More police brutality

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Sorry, who's being the child? And just so we're clear, you're asking why someone should have the ability to exercise his rights? Maybe because it's his right to do so? His legal right to do so. What possible other answer would a police officer, no less, need?

Of course, that is your right. That an officer might ask because he needs to I.D. somebody before they hurt, kill themselves, or somebody else is not your concern right. You have your rights, F everyone else. That is your right.

[dissentowner]

I am done with this discussion, it is based of the ridiculous notion of officers asking random people for their I.D. for no reason which I would never do nor any officer I am in regular contact with would do. Why would we? I understand this happened in the U.S. and that is not right but if an officer explains to you why he wishes to see your I.D. and there is a legit reason behind it hopefully only a few of society are the die hard "F the police, you can't make me"type, most people are very helpful and cooperative in this country.

[V]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I would bet everything I own you know none then. You are an obvious cop hater and totally full of crap, look at the stuff you have spewed in this thread. You have police friends but you put on an American video that has a lawyer saying never to speak to the police. Sure you do. I think I will just block you, everything you say is a joke.

I just had to go through the thread to figure out what I wrote that makes me come across as a cop-hater. Haven't really seen anything, so maybe you can clarify.

All of the examples put on in that video are relevant to Canadians, so maybe you should watch it, and stick around to the second half when the cop re-inforces every single thing the lawyer says.

Finally, yes I have several friends that are cops, and I know for a fact that they would shake their heads at your attitude. It's sad, really, that you're so quick to write off a citizen's legal right. But like I wrote earlier, the fact that you're so quick to dismiss the Charter is enough that we really have nothing to discuss here. I will be happy to bow out now with the hope that you don't work anywhere near where I live.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by V

I will be happy to bow out now with the hope that you don't work anywhere near where I live.

Only because you are afraid I would bust you! I joke I joke, I kid I kid!

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Of course, that is your right. That an officer might ask because he needs to I.D. somebody before they hurt, kill themselves, or somebody else is not your concern right. You have your rights, F everyone else. That is your right.

What terrible arguments. If you have nothing to hide you should give up your rights. You should give up your right so imaginary people aren't killed. If you use the charter of rights you're a baby.

But yet you recognize that not all police are good and have to wonder why someone who has done nothing wrong would want to go about their day without being harassed by the police? Jeeze.

Look we have rights. The police of all people should recognize that people don't need a good reason to exercise them, just that they can. If an officer has an issue with people exercising those rights, I have to take a bit step back and wonder about our police force. I'm sure it's frustrating dealing with criminals who use every trick in the book to beat the system, but that's not a valid reason to go about acting like the charter of rights is a bad thing.

[dissentowner]

OK, I don't want to discuss it anymore. Everyone has an opinion, they will differ, that is what makes us different. Back on topic..although the topic sucks. Can we change this to a happy fuzzy animal thread?

[underGRADFlame]

What It Means
Section 1 guarantees and limits the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter. The rights and freedoms include:

fundamental freedoms (freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of association)
democratic rights (the right to vote and hold office)
the right to live or work anywhere in Canada
the right to life, liberty and personal security
equality rights
the official languages of Canada
minority language education rights
multiculturalism, and
Aboriginal rights.
These rights are not absolute. Under section 1, these rights can be limited to protect other rights or values important to Canadian society.

For a Charter right to be limited, the limit must be

prescribed by law
reasonable
justifiable in a free and democratic society
For more information about how section 1 affects a Charter right, see Regina v. Oakes in Case Law.

Since everyone is so up to date on their charter rights I'd like to just put it out there that none of the rights are absolute.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I am done with this discussion, it is based of the ridiculous notion of officers asking random people for their I.D. for no reason which I would never do nor any officer I am in regular contact with would do. Why would we? I understand this happened in the U.S. and that is not right but if an officer explains to you why he wishes to see your I.D. and there is a legit reason behind it hopefully only a few of society are the die hard "F the police, you can't make me"type, most people are very helpful and cooperative in this country.

Sorry no it's not. Things escalated because you didn't read a post about a mixed couple in the USA, being racially profiled, and assumed to be in the act of breaking the law. You apologized for that, but in the interim of that conversation you repeatedly mentioned, that if a LEO, requests your identification, the only reason that one would not surrender, is if they have something to hide.

Our forefathers, wrote the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, to protect its citizens, from -- and not limited to; discrimination & unreasonable intrusions of privacy.

It is not some weak defense mechanism.

It is the duty of the LEO, to exercise their power, with great diligence. What we saw in California, was officers profiling & discriminating.

And such was the original point of the conversation.

[WhiteTiger]

I had a look over the article because I was asked to (I have been trying to avoid such articles lately) and what I thought about the situation. So I figured I would share my thoughts on it here. Take them for what you will.

