You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
I only started getting passive aggressive because the people arguing with me were.
I don't understand why we aren't able to have a civilized debate on this issue. Maybe it's because some people have this mistaken belief that just because I'm on the side that thinks the officer potentially didn't follow procedure, that automatically means I'm on the side of this person that got arrested.
It doesn't.
No, it's because you keep using the same argument without adding anything to it when we disprove you.
ONE MORE TIME:
You show me where it says in section 10a that "prompt" means "Prior to", and I will believe you. Until then your argument has literally no merit. I don't give a fuck what the people at the constitutional foundation have to say, or some online article written by someone who I have no idea has what kind of biases.
I am going solely on the video which was posted and the facts of this case. This is not an opinion piece.
Like I said let this rest and when it comes back around and the retard gets his day in court I will be sure to come back to bump this and tell you "I told you so".
No, it's because you keep using the same argument without adding anything to it when we disprove you.
ONE MORE TIME:
You show me where it says in section 10a that "prompt" means "Prior to", and I will believe you. Until then your argument has literally no merit. I don't give a fuck what the people at the constitutional foundation have to say, or some online article written by someone who I have no idea has what kind of biases.
I am going solely on the video which was posted and the facts of this case. This is not an opinion piece.
Like I said let this rest and when it comes back around and the retard gets his day in court I will be sure to come back to bump this and tell you "I told you so".
Whatever. I'm assuming you're not a lawyer, and I'm not a lawyer, and nobody here is a lawyer, so it's pointless getting all up in each other's faces like this.
I tried to have a civil discussion and debate about this, but others here started getting such an attitude about it, and that is only when I started to respond in kind.
Can we at least agree that the officer could have handled the situation better?
Can we at least agree that the officer could have handled the situation better?
Yes, perhaps he could have.
I am sure you will agree the kid in the car could have handled the situation a little more maturely.
I mean come on, all those articles claim how this kid was "so polite", and "calm", when in reality he would ask a question, then before even listening he would ask another, and lets not forget how he lied directly to the officer when asked about the smell of weed.
I am sure you will agree the kid in the car could have handled the situation a little more maturely.
I mean come on, all those articles claim how this kid was "so polite", and "calm", when in reality he would ask a question, then before even listening he would ask another, and lets not forget how he lied directly to the officer when asked about the smell of weed.
I don't disagree that the driver contributed to what transpired.
However, I think the officer should be held to a higher standard. Even if the driver was being difficult, he should have been able to deal with it in a much less controversial way.
I don't agree with your assessment of the exchange though. The driver was being difficult, but for the most part, he was "polite" and "calm". He kept asking the question because the officer was refusing to answer any of them. Let's not go into whether or not the officer is or isn't obligated to answer him, but the fact is the officer wasn't answering him.
The other officer tried handling the situation better. He asked "Is there anything we can do or say to get you to open the window?" but the officer in question was having none of the disobedience.
You show me where it says in section 10a that "prompt" means "Prior to", and I will believe you. Until then your argument has literally no merit.
Actually, this was ChaKo's argument. I wasn't fighting over this technicality.
I had forgotten that the point I made much earlier in this thread was that smelling burnt marijuana is not sufficient grounds for search or arrest, as proven here: Smell of weed no longer grounds for arrest, search
IF, and I say IF, the officer was arresting him based on smelling burnt weed, this is what could be grounds for an unlawful arrest.
IF the officer actually smelled fresh marijuana, then we're all good here, and the officer had every right to arrest him on the spot.
Nobody except maybe those two officers know whether they actually smelled burnt or fresh weed through the window crack.
If they actually only smelled burnt marijuana, if it came to trial, they could always lie and say they smelled fresh marijuana since I doubt it would be possible to disprove.
Holy crap Marni at the National Post sounds like an irritating twat, writing garbage articles full of stupidity to post at the end of some clickbait title. What a useless fuck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul
Can we at least agree that the officer could have handled the situation better?
Potentially yes, but given that he's dealing with a suspected impaired driver who has kept his car running and rolling forward I wouldn't expect this to be handled any differently. If an impaired drug dealer drove away from a police officer during a stop and proceeded to crash and kill someone, people would be losing their shit over how the officer failed to arrest the driver in a timely manner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul
That guy probably didn't know exactly why he was being arrested, since the officer refused to tell him. I KNOW what he got arrested for because it lists the charges against him in the article.
But go watch the video again. The first time the officer says he's under arrest, there is nothing to indicate why. Nothing about marijuana has been mentioned at that point. The only thing that has transpired thus far is the driver has not complied with the request to open his door.
Again, the officer is not required to state the reason for the arrest prior to the arrest. Wasting time after telling the guy he's under arrest is a bad idea as the officer has no way of knowing what this guy is going to do, especially given this guys prior actions and the fact that it's dark, it's raining, the window is nearly all the way up and this guy keeps moving around all over the place. No part of arresting someone involves sitting around and waiting until they feel it's convenient for them to get arrested.
__________________ 1991 Toyota Celica GTFour RC // 2007 Toyota Rav4 V6 // 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee
1992 Toyota Celica GT-S ["sold"] \\ 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD [sold] \\ 2000 Jeep Cherokee [sold] \\ 1997 Honda Prelude [sold] \\ 1992 Jeep YJ [sold/crashed] \\ 1987 Mazda RX-7 [sold] \\ 1987 Toyota Celica GT-S [crushed]
Quote:
Originally Posted by maksimizer
half those dudes are hotter than ,my GF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevYouUp
reading this thread is like waiting for goku to charge up a spirit bomb in dragon ball z
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good_KarMa
OH thank god. I thought u had sex with my wife. :cry:
Last edited by underscore; 04-04-2015 at 12:34 AM.
