07-11-2016, 02:50 PM
|
#221
|
Lives In Fear Of Labelling
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resurrection
never consent to a search, ever.
ever.
|
Why? Because they might plant something. If I have nothing to hide I'm complying with a request... I've never gotten this line of thinking. What is everyone so afraid of? Honestly? Police are too busy to go out of their way to harass people for "fun". The request is only done when they believe there is reasonable and probable grounds.
Last edited by underGRADFlame; 07-11-2016 at 02:54 PM.
|
|
|
07-11-2016, 03:17 PM
|
#222
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Fort St. John, BC
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
If someone is bending your neck by kneeling on it and punching you in the head, you can bet you will squirm. Not too many people would have the willpower not to. It would be like blaming someone for struggling while being waterboarded.
Squirming does not equal resisting.
|
You could say that, fine, but tell me why it took 4 seconds and several blows to the head for three 200+ pound men to contain his arm if he wasn't resisting? I didn't see a leg on his throat until the arm was contained. What would you call swatting away a cops hand when he's simply to trying to grab your arm? If he didn't swat his hand I seriously doubt he would of ended up on the ground like that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resisting Arrest
n. the crime of using physical force (no matter how slight in the eyes of most law enforcement officers) to prevent arrest, handcuffing and/or taking the accused to jail. It is also called "resisting an officer" (but that can include interfering with a peace officer's attempt to keep the peace) and is sometimes referred to merely as "resisting."
|
Last edited by doctajones428; 07-11-2016 at 05:36 PM.
|
|
|
07-11-2016, 03:23 PM
|
#223
|
Franchise Player
|
I say if you're doing something that requires officers to use force on you, they should get to add in a couple few hits for you to learn your lesson.
|
|
|
07-11-2016, 03:50 PM
|
#224
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Cape Breton Island
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by underGRADFlame
Why? Because they might plant something. If I have nothing to hide I'm complying with a request... I've never gotten this line of thinking. What is everyone so afraid of? Honestly? Police are too busy to go out of their way to harass people for "fun". The request is only done when they believe there is reasonable and probable grounds.
|
Because you have rights. Because no one ever talked themselves out of trouble with the police if you've broken the law.
If a cop has to ask your permission to do something, that means you don't have to do it. And why would you? If they want to search your car, politely tell them no and be on your way. I'd never understand why people would want to voluntarily surrender rights to the police in a misguided attempt to be cooperative. If you've done nothing wrong , the police are wasting your time and infringing on your rights.
If you HAVE done something wrong why would you want to turn yourself in and make things worse? If you have a guilty conscious and want to surrender yourself for a crime you committed, lawyer up and get a deal.
__________________
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to White Out 403 For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-11-2016, 03:54 PM
|
#225
|
Crash and Bang Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by underGRADFlame
Why? Because they might plant something. If I have nothing to hide I'm complying with a request... I've never gotten this line of thinking. What is everyone so afraid of? Honestly? Police are too busy to go out of their way to harass people for "fun". The request is only done when they believe there is reasonable and probable grounds.
|
Just because you have never been victim of illegal police conduct hardly means that it is some fairy-tale thing.
This is a real case, in Calgary, AB with one of those CPS officers many people here seem to think can never do wrong:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/do...ocompletePos=4
Quote:
[19] What was interesting about both Sgt. Ellement’s and Constable Dalton’s evidence, is that in direct examination after being asked to describe what happened, both of them left out the part where they each conducted an unauthorized search of the accused’s motor vehicle. It wasn’t until Defence counsel recalled it to their respective memories in cross-examination that it came out that before Constable Dalton arrived on scene, Sgt. Ellement searched the accused’s car without warrant and then when Constable Dalton arrived he ordered Constable Dalton to also search the car, ostensibly for the purpose of making sure there was nothing of value in the vehicle before it was towed. When asked why he left the search out of his initial recitation of what happened, Sgt. Ellement responded: “I wasn’t asked about searching the motor vehicle.” In fairness, however, he was asked to detail what happened and he deliberately omitted the search in direct examination.
[20] When asked whether he knew he had a legal right to search the vehicle, Sgt. Ellement aggressively responded: “You know full well – I have taken every training course available and had been a CPO for 27 years at the time.” When confronted with a defence statement to the effect that Sgt. Ellement knew he was not allowed to search the motor vehicle, Sgt. Ellement responded: “That is not correct. I looked because based on my experience and dealing with who I was dealing with I wanted to make sure there was nothing of value in that motor vehicle… I was not looking for illegal material in A’s trunk. The trunk was closed and secured. I used the keys to open it to see if there was anything of value in that vehicle. I assert that I believed I was lawfully entitled to search the vehicle.” Sgt. Ellement stated that the Regulations were just “guidelines” and that he was allowed to exercise his discretion depending on the circumstances surrounding the situation. He made no mention of simply asking the accused if he had any valuables in the motor vehicle that should be removed prior to towing or of asking the accused’s permission to inspect the accused’s motor vehicle to ensure there were no valuables in it prior to towing.