Someone called the cops because they saw an interracial couple kissing and making out and their assumption was that the woman was a prostitute. I've taken calls like that before, even here in Calgary. It's a s****y assumption to make, but folks are allowed to call into the police with those kinds of concerns. So it was likely that officers were dispatched to a suspected prostitution incident with a description of the pair involved and nothing more than the original callers prejudices.

Cops arrive on scene and see the lady described. They have a reason to ask her for ID (she matches the description of someone they are looking for).

How the situation would ideally go down from here is that the cops would explain that someone called about a possible prostitution act in the area, and she matched the description. She would say "Well, I was kissing my husband a few minutes ago, he's right over there." All involved would go to husband (or have him come over) and it would be established that they are husband and wife and off they go with everyone muttering about NIMBY racist snoopycallers.

But she doesn't show her ID, so now they have a reason to suspect that she is guilty of a crime (prostitution) and she's refusing to show ID. So she is detained until the officers can figure out what's going on (because if she had been a prostitute and the officers didn't look into it/let her go we'd be hearing about that...). Now the husband shows up, and everything ends up sorted out. She is released and they go on their way.

It's not the most ideal outcome, but was anyone actually "profiled" by the cops? From what I can see, the issue started with the person who called it in. The cops showed up, did what they had to do to determine that no offense had taken place, and let all involved parties go on their way. Hopefully with a "We're sorry for the inconvenience, ma'am."

I just look at this and wonder what would the reaction be if the lady had been a prostitute and the cops hadn't shown up to check it out. I'm sure we'd be hearing about how lazy cops just sit at the donut shop and don't care about cleaning up neighborhoods.

So it seems to me that the cops didn't do the profiling, but were responding to a citizen complaint.

At any rate, I'm glad I no longer live in the States, honestly.

[photon]

http://ccla.org/wordpress/wp-content...s-Booklet1.pdf

I haven't been able to find anything better, seems like something that everyone should understand (what being detained means, what being arrested means, etc).

EDIT: And I can see why people might refuse, not because of all the good cops but because it's impossible to tell the difference between the good ones and a bad one.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

Since everyone is so up to date on their charter rights I'd like to just put it out there that none of the rights are absolute.

I don't think anyone has ever believed that they were. For a great big list of those rights being "forfeited" look at actual criminals in prison.

Still worrisome that a police officer has seemingly a disdain for the charter of rights.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

But she doesn't show her ID, so now they have a reason to suspect that she is guilty of a crime (prostitution) and she's refusing to show ID.

Except refusing to show ID, by itself, is not reason to believe someone is guilty of a crime. At least not in most places.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

I had a look over the article because I was asked to (I have been trying to avoid such articles lately) and what I thought about the situation. So I figured I would share my thoughts on it here. Take them for what you will.

Someone called the cops because they saw an interracial couple kissing and making out and their assumption was that the woman was a prostitute. I've taken calls like that before, even here in Calgary. It's a s****y assumption to make, but folks are allowed to call into the police with those kinds of concerns. So it was likely that officers were dispatched to a suspected prostitution incident with a description of the pair involved and nothing more than the original callers prejudices.

Cops arrive on scene and see the lady described. They have a reason to ask her for ID (she matches the description of someone they are looking for).

How the situation would ideally go down from here is that the cops would explain that someone called about a possible prostitution act in the area, and she matched the description. She would say "Well, I was kissing my husband a few minutes ago, he's right over there." All involved would go to husband (or have him come over) and it would be established that they are husband and wife and off they go with everyone muttering about NIMBY racist snoopycallers.

But she doesn't show her ID, so now they have a reason to suspect that she is guilty of a crime (prostitution) and she's refusing to show ID. So she is detained until the officers can figure out what's going on (because if she had been a prostitute and the officers didn't look into it/let her go we'd be hearing about that...). Now the husband shows up, and everything ends up sorted out. She is released and they go on their way.

It's not the most ideal outcome, but was anyone actually "profiled" by the cops? From what I can see, the issue started with the person who called it in. The cops showed up, did what they had to do to determine that no offense had taken place, and let all involved parties go on their way. Hopefully with a "We're sorry for the inconvenience, ma'am."

I just look at this and wonder what would the reaction be if the lady had been a prostitute and the cops hadn't shown up to check it out. I'm sure we'd be hearing about how lazy cops just sit at the donut shop and don't care about cleaning up neighborhoods.

So it seems to me that the cops didn't do the profiling, but were responding to a citizen complaint.

At any rate, I'm glad I no longer live in the States, honestly.

I contest their diligence in addressing the complaint. How long were the couple monitored for? Did they arrive on scene, and expeditiously approach the couple, based upon the complainants remarks without a prudent amount of observation themselves? Perhaps this is on me, but identifying someone as not being a street walker, doesn't seem like an exceptional skill.

