VPD in the news: aggressive window smash on drug suspicion

[ChaKo]

the point i was trying to make was that smelling weed doesn't necessarily entail guilt. what if the individual wanted to know why he was being arrested because if it was for possession of marihuana, then he would've produced his proof, but if it was for driving while under the influence or something else he might have been guilty of, he would have responded differently, maybe even complied with the order. what good is proving you are legally entitled to possess marihuana if that is not the reason for your arrest.

obviously not the case here, but it could be useful to somebody here in the future.

[Gh0stRider]

lol what an idiot

[Eff-1]

If the VPD is claiming the car was originally stopped because the driver was suspected of being impaired, why didn't the officer make the official demand that says something like "I have reason to believe you are impaired and demand a sample of your breath" (I don't know the exact words). That would have been the logical answer to the driver's question about why he was stopped and exit the car and that way the officer would be covered 100% from a legal and Charter of Rights perspective.

[quasi]

IMO it was because the window wasn't down, maybe if he rolls it down they can stop arguing over that and they'll tell him why he was pulled over? I wasn't there so who knows for sure but if you're going to make there job difficult you're probably going to have a bad night 99 times out of 100. There is absolutely no reason not to roll down the window other then going out of your way to be difficult.

[Ludepower]

Based on this edited short video...we gotta look at it from a legal perspective.

What driving infringement did he do to get pulled over?
Why didnt the officer state why the kid was under arrest?
Does the driver have a criminal record?
How come he doesn't call a drug dog if he suspect of drugs?

Its the officers duty to follow protocol even though he was right all along that this idiot kid is a dealer or else the case gets thrown out of court.

[underscore]

^ 1) you don't need an infringement to be pulled over, 2) that could easily have happened before the start of the video, 3) why would it matter, 4) why would they have to?

Originally Posted by ChaKo

I'm only in my first year of law school and we barely covered 10a, but we went into 10b quite a bit, even though it wasn't on the midterm.

This explains a lot.

Originally Posted by ChaKo

unfortunately, that is not the way the law works. smells weed is not a criminal offense and you can't technically be under arrest "for the weed." What if what they smelled was, in fact, medical marihuana? they can't arrest the guy without grounds and then find evidence to pin him on afterwards by "figuring out what the fuck is going on".

If you're legally permitted to possess medical marijuana and you don't like being arrested then you should probably prove that it's medical when a police officer states that he smells marijuana. You most certainly shouldn't deny that the officer is (correctly) smelling marijuana unless you do, for some reason, like getting arrested.

[Noir]

Originally Posted by ChaKo

unfortunately, that is not the way the law works. smells weed is not a criminal offense and you can't technically be under arrest "for the weed." What if what they smelled was, in fact, medical marihuana? they can't arrest the guy without grounds and then find evidence to pin him on afterwards by "figuring out what the fuck is going on". Just like how the police can't just arbitrarily barge into your house and place you under arrest while they look on your computer for stolen movies and use that to charge you with an offense. Maybe, while they were looking, you were probably thinking to yourself, fuck.. they know about the porn i downloaded last night. A bit extreme of an example, but the point is, we all have rights.

i'm not disagreeing that they should've arrested the guy. They seemed to have the grounds to, but they should have just told him why he was being arrested. Now they give his lawyer a potential defence. Obviously criminals generally know why they are being arrested, but it doesn't matter that he knew. The Charter required the officer to tell him why, in respect of the specific charge, not just, I smell weed. It's a shitty concept when you "know" the guy is guilty, but the Charter is in place for a reason and, as such, it should be followed.

Originally Posted by ChaKo

the point i was trying to make was that smelling weed doesn't necessarily entail guilt. what if the individual wanted to know why he was being arrested because if it was for possession of marihuana, then he would've produced his proof, but if it was for driving while under the influence or something else he might have been guilty of, he would have responded differently, maybe even complied with the order. what good is proving you are legally entitled to possess marihuana if that is not the reason for your arrest.

obviously not the case here, but it could be useful to somebody here in the future.