[21] Sgt. Ellement’s justification of the search because of who he was dealing with, rings hollow and is worrisome. Conducting an unlawful search (which this would clearly have been), is not made legal because of who the accused is. At best, the accused was simply the father of two men believed by Sgt. Ellement to be FOB gang members. The accused had only one conviction for driving over the legal limit. At worst, according to the accused, he was a person Sgt. Ellement had some degree of animosity towards because of past confrontations with him and someone whom Sgt. Ellement was actively engaged in harassing. An additional worry is that Sgt. Ellement was hoping or expecting to find incriminating evidence of some sort in the accused’s motor vehicle and manufactured an excuse to look.
[22] When Constable Dalton was ordered to search the vehicle, it was clear in his testimony that he was uncomfortable with the order. He knew it was an illegal search, but a senior officer ordered him to conduct it, so he did. Constable Dalton did not recall the accused stating that he was angry because the officers had no right to search his car, nor did he initially recall the accused maintaining that there was no reason to arrest him. However, later in his cross-examination, he admitted that the accused did state on more than one occasion that he wasn’t driving and that there was no reason to arrest him.
[23] The accused made a formal complaint concerning the actions of Sgt. Ellement on the day in question. He alleged that he had been falsely arrested for disqualified driving, stating in his complaint (as he did at trial) that he had just exited his house and was immediately arrested in the alley for disqualified driving when he was still on foot, never having even reached his car and never having intended to drive it as he was on his way to the bus stop to go to work. He alleged as well that his vehicle was searched by both officers without a search warrant and without legal justification for so doing.
[24] The accused’s complaint to the Calgary Police Service, insofar as the search, was not sustained against Constable Dalton, but was sustained against Sgt. Ellement as being an Unlawful or Unnecessary Exercise of Authority under s.5(1)(i) of the Police Service Regulation, Alberta Regulation 356/90, exercising his authority as a police officer when it was unlawful or unnecessary to do so. Sgt. Ellement was given an Official Warning for his misconduct, effective for a one year period from December 30, 2008. In the Official Warning to Sgt. Ellement, he was also censured for a collateral issue, in that during the investigation it had been determined that his notes and occurrence report regarding the seizure and search of the accused’s motor vehicle were deficient. The exercise of good faith by Sgt. Ellement can certainly be questioned by his actions: in conducting the illegal search in the first place, omitting reference to it in both his notes and the Occurrence Report, in omitting reference to the search in his direct examination, and finally in his vain attempt to rationalize it when confronted with it in cross-examination.
[25] Sgt. Ellement’s honesty and the veracity of his version of events is called into question by his behaviour surrounding the search issue itself and also because of what the accused alleged Sgt. Ellement did afterwards vis-à-vis comments made to his employer at the Deerfoot Inn the same day as his arrest and at the Royal Hotel much later, all ostensibly to the effect that there could be dangerous consequences for the work places where the accused worked if they continued to employ him.
[26] In this latter vein, the accused alleged that he did not arrive at work on the day of his arrest until sometime between 2 and 3 p.m. He was late for work because of the arrest and having to take the bus and LRT. When he arrived, he was told by the Chef that the police had already been to speak with hotel security about him. Sgt. Ellement admitted that it was he who attended at the Deerfoot Inn, saying: “I went to the Deerfoot Inn because that is where Mr. Chin worked. That was where I believed he was heading, so I went there to see if he was scheduled to work that day. I had already laid the charge and had the grounds to believe the offence had happened. That was a reason for him to be driving that day, but it would not have made any difference. If there was something to follow up I would have followed it up. This was a routine investigation.”
[27] He denied making any comments to Deerfoot Security to the effect that employing the accused was risky for the hotel in any way. However, even if that were true, his mere presence on the pretext of investigating the veracity of the accused’s employment and confirming a reason the accused might have been driving his car is also suspicious. Since when does a District Sergeant go grossly out of his way to employ himself in such a meaningless “routine investigation”, when in his own words, he had “already laid the charge and had the grounds to believe the offence had happened” and when “a reason for him to be driving that day would not have made any difference”? I tend to agree with the accused that this behaviour on the Sergeant’s part is suspiciously akin to harassment.
|
These are reasons for judgment of a very experienced trial judge after a trial with all of the evidence presented. No missing context or extra evidence to consider. Can you get the line of thinking now?
|
|
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to MBates For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-11-2016, 05:03 PM
|
#226
|
Franchise Player
|
I'm just glad that guy wasn't black. What a ####storm that would have been.
|
|
|
07-11-2016, 06:02 PM
|
#227
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
|
I don't think the punches to the face were warranted (based on only what I can see in the video which is likely only half the story) but when are people going to learn that they are always going to come out on the losing end of a physical altercation with authorities? Non-issue IMO as the man was not seriously harmed and it's obvious he was being an issue in public. Don't be an idiot to the authorities and they typically leave you alone.
|
|
|
07-11-2016, 06:03 PM
|
#228
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Cape Breton Island
|
Jesus Christ. That's already a #### storm. I can't believe that happened in Canada. Well, there ya go, just more reason why you shouldn't invite the police to search you if you don't have to.
