[martin14]

and I have asked you questions that you have dodged, nothing new there.

You asked for opinions based on the article. I gave you mine.
Toss the cop, and sorry the conviction should be overturned.

4 pages, havent seen any real support for your positions

Got something else ? or is snooty and condescending your major
debating skill ?

[Dayseed]

martin14 martin14:

and I have asked you questions that you have dodged, nothing new there.

No, you've only asked one question, do I want to see your interpretation of Slovakian cops in Canada. I answered it: Who cares what Slovakian cops do?

$1:

You asked for opinions based on the article. I gave you mine.

No I haven't. I have asked a wealth of questions using the article as a convenient jumping off point.

$1:

Toss the cop, and sorry the conviction should be overturned.

Everybody's entitled to their opinion. However, your's isn't one formed from jurisprudence, just an amateurish understanding of the Charter. For instance, you certainly haven't revisited your "Let's apply the Charter here, here and here, but not here" argument because I sufficiently dismantled it.

$1:

4 pages, havent seen any real support for your positions

Then you're either blind or ignorant. Dr. Caleb certainly understood my arguments that a stark black and white interpretation of legal breaches would lead to a practically unlivable society. I've quoted you caselaw which antagonizes my position and supports Derby's. I dismantled your argument that perhaps the cop acted in bad faith by stating that the defence hasn't challenged it at trial or on appeal; I did notice that you haven't returned to that argument either.

In summation, I've changed minds of others, had a laugh and thoroughly stymied you to the point you had to abandon your positions and move on to new ones, or rehash anecdotal Slovakian police tales.

$1:

Got something else ? or is snooty and condescending your major
debating skill ?

I've got plenty. And I know it works when you drop an argument you've made flat. So, ball's in your court.

Please let me know how you reconcile garbage placed at the curb being seized sans warrant by the police, why being pulled over at the roadside doesn't trigger S.10 of the Charter despite your insistence that breaches of the Charter should be automatically employed by the trial judge or how you would design a perfect rule to be used in a police interview to infallibly bknow when a line of questioning will trigger an incriminating response.

Derby,

On further inspection, rolling "red" in "bingo" doesn't make sense at all. But it does conjure an image of two cops sitting behind a billboard with one saying, "Hot shit! A Dodge Diplomat! BING-FUCKING-O! Let's roll!"

[uwish]

Dayseed Dayseed:

uwish uwish:

If the guy has a half ass defence lawyer, he will appeal to the SCC. There is NO way they would allow evidence to be admitted that was obtained under these conditions.

It went to the Supreme Court over a month ago. Thanks for coming out.

I didn't know you were a gang banger, how do u like Tek's

[Dayseed]

uwish uwish:

Dayseed Dayseed:

uwish uwish:

If the guy has a half ass defence lawyer, he will appeal to the SCC. There is NO way they would allow evidence to be admitted that was obtained under these conditions.

It went to the Supreme Court over a month ago. Thanks for coming out.

I didn't know you were a gang banger, how do u like Tek's

Huh?

[karra]

Dayseed Dayseed:

karra karra:

Believe me, judges don't necessarily make the correct call(s) - this is what occurs when a family court lawyer is promoted to criminal court judge - bottom line is the police know and have training and yet decide to perjure themselves - cops know the law yet continue more and more these days to bend, break and circumvent it to their advantage regardless of the fact an innocent person may spend years behind bars for something they didn't commit - disgusting and very third worldish - and very scary. . . .

And sounding very fear-mongerish. Do you have statistics, evidence or any particular case to support your accusation that the police are increasingly violating the Charter and this is due to deliberate disavowal of it? Are Charter challenges increasing in criminal trials? Are they higher now than when the Charter was introduced in 1982 and there was a lot of uncharted territory on which to acquit accused? Would complexity of the law, sometimes contradictory and vague caselaw contribute to inadvertent Charter breaches?

Spare us the theatrics; it's terribly third worldish of you.

Are you being purposely thick?

What could you possibly find 'fear-mongering' in that?

Do you have statistics that contravene what I've stated?

Inadvertent Charter breaches! Surely you jest - as just about any Canadian newspaper will fill you to the brim with the stats you seem to desire oh-so-abominably - so my suggestion. . . .