I guess passive aggressive is the theme here.

- They have no grounds to arrest him. Smelling of weed does not entail guilt.
- Well not unless they reveal the grounds of arrest first
- What if it was for medicinal Marijuana?
- But I'm not disagreeing that he should have been arrested (since obviously we now know it was not medicinal).

[meme405]

Like stated before Chako. If an officer smells weed, then it is your duty to prove it's medicinal, and you have the right to carry it. If not that is grounds for arrest, and search.

The driver made no attempts whatsoever to do that here, instead he just kept his window rolled up like a retard and kept being a smartass.

Maybe if he had gotten out of the car or atleast rolled down his window the cop would have been more inclined to explain to him the situation more clearly before arresting him. But standing at the side of the road with traffic rushing by, arguing with some stupid kid who won't even roll down his window, about if you smell weed or not, or why he is under arrest, is not going to be in anyones favor.

Instead the cop wanted to get to a safe place where he knew the guy wasn't going to try to drive away, or so that he can see that the guy wasn't going to pull a weapon, then he will have likely explained to the kid clearly what is going on.

Going back to this:

Originally Posted by ChaKo

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right

The right to be promptly advised of the reason for one's detention embodied in s. 10(a) is founded most fundamentally on the notion that one is not obliged to submit to an arrest if one does not know the reasons for it.

I'd like to believe that section 10a is purposely vague as to the timing of reasons, deliberately for situations like this.

Lets take the case of when someone is being combative with police, punching and kicking. The police do not stop arresting them to explain clearly why they are under arrest, they secure the subject first, and then set them down and explain the situation.

[InvisibleSoul]

Originally Posted by underscore

This explains a lot.

Do you perchance have any formal education in the area of law?

[InvisibleSoul]

Originally Posted by underscore

I get your point, but look at it this way: what kind of outcomes do you think are likely from refusing to comply at the roadside? Do you really think someone who would violate your rights is just going to shrug and let you go? Because I feel like you're a lot more likely to end up with additional charges. You also better be 110% sure that what you think is correct or you'll have a really bad time.

I don't disagree with this. Again, not even talking about this guy, but in general. Some people would rather stand up for their rights and face the consequences of non-compliance than kowtow and do whatever a cop says even if it's violating their rights.

[Noir]

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

I don't disagree with this. Again, not even talking about this guy, but in general. Some people would rather stand up for their rights and face the consequences of non-compliance than kowtow and do whatever a cop says even if it's violating their rights.

Exactly what right in this particular scenario are we risking liberty to stand up for here.

[meme405]

Can we just focus on this stupid motherfucker instead of "speaking generally"?

This thread was created about this stupid guy, and how he is an idiot. Not so that people can discuss the merits and shortfalls of our legal system.

Cause from my perspective it seems as though Invisiblesoul and Chako are trying to defend the guy in the video. But then they keep coming out and saying: "Oh but that's not true in this scenario".

So then can we just stick to this scenario?

[ZN6]

I guess people love testing limits which includes testing the limits of their rights in the face of law-enforcement.

So many times have I seen these morons trying to lawyer their way out by having video proof of themselves being a dumb jackass.

Best part of the video was him telling the officer that he doesn't smell marijuana. What is this? Jedi mind tricks?

[underscore]

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

I don't disagree with this. Again, not even talking about this guy, but in general. Some people would rather stand up for their rights and face the consequences of non-compliance than kowtow and do whatever a cop says even if it's violating their rights.

The thing is, your rights will be violated either way so you may as well avoid having additional charges against you, especially if you end up being unable to prove your rights were violated.

[CharlesInCharge]

The laws of this puppet regime dont really matter at the end of the day. What happened here was uncivilized behavior instituted by the system.
But dont look to me to reason and guide the "Power Ranger", school and mainstream media news brainwashed generation of robots here.

[ChaKo]

Originally Posted by Noir

I guess passive aggressive is the theme here.