__________________
|
|
|
07-11-2016, 06:25 PM
|
#229
|
Lives In Fear Of Labelling
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBates
Just because you have never been victim of illegal police conduct hardly means that it is some fairy-tale thing.
This is a real case, in Calgary, AB with one of those CPS officers many people here seem to think can never do wrong:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/do...ocompletePos=4
These are reasons for judgment of a very experienced trial judge after a trial with all of the evidence presented. No missing context or extra evidence to consider. Can you get the line of thinking now?
|
No mention in the about the F.O.B connections directly linked with that citizen. Not saying the actions there were appropriate in that incident, but don't act like 1 incident from 5 years ago is indicative of a systemic problem with illegal searches.
|
|
|
07-11-2016, 06:33 PM
|
#230
|
Participant 
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by underGRADFlame
No mention in the about the F.O.B connections directly linked with that citizen. Not saying the actions there were appropriate in that incident, but don't act like 1 incident from 5 years ago is indicative of a systemic problem with illegal searches.
|
What? He disproved the fact that they never happened, that doesn't mean he was proving a systemic problem.
Black and white I guess.
|
|
|
07-11-2016, 06:57 PM
|
#231
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Brisbane
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resurrection
Jesus Christ. That's already a #### storm. I can't believe that happened in Canada. Well, there ya go, just more reason why you shouldn't invite the police to search you if you don't have to.
|
I just wanted to say you have the best posts in this thread.
Know your rights and always question authority.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to FireGilbert For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-11-2016, 07:06 PM
|
#232
|
Crash and Bang Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by underGRADFlame
No mention in the about the F.O.B connections directly linked with that citizen. Not saying the actions there were appropriate in that incident, but don't act like 1 incident from 5 years ago is indicative of a systemic problem with illegal searches.
|
?????
Paragraph 21. Seriously. Not only did I link to the case as published online but I literally quoted this paragraph:
Quote:
[21] Sgt. Ellement’s justification of the search because of who he was dealing with, rings hollow and is worrisome. Conducting an unlawful search (which this would clearly have been), is not made legal because of who the accused is. At best, the accused was simply the father of two men believed by Sgt. Ellement to be FOB gang members. The accused had only one conviction for driving over the legal limit. At worst, according to the accused, he was a person Sgt. Ellement had some degree of animosity towards because of past confrontations with him and someone whom Sgt. Ellement was actively engaged in harassing. An additional worry is that Sgt. Ellement was hoping or expecting to find incriminating evidence of some sort in the accused’s motor vehicle and manufactured an excuse to look.
|
Which is kind of the point here. You are not supposed to be subjected to illegal searches and harassment by police because you have a family member that is involved in criminal activity. And yet, there it is...
As for the issue of systemic problems, I do not have time to gather up all of the examples I can find right now, but the Calgary Police Service has some serious notoriety within the criminal justice system that the general public appears to be oblivious of. One of the seminal cases on excessive use of force by police in Canada is courtesy of the CPS:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc...005abca81.html
Quote:
Darryl Crampton stood in his kitchen making a sandwich for lunch. As he retrieved a pickle from a jar with a plastic-handled steak knife, members of the Calgary Police Service tactical unit burst through his unlocked screen door. Constable Anthony Manning approached Mr. Crampton, pointing an M-16 assault rifle and wearing 30 pounds of body armour. He announced the police had a search warrant, and ordered Mr. Crampton to drop the steak knife and get to the floor. Stunned, Mr. Crampton hesitated for a short period before complying. He dropped the knife and, as he began to kneel on the ground, Cst. Manning assisted him in his descent. The impact with the floor was sufficient to knock the wind out of Mr. Crampton. Cst. Manning then pinned Mr. Crampton to the floor by kneeling on his back. Cst. Manning maintained physical control of Mr. Crampton for approximately 10 minutes while the police searched the residence for a marijuana grow operation. Neither drugs nor weapons were found. Mr. Crampton, who was lying face down on the kitchen floor with his hands handcuffed behind his back, was then asked to identify himself. He was not the individual named in the warrant as the occupant of the residence. The police had faulty intelligence and the wrong suspect. They departed, leaving Mr. Crampton with a partially-constructed pickle sandwich stuck to the front of his shirt, wet pants in which he had relieved himself, a bruised jaw, a rotator-cuff injury and five cracked ribs.
|
Last edited by MBates; 07-11-2016 at 07:26 PM.