Just seems obtuse to me, and asking for identification is the easiest methodology.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Except refusing to show ID, by itself, is not reason to believe someone is guilty of a crime. At least not in most places.

You missed the "and" in my statement. She isn't being detained because she refused to show ID. She's being detained because she was suspected of being a prostitute.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Still worrisome that a police officer has seemingly a disdain for the charter of rights.

Stop making crap up, I never said anything about having disdain for the Charter Of Rights. I asked for a good reason when an officer asks with a valid reason to refuse, you went on a Charter bender. That does not mean I have disdain for the Charter, it means I question why someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong would refuse under his Charter rights. It makes no sense.

[dissentowner]

Anyhow, it is 2am here, I am off to bed. I thought I was not going to talk about this anymore?? lol.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Stop making crap up, I never said anything about having disdain for the Charter Of Rights. I asked for a good reason when an officer asks with a valid reason to refuse, you went on a Charter bender. That does not mean I have disdain for the Charter, it means I question why someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong would refuse under his Charter rights. It makes no sense.

You've likened it to a child taking his ball and going home and made it abundantly clear you don't consider it a valid reason. Whatever you want to classify that, it's disappointing hearing a cop say that about the Charter of Rights.

Like the court has decided, it's not the citizen who has to have a reason for showing ID, it's the officer for demanding it. And "nothing to hide" is not one of those reasons.

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

Since everyone is so up to date on their charter rights I'd like to just put it out there that none of the rights are absolute.

Dude, don't even bother. You are arguing with a bunch of guys who at one point, said our country was 'founded' on these rights by our 'forefathers'. If by founded you mean 1982, then I guess they are right.

Fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter that YOU think you have done nothing wrong. If the cop merely suspects you have done something wrong, you have to provide ID. If you do not, you can be arrested. Imagine this, cop observes male matching bank robber description after a robbery. Cop approaches cautiously, after a brief conversation asks for ID. Robbery suspect say's, "I've done nothing wrong, I am not giving you my ID.". So what you guys are proposing is that cop simply carries on his merry way? Maybe I misunderstand.

All that being said, a cop will, if possible (in dynamic environments, don't expect much conversation), try to provide you with a reason for your detention.

White Tiger sums things up pretty well. Only one of the nay-sayers responded. And with a strange argument about making relevant observations of her before approaching. I am not expert, but I am pretty sure uniformed cops in a marked car cramp the style of prostitutes.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

You've likened it to a child taking his ball and going home and made it abundantly clear you don't consider it a valid reason. Whatever you want to classify that, it's disappointing hearing a cop say that about the Charter of Rights.

Like the court has decided, it's not the citizen who has to have a reason for showing ID, it's the officer for demanding it. And "nothing to hide" is not one of those reasons.

You are just trolling now, you keep going in the same circles with nothing new to say. You are disappointed over something you made up, good for you. You keep twisting what I posted to fit your own agument which confirms you don't actually have one. Get over it.

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

You've likened it to a child taking his ball and going home and made it abundantly clear you don't consider it a valid reason. Whatever you want to classify that, it's disappointing hearing a cop say that about the Charter of Rights.

Like the court has decided, it's not the citizen who has to have a reason for showing ID, it's the officer for demanding it. And "nothing to hide" is not one of those reasons.

I am pretty sure he has explained his position numerous times. Not sure if you have him blocked or just aren't reading.

Like I said earlier, if the cop has a reason to ask for your ID, you must provide it. It doesn't matter what YOU think you have or haven't done. He had outlined some of those reasons. White Tiger outlined a pretty clear scenario regarding the prostitute as to why police COULD have been there and why they were lawfully placed to ask for identification.

People need to take responsibility for their actions. If you are in the back of a cop car, the most reasonable explanation is that a decision YOU made put you there.

Maybe you were right. Maybe you did nothing and were in the wrong place at the wrong time and did nothing wrong. So the most logical thing to do would be to act rationally, provide ID and actually have an adult conversation. That may take some time. It may even mean an interview at a police station. Why? Because police need to do due diligence and ensure that they either have the right person or they need to eliminate you are a suspect. That's just how adults act.

Sure you can stand on your soap box and shout Charter arguments all you want. There is a forum and remedy for that but it's not the roadside or a police station.

That's just how things in our society work. I know you are all gonna come back with, "but, but, but...". Just take the time to digest what I said.

I can't speak for the US. I have no idea what it's like there. In Canada, the vast majority of big city services, are well trained professionals who know the charter as well as a lawyer.

Edit - I do realize that a lot of you take the position that police are inherently bad people and I am guessing that's what causes you to disregard any sort of explanation offered on this forum. If that's the case, I am not sure it's worth posting your arguments anymore.