- They have no grounds to arrest him. Smelling of weed does not entail guilt.
- Well not unless they reveal the grounds of arrest first
- What if it was for medicinal Marijuana?
- But I'm not disagreeing that he should have been arrested (since obviously we now know it was not medicinal).

hardly. let's not forget that my initial post came about because there were a lot of people claiming that his rights weren't violated, which i pointed out isn't necessarily the case. i understand that we want this individual arrested and i am not going to sit here and hide the fact that i concur, but the point has always been that the police will have a better chance of making the charges stick if they follow the steps.

i never said they needed to reveal the grounds for arrest, nor did i say they didnt have grounds, but they should have told him what they were arresting him for. there is a distinction when it comes to the law. and not being guilty and having no grounds can also be distinct concepts. an officer could have a reasonable suspicion that i was involved in a crime if i match a certain description, but it doesn't necesasrily mean im guilty.

obviously im no expert, but as others have mentioned, an obstruction charge comes to mind, at the very least. the Charter requires that he is given a reason, so that he can decide how to respond.

meme405 said that the officers smelled marijuana and all i'm trying to say is common sense and our perceptions of reasonableness don't always coincide with the law. he seemed to imply that the obviously conclusion at that point was that he accused was guilty. there are other ways to look at it, which is why Charter values, such as 10(a), are in place.

I understand that the reasonable thing to do would be just to comply, but the law doesn't always side with reason. The world would be a much better place if everyone could exercise a little common sense and the law was so obvious, but that's not the case, which is why people need lawyers when shit hits the fan.

all i've been trying to say is that there are arguments that could be made in which his rights were violated and he could be let go. very plausible arguments rooted in the structure and application of the law. they are also arguments that have been successfully made in the past, as i've shown with a reference from a supreme court case.

[ChaKo]

Originally Posted by meme405

Can we just focus on this stupid motherfucker instead of "speaking generally"?

This thread was created about this stupid guy, and how he is an idiot. Not so that people can discuss the merits and shortfalls of our legal system.

Cause from my perspective it seems as though Invisiblesoul and Chako are trying to defend the guy in the video. But then they keep coming out and saying: "Oh but that's not true in this scenario".

So then can we just stick to this scenario?

I've told you how the law can play out in THIS scenario, but you refused to even consider it. Instead, it's how meme405 believes the law should be. And I simply brought up a hypothetical to try to explain how the law can play out. Obviously, I didn't do the greatest job, but I've never once sat here and said he didn't deserve to be arrested. My stance has always been that there is a case in which one could argue that his rights have been violated and it could result in him being let go.

[ChaKo]

Originally Posted by underscore

This explains a lot.



If you're legally permitted to possess medical marijuana and you don't like being arrested then you should probably prove that it's medical when a police officer states that he smells marijuana. You most certainly shouldn't deny that the officer is (correctly) smelling marijuana unless you do, for some reason, like getting arrested.

I've never once claimed to be an expert. I've only been trying to give you guys some perspective based on what I've learned thus far, since I've been a member of this board for over ten years and haven't really found a way to contribute in the past.

I'm aware of my limited education, which is why I referenced the ruling of a Supreme Court judge, because he probably knows a little more than I do.

If he was being arrested for a DUI, proving he had medical marijuana wouldn't have done much. I know you don't agree with that logic, but not everyone acts reasonably and the law doesn't always require them to. Because he resisted here and got it on video, there is a chance the charges could be dropped.

this is taken from the original article:
The CBC had a legal expert weigh in, who says that within the context of the provided video, the police did not tell the driver exactly why he was pulled over, therefore constituting an unlawful arrest.

Another lawyer could argue something else, but the point has always been that a case could be made, and i tried to show the relevant law and cases, and he could be let go. It sucks, but it's our system.

[InvisibleSoul]

Originally Posted by Noir

Exactly what right in this particular scenario are we risking liberty to stand up for here.

*Sigh*

Unlawful search and arrest.

Again, it has yet to be proven whether that is the case here, but it's POSSIBLE based on the known information that the search and arrest was conducted unlawfully.

