proves the cpc purposely corrupted the last election. Amazing how supposition and innuendo win the day isn't it - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 The RCMP still haven't come clean about this. Why did they say that the banner was "hate speech"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) The RCMP still haven't come clean about this. Why did they say that the banner was "hate speech"? They're denying that (ie, LYING), because they know now that what they did is a violation of constitutional rights. It remains unclear why the plane was ordered out of the sky as the Ciambella and the RCMP offered conflicting stories. Ciambella says he repeatedly checked with air traffic control to ensure that he was outside Ottawa’s restricted zones, and that at no time was he told that he had penetrated the restricted area above Parliament Hill. But, Ciambella said, an official at the Rockcliffe airport contacted him on the radio to inform him that the police wanted to talk to him, so he complied with their request. Ciambella said the RCMP officers who met him appreciated his cooperation in bringing his flight to an early end, but they told him that the message on the banner could be construed as hate speech — hence their request for him to return to the airport for questioning. http://www.montrealgazette.com/touch/news/story.html?id=7187328 Edited September 6, 2012 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 They're denying that (ie, LYING), because they know now that what they did is a violation of constitutional rights. Appears that way. Ciambella said the RCMP officers who met him appreciated his cooperation in bringing his flight to an early end, but they told him that the message on the banner could be construed as hate speech — hence their request for him to return to the airport for questioning. [/i] http://www.montrealgazette.com/touch/news/story.html?id=7187328 The RCMP have a whole lot of stupid going for them these days. Maybe its time for the RCMP to advertise using Dudley Do-Right. Hes about s dumb as they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 One last time ....and nicely since it appears not to be getting through... The police simply cannot pull a traffic stop to check the validity of a DL. Not in Sask, alta On Q, nor anywhere else in this country. They simply cannot do it. No one is arguing otherwise. Well, except for the arrestable part. It s a citation not an arrest. This next paragraph is key... Whatyou keep glossing over is the fatc that a cops duties and responsibilities are to pull over people seen commiting traffic offences or criminal acts or they cop feels that a criminal act is about to occur. So in order to check the DL, an offence has to be seen to be committed or a criminal act et al as outlined above. Police need probable cause to pull one over. That can be as simple as the wheels touchiung the yellow line, or a light out. In other words, something has to have occured. And? It none of their f'ing business if all else the driver is legal. The cop will have no idea until an offence is seen to be committed. No, dont put the cart before the horse. A cop can ask for my DL, after I have been seen to have committed an offence under the Highway Traffic Act. All sorts of wrong there too. Holy Smoke!!! YES THEY CAN!!! RPG is to determine if the driver has a licence or not, and it is arrestable. Checking a DL is one of a peace officer's duties under the TSA period end of sentence. And under 209.1 a vehicle MAY be stopped. If you do not possess a driver's licence at all, its handcuffs. If you have one, but not on your person and the P.O. runs your name and you do have one, then its a citation. Driving without a licence is a criminal act, its one of the few offenses in the TSA that is ARRESTABLE. Therefore a P.O. MAY stop a vehicle to determine if the driver has a valid licence. It sucks, but the law is the law. There is no where in S. 209.1 which states that a P.O. may stop a vehicle when a violation of S. X to S. Y has occurred. Its not in there. there are only 2 stipulations that allows a vehicle to be stopped, 1 is if the peace officer is easily identifiable, and 2 if they are in the lawful execution of their duty. Checking a DL is a duty. Driving without a DL is an offense just as similar as driving with one headlight out. A vehicle stop is NOT an arrest (which you need RPG for) If you have a DL and are committing no violations then you have nothing to worry about being stopped. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean its illegal. You can't be right all the time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) Holy Smoke!!! YES THEY CAN!!! RPG is to determine if the driver has a licence or not, and it is arrestable. Checking a DL is one of a peace officer's duties under the TSA period end of sentence. And under 209.1 a vehicle MAY be stopped. If you do not possess a driver's licence at all, its handcuffs. If you have one, but not on your person and the P.O. runs your name and you do have one, then its a citation. Driving without a licence is a criminal act, its one of the few offenses in the TSA that is ARRESTABLE. Therefore a P.O. MAY stop a vehicle to determine if the driver has a valid licence. It sucks, but the law is the law. There is no where in S. 209.1 which states that a P.O. may stop a vehicle when a violation of S. X to S. Y has occurred. Its not in there. there are only 2 stipulations that allows a vehicle to be stopped, 1 is if the peace officer is easily identifiable, and 2 if they are in the lawful execution of their duty. Checking a DL is a duty. Driving without a DL is an offense just as similar as driving with one headlight out. A vehicle stop is NOT an arrest (which you need RPG for) If you have a DL and are committing no violations then you have nothing to worry about being stopped. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean its illegal. You can't be right all the time... DL derail aside ... the RCMP cannot legally order a plane out of the air because the sign criticizes Harper. Hate speech, as they very well know, is relevant only to identifiable groups, not individuals. An that, of course, is why the RCMP is now LYING about it. And we tax paying suckers are paying them for every lying minute, and every damage control meeting, and every time they violate our rights ... we pay them to do that too. Edited September 6, 2012 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 Legal or not it was stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 7, 2012 Report Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) One last time ....and nicely since it appears not to be getting through... The police simply cannot pull a traffic stop to check the validity of a DL. Not in Sask, alta On Q, nor anywhere else in this country. They simply cannot do it. you're sounding like bambino and his constitutional can's and can not's....it's all bull shitte...in the real world they do whatever they like...I've lost count how times I was pulled over for absolutely no reason, none, nada, zip...inquires why and the response varied from a shrug to shut up and show me your DL, any protest resulted in immediate threats of arrest and trip to the station for an overnight stay or if it's a friday night that meant monday morning release...now you can shout all you want they can not do it but they can and do, any reprimand they receive is minimal followed by a generic apology but you're out a day or two in the slammer(and if you're lucky you won't come out with any bruises)...that's the way it is in the real world.... :angry: Edited September 7, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted September 7, 2012 Report Share Posted September 7, 2012 In Ontario anyway, the Police can pull you over to check DL, Ins and Reg. if you bring yourself to their attention for any reason. DAMHIK.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 7, 2012 Report Share Posted September 7, 2012 In Ontario anyway, the Police can pull you over to check DL, Ins and Reg. if you bring yourself to their attention for any reason. DAMHIK.... I've seen them do it to people who weren't even driving, demand ID followed by threats to arrest if they did not comply...legally they may not be allowed to do so but who is going to prevent it? there are no witnesses, no judge on the spot to deny it...if you resist then there's a charge of resisting an officer, possibly assaulting an officer and a potential beating...when you're alone with a cop you're at their mercy and all the constitutional laws in canada don't mean crap... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted September 7, 2012 Report Share Posted September 7, 2012 you're sounding like bambino and his constitutional can's and can not's....it's all bull shitte...in the real world they do whatever they like... I've lost count how times I was pulled over for absolutely no reason, none, nada, zip...inquires why and the response varied from a shrug to shut up and show me your DL, any protest resulted in immediate threats of arrest and trip to the station for an overnight stay or if it's a friday night that meant monday morning release...now you can shout all you want they can not do it but they can and do, any reprimand they receive is minimal followed by a generic apology but you're out a day or two in the slammer(and if you're lucky you won't come out with any bruises)...that's the way it is in the real world.... :angry: Police wouldn't be able to get away with any of this if wore POV cameras whose recordings were subject to audit by...Transparency International or Wikileaks would work for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochus Posted September 7, 2012 Report Share Posted September 7, 2012 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. Right, the conservatives just did a national add mocking Chrétien's facial disability... But that was not immature... noooooooo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 7, 2012 Report Share Posted September 7, 2012 I've seen them do it to people who weren't even driving, demand ID followed by threats to arrest if they did not comply...legally they may not be allowed to do so but who is going to prevent it? there are no witnesses, no judge on the spot to deny it...if you resist then there's a charge of resisting an officer, possibly assaulting an officer and a potential beating...when you're alone with a cop you're at their mercy and all the constitutional laws in canada don't mean crap... Legally they may not be allowed to do it, but legally you're obligated to provide it too. So even if they're breaking the law, you're also breaking the law by not complying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted September 7, 2012 Report Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) Legally they may not be allowed to do it, but legally you're obligated to provide it too. So even if they're breaking the law, you're also breaking the law by not complying. I think I have to disagree cc. You don't legally have to show ID to police unless you're being charged. You can walk away. A kid in Scarborough did that. Cops beat him up. Case is in court. It should clarify, but the kid (walking while black) knew the law and knew he could legally walk away. If they have no grounds for charges, who you are is not their business. You're just a taxpayer paying them to protect your rights. And on topic ... the RCMP had no legal justification for grounding the plane, but he complied with their request. Edited September 7, 2012 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted September 7, 2012 Report Share Posted September 7, 2012 DL derail aside ... the RCMP cannot legally order a plane out of the air because the sign criticizes Harper. Hate speech, as they very well know, is relevant only to identifiable groups, not individuals. An that, of course, is why the RCMP is now LYING about it. And we tax paying suckers are paying them for every lying minute, and every damage control meeting, and every time they violate our rights ... we pay them to do that too. They pulled the plane out of the air because of separate complaints of a plane potentially in restricted airspace. They are doing their jobs as investigators. What happened in the end? Did the plane not get to continue on its merry way with no charges? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.