[karra]

Yogi Yogi:

So to circumvent, all the cop has to say to justify the stop is " I noticed the defendant 'weaving from side to side, and suspected that he might have been impaired. After pulling the defendant over, with with the intention of confirming my suspicions, and after some discussion with the defendant...

Precisely - that's literally all they have to do - interestingly, there are those who welcome that goose-step/all for one & .../blue line approach - then again, they would be the type who typically trash the Charter in the belief the 'ends justify the means' - so sad, so pathetic - but, they are out there - perhaps you've noticed. . . .

[Dayseed]

karra karra:

Are you being purposely thick?

Can one be purposely thin instead?

$1:

What could you possibly find 'fear-mongering' in that?

You allege that police officers are routinely trampling people's rights as a matter of course, and that this trend is increasing. However, you don't provide any rationale for reasons it's increasing, but that doesn't matter, because your allegation is evidence-free.

$1:

Do you have statistics that contravene what I've stated?

You made a claim. The onus is on you to provide evidence which causes you to believe that. We don't live in a world where claims that go unchallenged are accordingly held to be true.

$1:

Inadvertent Charter breaches! Surely you jest - as just about any Canadian newspaper will fill you to the brim with the stats you seem to desire oh-so-abominably - so my suggestion. . . .

Your suggestion appears to be that I should research your claim for you if only to refute it. If you're too lazy to cite evidence in support of it, why would I?

[EyeBrock]

herbie herbie:

Yogi Yogi:

So, if I happen to be driving down the highway some day, and a cop is having a 'slow day' and decides to 'pull me over for the hell of it' and then sees that I have what appears to be fresh blood all over my hands, a machete on the seat beside me, and a bag of human body parts in the back seat, I get 'a walk'??? Hooray for 'the charter!!!

If you're openly covered in blood, or there's a smoking gun or syringe in plain view, nobody's gonna give a shit WHY you got pulled over. Just like if you chop someone's head off in your front window with the drapes open, you aren't walking because there was no warrant.
Plain view. Search. 2 different things.

You mean just like R Vs Feeney? More great case law.

[Chumley]

karra karra:

Yogi Yogi:

So to circumvent, all the cop has to say to justify the stop is " I noticed the defendant 'weaving from side to side, and suspected that he might have been impaired. After pulling the defendant over, with with the intention of confirming my suspicions, and after some discussion with the defendant...

Precisely - that's literally all they have to do - interestingly, there are those who welcome that goose-step/all for one & .../blue line approach - then again, they would be the type who typically trash the Charter in the belief the 'ends justify the means' - so sad, so pathetic - but, they are out there - perhaps you've noticed. . . .

You have to have some faith that the far majority of cops are doing their jobs for the right reasons.
The cop could have told the judge that the car was swerving erratically, but he told them the truth didn't he? He could have lied and because he did find drugs who would question his word?

You call it goose stepping and trashing the charter, but the alternative is having irrefutable evidence for anything they do, and that way is anarchy.

If a cop sees a guy trying to steal a car with a gun in his hand and makes an arrest, if no one else witnesses it, then their is no reason to believe that the cop didn't just randomly cuff the guy and plant a gun on him and make the entire story up.

So he broke the charter by pulling these guys over for no reason.

If you are walking home and decided to take a short cut across a property marked "private property no trespassing", and you looked through a window on the way by and saw a guy passed out on the floor and there was a fire spreading in the room should the fire department be called? And should you be charged with trespassing and invasion of privacy?

If a police officer has a reasonably questionable history of stopping and questioning people for no apparent reason then yes, he is more than likely guilty of harassing the public and should be disciplined, but if occasionally someone is pulled over for a trivial breach like this, and it pays off to the benefit of the public than good on em.
If you must, give the cop a stern lecture or a hundred dollar fine for the breach and take away his coffee break for a week. But don't let these guys walk because of it.

[DerbyX]

Chumley Chumley:

So he broke the charter by pulling these guys over for no reason.

The problem is that he lied about it on the stand. That is what renders the stop invalid because lying about it renders everything the cop says suspect. Furthermore it is a charge of perjury and according to the article no discipline was taken. In addition, do we want to live in a society where the police can pull you over for no reason at all? That sounds like a police state mentality. I work nights and drive home for lunch so I drive a lot around 2am and 3am. I couldn't do that if I kept getting pulled over simply because driving at that time is itself considered suspicious to people.

