Speeding ticket even though the PO said he didn't catch me speeding?

[Brad Fuel]

Originally Posted by G-spec

^ These "profiling" methods being enforced at will by the Police quite often breach our rights as Citizens, bottom line is the bottom line you can't argue that in any form or manner I don't care if you're the gotdamn Prime Minister.

And what's ridiculous to me, is how the Police absolutely love to justify these methods, but when it really comes down to the nitty gritty, it doesn't even really work the way it's supposed too... I remember reading in the news some guy get pulled over with kilos of Cocaine and end up having charges dropped because because the officer at the scene exceeded his authority..
Not that I'm condoning this idiot and his drug smuggling, but I will neither condone a Canadian Citizen's Charter Rights being breached.

Police here tend to get caught up in the "end justifies the means" mentality which off course works so well in countries like the US. *end sarcasm*


edit:: link here
Supreme court quashes drug conviction over illegal search - Canada - CBC News

Thanks for the link, I'm always interested in case laws. However, the case presented by the news article is not clear so I'm not sure if it is really proving your point. The news article portrays R. vs Harrison simply as a breach of charter. It doesn't specify where the breach was.

Was the breach of charter for initially stopping the vehicle without cause?

Or was the breach on the search for for the licence that the officer knew wasn't there.

My understanding is the search must be for evidence related to the offence, which in this case would be for Driving while Prohibited (or the Ontario equivalent). If in the course of that lawful search you come across the drugs it would be fair game. That would be my guess as to why the drugs were not admitted as evidence.

I have not dug up the actual case to read yet, not just a news article because they don't know what they're talking about. I may do that later as it's interesting.

[Shorn]

Originally Posted by BlueG2

Profiling methods? It is called a police check stop. At the end of the day, if you are an honest citizen/driver, with nothing to hide, why do you care if the police stop you to verify your licence, sobriety, and/or insurance, to name a few things? Do you not want to live in a safe society? Do you think that it is that much of an inconvenience to be pulled over/stopped now and then, to have shitrats removed from the streets?

And with respect to the link you posted, mistakes happen. Police officers are human, and the general public are protected, too much imho, by the Charter of Rights, where loophpoles are all over the place, in favour of the accused.

just like if you're an honest citizen, you're cool with government mandated closed circuit cameras installed in every house?

no? why? do you not want to live in a safe society??

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Shorn

just like if you're an honest citizen, you're cool with government mandated closed circuit cameras installed in every house?

no? why? do you not want to live in a safe society??

Being stopped out in public, driving on a public road - which in itself is a PRIVILEGE, not a right - by police whose job it is to make sure EVERYONE ELSE using the road is kept safe from your actions... is not the same thing as having security cameras in your private home.

[Shorn]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Being stopped out in public, driving on a public road - which in itself is a PRIVILEGE, not a right - by police whose job it is to make sure EVERYONE ELSE using the road is kept safe from your actions... is not the same thing as having security cameras in your private home.

having a house is a privilege too, isn't it?

wouldn't you say having a security camera in every house WOULD in fact make our society safer?

and wouldn't you also say part of a policeman's job is to improve on the safety of our society?

well then..

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Shorn

having a house is a privilege too, isn't it?

wouldn't you say having a security camera in every house WOULD in fact make our society safer?

and wouldn't you also say part of a policeman's job is to improve on the safety of our society?

well then..

Your babbling makes NO fucking sense

[Shorn]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Your babbling makes NO fucking sense

that's a good breakdown of what you disagree with, thanks.

[Soundy]

I can't disagree with something that makes no sense. Try making sense and then see if I (or anyone else) agree.

[Shorn]

i thought it was simple enough already, i guess not.

here it is in point form then:

number 1 -

driving on a public road - which in itself is a PRIVILEGE, not a right

having a house is also a privilege, not a right.

number 2 - i think you would agree that having security cameras in every single house would undoubtedly make our society safer.

number 3 -

by police whose job it is to make sure EVERYONE ELSE using the road is kept safe from your actions

i think you would also agree that one of the responsibilities of the police is to make our society a safer place to be.

therefore based on your logic, you would agree with security cameras being installed in every household, based on the fact that you shouldn't have 'anything to hide'.

is that simple enough for ya?

[Soundy]

No, actually, because your "logic" is flawed... rather, it would be, if there were any.

The interior of your house is considered "private" and always has been, at least in Western society. Step outside your house, you're no longer in private - now you're in "public".

That is the basic piece of the puzzle you're conveniently ignoring in this drivel.

[Graeme S]

Also, Shorn, I'm curious about your analogy. Would this apply only to detached houses? Detached houses owned by their occupants? So then renters who lived in a house but didn't own it would be exempt? Apartment renters? People renting from families?

No, a place of residence is not a right, but it is a basic expectation. A car is not a basic expectation. You can bus. You can catch a cab. You can walk, or use one of Uncle Greg's awesome bike lanes



And actually, I would disagree that more cameras make you safer. More cameras just make for more work to do when monitoring them. They certainly make punishments easier, 'cause it's easier to see who's guilty. But it makes nobody safer.

[Spidey]

a house is a privelege? what? i never knew you HAD to have house insurance to be able to live in your house. I never knew you HAD to have a house licence to live in a house. I also never knew you HAD to take a house exam to qualify to live in a house. How are you even comparing these 2 things?

If you knew how many pedestrians, drivers, cyclists who sustain serious injuries/death from what you would consider MINOR traffic infractions, you would realize these MINOR traffic infractions aren't so... MINOR

[zulutango]

Somebody's been spendin' too much time watchin' "Big Brother"
Big Brother - TV.com

[BallPeenHammer2]

^

LOL.

I was in mid conversation so I was kinda in that "ho hum. slow driving" kinda mode.

But really. I wasn't speeding at all. It was one of the weirdest pullovers I've ever had. No prior record at that time, clean. She even called BACKUP LOL

She threatened me before we went into court, stating that she'll add as much punishment as possible if I don't admit to it. Had me on radar, blah blah blah.

As soon as we got to the stand, she pleaded no evidence.

LOL

[zulutango]

[QUOTE=BallPeenHammer2;8170137]^

But really. I wasn't speeding at all. It was one of the weirdest pullovers I've ever had. No prior record at that time, clean. She even called BACKUP LOL

But all of us here know that you are such a nice, gentle, non-threatening, considerate, respector of authority that we have no idea where she ever came up with that impression.