[InvisibleSoul]

Originally Posted by meme405

Can we just focus on this stupid motherfucker instead of "speaking generally"?

This thread was created about this stupid guy, and how he is an idiot. Not so that people can discuss the merits and shortfalls of our legal system.

Cause from my perspective it seems as though Invisiblesoul and Chako are trying to defend the guy in the video. But then they keep coming out and saying: "Oh but that's not true in this scenario".

So then can we just stick to this scenario?

Lack of reading comprehension for the lose.

I'm trying to look at the bigger picture, which doesn't EXCLUDE this said motherfucker.

I'm not saying he didn't deserve to be arrested.

I don't give two shits what happens to him per se.

All I'm arguing is it's possible that the search and arrest was conducted unlawfully. Even that legal expert in the article says as much.

[El Dumbasso]

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

Lack of reading comprehension for the lose.

I'm trying to look at the bigger picture, which doesn't EXCLUDE this said motherfucker.

I'm not saying he didn't deserve to be arrested.

I don't give two shits what happens to him per se.

All I'm arguing is it's possible that the search and arrest was conducted unlawfully. Even that legal expert in the article says as much.

So in highly technical terms: a dick fucked an asshole, and now there's shit everywhere.

Spoiler!

[Tone Loc]

Originally Posted by ChaKo

this is taken from the original article:
The CBC had a legal expert weigh in, who says that within the context of the provided video, the police did not tell the driver exactly why he was pulled over, therefore constituting an unlawful arrest.

Another lawyer could argue something else, but the point has always been that a case could be made, and i tried to show the relevant law and cases, and he could be let go. It sucks, but it's our system.

Yes, but see.... "within the context of the provided video".

IMO, none of us - except buddy guy and the cop involved - know exactly what happened in the minutes preceding the incident. It's easy to edit a video to make yourself look like the good guy, for all we know the cop was telling the guy why he was under arrest many times before the video actually started.

The fact that the first few seconds starts with "hit the brakes, you moron" leads me to believe that there was an initial interaction before the moment where buddy guy "accidentally" let go of the brake while talking to the officer.

Personally, I think all police should have body cams, so a lot of situations like these - where buddy attempts to create a biased recording of an interaction with police - would be prevented entirely. Imagine just the cop pulling out his own video of what happened.... this whole situation would be remedied in a few minutes lol.

[GLOW]

Originally Posted by ZN6

Best part of the video was him telling the officer that he doesn't smell marijuana. What is this? Jedi mind tricks?

cop be like:

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by FunkyColdMedina

Personally, I think all police should have body cams, so a lot of situations like these - where buddy attempts to create a biased recording of an interaction with police - would be prevented entirely. Imagine just the cop pulling out his own video of what happened.... this whole situation would be remedied in a few minutes lol.

There's a pretty good chance the cops' car had a dashcam that tells a more complete (and very different) story, but it's unlikely that will ever be released to the public. Even if they did have body cams, there's little chance we'd get to see that video either. From the cops' "official" perspective, there's no reason to. Dipshit put his video out there because he had a goal to make the cops look bad and gain sympathy; any video supporting the cops only NEEDS to be seen internally to achieve its goal.

[Noir]

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

*Sigh*

Unlawful search and arrest.

Again, it has yet to be proven whether that is the case here, but it's POSSIBLE based on the known information that the search and arrest was conducted unlawfully.

*SIGH*


He was pulled over for traffic violation (not arrested), for suspicion of driving under the influence - Legal

When coming up to the window, the officer smelled weed. Asked the driver to step out of the vehicle similar to an officer smelling alcohol and asking a driver to step out and conduct a sobriety test - Legal

Refusing to comply and/or refusing a sobriety test doesn't not make an arrest illegal and the resulting search because of said arrest.


Next time you receive instructions from a police officer, please stand your ground and say "no". Go even as far as yelling "I know my rights!". But when you do, just please, please do us favour and videotape yourself winning. I would really really love to see your logic in practice.