Chumley Chumley:

If a police officer has a reasonably questionable history of stopping and questioning people for no apparent reason then yes, he is more than likely guilty of harassing the public and should be disciplined, but if occasionally someone is pulled over for a trivial breach like this, and it pays off to the benefit of the public than good on em.
If you must, give the cop a stern lecture or a hundred dollar fine for the breach and take away his coffee break for a week. But don't let these guys walk because of it.

Except that it is important the police conduct themselves properly and with the punishment you suggest it would be laughed at.

The police are there to serve the public and protect them, not to trample their rights and in our society the police need probably cause. Would you be so forgiving if the police just showed up at your door for no reason to search it? How about every other day? The power to act like that with little repercussions has always led to more numerous and egregious violations. A very good motivation behind the police doing it correctly is the knowledge that if they don't their effort will be in vain.

Besides, how many good Law & Order episodes would we have sucked without watching Jack McCoy argue the evidence should be included?

[Chumley]

DerbyX DerbyX:

The problem is that he lied about it on the stand. That is what renders the stop invalid because lying about it renders everything the cop says suspect. Furthermore it is a charge of perjury and according to the article no discipline was taken. In addition, do we want to live in a society where the police can pull you over for no reason at all? That sounds like a police state mentality.

If he did lie on the stand, that is serious and what he lied about is important.
The article doesn't really go into it. He should be charged with perjury if he lied, but to me those guys still have been caught doing something illegal so fuck 'em. Whether the cop is charged with anything or not, they got caught.

He did have a reason to pull the guy over, it's just that in the process of doing so, his reason was nulled.(unless that was the thing he lied about) I think he was ok in carrying on with the stop insofar as to inform the guy what he has been going to pull him over for. And I don't think it is out of line for cops to ask you questions once they do engage you in conversation. The questions they ask are typical questions anyone would ask if you were sitting next to them on the bus. "How are you doing?" "Where are you heading?" "Are you guys all together?"
If these guys were too stoopid to get these kinds of questions straight with each other, then they deserved what they got. Their answers were suspect which gave reason to search the car.

DerbyX DerbyX:

Except that it is important the police conduct themselves properly and with the punishment you suggest it would be laughed at.

It is important that police conduct themselves properly, but I think part of conducting themselves properly police should have some leeway in determining what is reasonable when following orders, similar to the judge having the leeway to dismiss or include evidence based on how they feel it will affect public opinion on the justice system.
The cops aren't all mindless thugs, and if you take away from them the ability to use their judgement, it is just as well that they were, because anyone can follow a flowchart. You have to have the ability to use your head.

The punishment I suggested was in the case of an isolated incident where the breach of charter (in my opinion) was mild, and ended up with a criminal getting caught. It was slightly tongue in cheek, but I was trying to indicate that it wasn't much of a breach,so don't fire the guy over it.
As I said before, if the guy is showing a history of abuse then punish him appropriately, fire him, charge him and/or jail him if necessary.

DerbyX DerbyX:

I work nights and drive home for lunch so I drive a lot around 2am and 3am. I couldn't do that if I kept getting pulled over simply because driving at that time is itself considered suspicious to people.

Then I guess the cops aren't doing too bad then, because you are still doing your job right?

DerbyX DerbyX:

The police are there to serve the public and protect them, not to trample their rights and in our society the police need probably cause. Would you be so forgiving if the police just showed up at your door for no reason to search it? How about every other day? The power to act like that with little repercussions has always led to more numerous and egregious violations. A very good motivation behind the police doing it correctly is the knowledge that if they don't their effort will be in vain.

Yes, they are there to serve and protect, and in this case the public was served and protected by his luck in apprehending these criminals. I do not consider this to be a trampling of rights.
If the police showed up at my door to search my place because he had the wrong address or something and he asked me a bunch of questions I wouldn't care because I have nothing to hide. If they were showing up every other day for no reason, then that would be a history of abuse I believe. I said there should be repercussions for obvious abuse. Did this guy have a history of randomly stopping and searching people for no reason?

DerbyX DerbyX:

Besides, how many good Law & Order episodes would we have sucked without watching Jack McCoy argue the evidence should be included?

[/quote]

I have don't watch Law & Order, or CSI or any of those kind of shows. They bore the hell out of me.