Reason: Add additional link
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MBates For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-11-2016, 07:32 PM
|
#233
|
Lives In Fear Of Labelling
|
Sorry missed the 1 line in the 9 paragraphs that you quoted. At no point did I say that an illegal search is right at all. I said that if police asked to search me I would have no problem with it.
There is a huge difference between a search with consent and an illegal search. My statement earlier was simply I don't understand the reason someone wouldn't consent to a search (unless you are a criminal with something to hide).
Yes everyone has charter rights, I get that and am not arguing that. I just don't choose to hide behind them because I can.
|
|
|
07-11-2016, 07:37 PM
|
#234
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: St. George's, Grenada
|
I flip back and forth on the whole 'consent to a search' thing. On one hand, I agree that it's important to not blindly comply to everything to the point that it's like a police state, but on the other hand I don't generally have time to sit there and argue with a cop, or make myself look more suspicious, and it's easier to just let them quickly find nothing and be on my way.
Never been in the situation though so it's hard to say what I'd do
|
|
|
07-11-2016, 07:52 PM
|
#235
|
Ben
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: God's Country (aka Cape Breton Island)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by underGRADFlame
Why? Because they might plant something. If I have nothing to hide I'm complying with a request... I've never gotten this line of thinking. What is everyone so afraid of? Honestly? Police are too busy to go out of their way to harass people for "fun". The request is only done when they believe there is reasonable and probable grounds.
|
There are lots of reasons. One if everyone always complied, if you didn't then there'd be reasonable belief you have something to hide. The onus is on the police to prove they have a reason to, not you to prove they have a reason not to. It's basically to stop the slippery slope.
However, the big reason would be what if you have something completely legal but you don't want people to know about.
That could be anything from the McDonald's wrapper that's under the seat you didn't want your spouse to know about, to a pregnancy test in your purse, cigarettes in your pocket, porn in the trunk, lube in the glovebox, or the need for adult diapers.
Privacy isn't about hiding things that are illegal. Privacy is about keeping personal things personal, without worry of a someone finding out, having them poke fun, or innocently tell others.
If you really have nothing to hide, why not post copies of your tax returns? You can redact identifiable information, but I mean if you're not engaged in tax evasion what do you have to hide? (I mean that generically, I don't mean to attack underGRADFlame personally, I just hope that these examples help you understand the reason why)
__________________
"Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
|
|
|
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-11-2016, 08:16 PM
|
#236
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Cape Breton Island
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by btimbit
I flip back and forth on the whole 'consent to a search' thing. On one hand, I agree that it's important to not blindly comply to everything to the point that it's like a police state, but on the other hand I don't generally have time to sit there and argue with a cop, or make myself look more suspicious, and it's easier to just let them quickly find nothing and be on my way.
Never been in the situation though so it's hard to say what I'd do
|
What argument? Who's saying argue with the police?
"Sir may i search your vehicle?"
'No, sorry'
"Why not?"
'I don't have to. I've done nothing wrong and would like to continue on with my day'
/conversation
That's how it should end. That could be by white privilege talking though.
__________________
|
|
|
07-11-2016, 08:46 PM
|
#237
|
Self-Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by btimbit
I flip back and forth on the whole 'consent to a search' thing. On one hand, I agree that it's important to not blindly comply to everything to the point that it's like a police state, but on the other hand I don't generally have time to sit there and argue with a cop, or make myself look more suspicious, and it's easier to just let them quickly find nothing and be on my way.
Never been in the situation though so it's hard to say what I'd do
|
If you just say no you don't have to argue with them. It's actually less time to use your rights. If you didn't break the law and they have no reasonable suspicion all you have to do is say no and then if they still search the police are the ones breaking the law. So I disagree with what you said.
Police: can I search your bag?
You: No
end of interaction. Does using your basic rights make you feel suspicious? It's easier to not let them look and be on your way without even stopping.
Last edited by AcGold; 07-11-2016 at 08:49 PM.
|
|
|
07-11-2016, 09:56 PM
|
#239
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Vancouver
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resurrection
What argument? Who's saying argue with the police?
"Sir may i search your vehicle?"
'No, sorry'
"Why not?"
'I don't have to. I've done nothing wrong and would like to continue on with my day'
/conversation
That's how it should end. That could be by white privilege talking though.
|
I'm not doubting this is true but its probably the exact opposite of what most people's initial reaction would be. Most people will fully comply with what cops want just to be cooperative. I don't think the average citizen (including myself) really fully understands what their rights are when confronted by law enforcement.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:32 AM.
|
|