[DerbyX]

Chumley Chumley:

If he did lie on the stand, that is serious and what he lied about is important.
The article doesn't really go into it. He should be charged with perjury if he lied, but to me those guys still have been caught doing something illegal so fuck 'em. Whether the cop is charged with anything or not, they got caught.

$1:

An Ontario Provincial Police constable had no grounds for stopping Harrison and even lied in court about the incident, yet there's no evidence he was ever disciplined, Addario noted.

That seems pretty clear cut that he lied about the reason he stopped them. In essence he knew he had no probably cause to stop them so he lied on the stand to try and validate it.

That should invalidate the search because the police officer perjured himself in court. His whole reason for the search was the defendants were lying and therefore suspicious. By his own logic he is lying and therefore what he did is suspicious.

Chumley Chumley:

He did have a reason to pull the guy over, it's just that in the process of doing so, his reason was nulled.(unless that was the thing he lied about) I think he was ok in carrying on with the stop insofar as to inform the guy what he has been going to pull him over for. And I don't think it is out of line for cops to ask you questions once they do engage you in conversation. The questions they ask are typical questions anyone would ask if you were sitting next to them on the bus. "How are you doing?" "Where are you heading?" "Are you guys all together?"
If these guys were too stupid to get these kinds of questions straight with each other, then they deserved what they got. Their answers were suspect which gave reason to search the car.

Uhh, no he didn't. Thats the point of the case. He had no reason to stop them and then lied about his reason on the stand.

Chumley Chumley:

It is important that police conduct themselves properly, but I think part of conducting themselves properly police should have some leeway in determining what is reasonable when following orders, similar to the judge having the leeway to dismiss or include evidence based on how they feel it will affect public opinion on the justice system.
The cops aren't all mindless thugs, and if you take away from them the ability to use their judgement, it is just as well that they were, because anyone can follow a flowchart. You have to have the ability to use your head.

The rules regarding probable cause are there for a reason. It's obvious the cop knew he did not have reasonable grounds to stop them else he would not have lied about it. Its the lying about it that destroys his "using my judgement" argument. Just as a witness caught lying on the stand has their entire testimony cast into doubt (or thrown out entirely) so to does a case when cops lie.

Chumley Chumley:

The punishment I suggested was in the case of an isolated incident where the breach of charter (in my opinion) was mild, and ended up with a criminal getting caught. It was slightly tongue in cheek, but I was trying to indicate that it wasn't much of a breach,so don't fire the guy over it.
As I said before, if the guy is showing a history of abuse then punish him appropriately, fire him, charge him and/or jail him if necessary.

The article also says that discipline isn't happening.

$1:

So far, police forces have shown little appetite for disciplining officers who run afoul of the Charter, Addario added, pointing to the case of Bradley Harrison, who was pulled over on the Trans-Canada Highway near Kenora in 2004 with 35 kilograms of cocaine hidden in his SUV.

Lets not mince words. A cop lying on the stand not only casts that case into doubt but every case that cop has been on and the justice system in general. He should be perfect grounds for a case to be dismissed in all but extreme circumstances, like murder.

Chumley Chumley:

Then I guess the cops aren't doing too bad then, because you are still doing your job right?

Its a good thing I said "if".

Chumley Chumley:

Yes, they are there to serve and protect, and in this case the public was served and protected by his luck in apprehending these criminals. I do not consider this to be a trampling of rights.

Thats because they got lucky. What about all the innocent people being affected that did nothing wrong. Those are the rights I'm concerned about.

Chumley Chumley:

If the police showed up at my door to search my place because he had the wrong address or something and he asked me a bunch of questions I wouldn't care because I have nothing to hide. If they were showing up every other day for no reason, then that would be a history of abuse I believe. I said there should be repercussions for obvious abuse. Did this guy have a history of randomly stopping and searching people for no reason?

Thats the point. If they get away with it then it only serves to reinforce their behaviour.

Chumley Chumley:

I have don't watch Law & Order, or CSI or any of those kind of shows. They bore the hell out of me.

I'll try and find a Scooby-Doo reference then.

[Chumley]

$1:

An Ontario Provincial Police constable had no grounds for stopping Harrison and even lied in court about the incident, yet there's no evidence he was ever disciplined, Addario noted.

DerbyX DerbyX:

That seems pretty clear cut that he lied about the reason he stopped them. In essence he knew he had no probably cause to stop them so he lied on the stand to try and validate it.

It seems clear but as they don't state exactly what he lied about it actually isn't. They only say he lied about "the incident".

DerbyX DerbyX:

Just as a witness caught lying on the stand has their entire testimony cast into doubt (or thrown out entirely) so to does a case when cops lie.

It will cast doubt and may get it thrown out(or not). In all cases they used their judgement. They deemed it admissable in this case.

DerbyX DerbyX:

The article also says that discipline isn't happening.

It says there was no evidence he was disciplined. He may have been disciplined internally, but I would say you are correct in assuming he wasn't.

DerbyX DerbyX:

Lets not mince words. A cop lying on the stand not only casts that case into doubt but every case that cop has been on and the justice system in general. He should be perfect grounds for a case to be dismissed in all but extreme circumstances, like murder.

No, it casts doubt on the cop in question but not the whole justice system. If they manage to convict a guilty person, despite a breach in rules, then I think justice is served better than the letter of the law.

DerbyX DerbyX:

Thats because they got lucky. What about all the innocent people being affected that did nothing wrong. Those are the rights I'm concerned about.

A fool relies on luck and a bigger fool will not use luck to his advantage.
Who were the innocent people affected here? If they don't review the circumstances of each case, then maybe other people would be affected, but as they review on a case by case basis, I don't think innocents will be affected in a negative way.

DerbyX DerbyX:

Thats the point. If they get away with it then it only serves to reinforce their behaviour.

It will only reinforce their behavior if bending the rules resulting in innocents being harmed is not punished.

DerbyX DerbyX:

I'll try and find a Scooby-Doo reference then.

That's more like it

[DerbyX]

Chumley Chumley:

It seems clear but as they don't state exactly what he lied about it actually isn't. They only say he lied about "the incident".

Not to be argumentative but if the case involves the search being lawful but the stop not what would he be lying about? If he was lying about the search reasons then its even worse because then you can't claim good faith mistake on the search.

In all honesty please re-examine the evidence and realize that the cop lied about the stop. Thats actually far better then lying about the search.

Chumley Chumley:

It will cast doubt and may get it thrown out(or not). In all cases they used their judgement. They deemed it admissable in this case.

Yeah but thats the point. police "judgement" has been proven to be very bad in the past. Hell even those I support (YVR RCMP taser incident) are disputed) are subject to cross-examination.

DerbyX DerbyX:

The article also says that discipline isn't happening.

Chumley Chumley:

It says there was no evidence he was disciplined. He may have been disciplined internally, but I would say you are correct in assuming he wasn't.

That too is part and parcel to the complaint. Its also a valid reason why these happen frequently and valid reason why harsh measures including "case thrown out" should be employed.

Chumley Chumley:

No, it casts doubt on the cop in question but not the whole justice system. If they manage to convict a guilty person, despite a breach in rules, then I think justice is served better than the letter of the law.

Actually it does. Cops lying on the stand do cast doubt on the justice system because people who believe cops don't do that lose faith. It means every police office after that must go the extra mile to validate his testimony when it used to be enough tha he was a cop.

Chumley Chumley:

A fool relies on luck and a bigger fool will not use luck to his advantage.
Who were the innocent people affected here? If they don't review the circumstances of each case, then maybe other people would be affected, but as they review on a case by case basis, I don't think innocents will be affected in a negative way.

Thats not the point. Am I innocent if I rob and kill a bunch of drug dealers? If we are so willing to throw out the law when guilty people are concerned then it will be followed closely when innocent people are concerned.

What about those everybody thinks is guilty, like guy paul moran? That man would have been tortured and executed by the beliefs of many here yet he was innocent

Thats why our system favours the innocent.

Chumley Chumley:

It will only reinforce their behavior if bending the rules resulting in innocents being harmed is not punished.

Sorry but no. Stanfords continued experiments show that good and decent humans will go along with evil when they thing its in the greater good.

Good cops will be more inclined to lie and plant evidence because "they think" somebody is guilty believing its for the greater good.


Scooby-Doo rules!

[Chumley]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Good cops will be more inclined to lie and plant evidence because "they think" somebody is guilty believing its for the greater good.

Possibly. What if they are right?

I think the line between right and wrong, good and evil is more like a rubber band than a concrete wall.

DerbyX DerbyX:

Scooby-Doo rules!

Oh yeah!