Please link me to a case where a damages suit was dismissed for some crazy reason where a completly non-resistant suspect was arrested with force.
I don't think these cases would make the news headline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient_510
Never in the history of ever has a police officer had some evidence towards a person's possible guilt, had the intent to arrest that person, and then because of the extraordinary persuasiveness and eloquence that the person articulated their innocence had changed their mind and decided to let them continue freely.
If the police want to arrest you for any reason at all that they feel is just, they will. You are only going to get your window/face smashed in if you don't. Get arrested, sit in remand, then get a proper fair assessment by an impartial party where they can balance law with facts... injury free and window intact.
Christ, people are just out there to pick a fight some days...
So basically you're going to give in to a marshal law if it happens one day and never stand for your rights?
Yes, a police officer will get you out of your vehicle when they are determined to and nothing will stop them. But that doesn't mean you should just comply and let them have their way with whatever they think you've done. There is a reason why we have rights and it is there to protect us from situations where we've done nothing wrong and for when a police officer is there where he intimidates you and to get you when you've done nothing wrong.
The act of sitting in your car not complying to an unlawful arrest is not so he will hopefully walk away and let you free. It's so he would escalate the situation so that you have a case to build on.
If they're not following procedures in your arrest, they are violating your rights as a citizen. You think just because they come up to you, order you step out because you're under arrest, they're doing something right and trying to serve and protect? They are human beings and they make mistakes, bad judgment, wrong decisions, and is possible to evil intentions too.
So basically you're going to give in to a marshal law if it happens one day and never stand for your rights?
Well first of all, MARTIAL law means military rule, and standing up like this twit did will probably just get you shot.
Quote:
The act of sitting in your car not complying to an unlawful arrest is not so he will hopefully walk away and let you free. It's so he would escalate the situation so that you have a case to build on.
Bingo! This guy isn't interested in his rights, he's interested in making the cops look like aggressors, by basically setting off every red flag he can and then goading them, and recording the whole incident.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Yes, a police officer will get you out of your vehicle when they are determined to and nothing will stop them. But that doesn't mean you should just comply and let them have their way with whatever they think you've done.
You agree that you're not getting out of being arrested, so all you can hope to achieve is a resisting arrest charge, which just makes you look stupid. As I've said previously, the side of the road or during an arrest is not the time to be arguing your rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_chin
The act of sitting in your car not complying to an unlawful arrest is not so he will hopefully walk away and let you free. It's so he would escalate the situation so that you have a case to build on.
They don't need to escalate the situation to have violated your rights, and you don't need to be a fucking idiot intentionally escalating the situation to prove it afterwards. Remaining calm and cooperative makes you look good, acting like this clown did does not.
__________________ 1991 Toyota Celica GTFour RC // 2007 Toyota Rav4 V6 // 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee
1992 Toyota Celica GT-S ["sold"] \\ 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD [sold] \\ 2000 Jeep Cherokee [sold] \\ 1997 Honda Prelude [sold] \\ 1992 Jeep YJ [sold/crashed] \\ 1987 Mazda RX-7 [sold] \\ 1987 Toyota Celica GT-S [crushed]
Quote:
Originally Posted by maksimizer
half those dudes are hotter than ,my GF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevYouUp
reading this thread is like waiting for goku to charge up a spirit bomb in dragon ball z
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good_KarMa
OH thank god. I thought u had sex with my wife. :cry:
I really enjoy not clicking on a thread until it reaches 7+ pages, and then reading the first page to see what it was about, and then skipping to the newest page to see the e-battle thats raging. lol
You agree that you're not getting out of being arrested, so all you can hope to achieve is a resisting arrest charge, which just makes you look stupid. As I've said previously, the side of the road or during an arrest is not the time to be arguing your rights.
They don't need to escalate the situation to have violated your rights, and you don't need to be a fucking idiot intentionally escalating the situation to prove it afterwards. Remaining calm and cooperative makes you look good, acting like this clown did does not.
You probably have the perfect scenario running through your head in which if you just cooperate with the police when they approach your vehicle and begin yelling or aggressively ordering you to get out of you car, you'll be just fine.
When you've experienced or seen first hand when a friend or yourself is dragged out and thrown to the ground and cuffed for no reason given and later the police realizes it was a mistake, you'll want to exercise your rights.
You probably have the perfect scenario running through your head in which if you just cooperate with the police when they approach your vehicle and begin yelling or aggressively ordering you to get out of you car, you'll be just fine.
When you've experienced or seen first hand when a friend or yourself is dragged out and thrown to the ground and cuffed for no reason given and later the police realizes it was a mistake, you'll want to exercise your rights.
Years back in Nanaimo an Asian family was stopped at a red light. White guy runs up to the car yelling and screaming at them. They can't understand him because they have poor English skills. White guy starts yanking them out of the car. Grandma in the back seat has here belt on and that’s fighting back when the guy starts to grab her. He gives up and leaves. 15 seconds later a train hits the car and kills her.
Next time someone asks you to get out of a car you can say "sir sir sir what are you doing sir. sir I'm calling my lawyer sir sir sir". Or you can think most people including the police are good and just listen and get out of the car.
__________________ Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.
No, it's because you keep using the same argument without adding anything to it when we disprove you.
ONE MORE TIME:
You show me where it says in section 10a that "prompt" means "Prior to", and I will believe you. Until then your argument has literally no merit. I don't give a fuck what the people at the constitutional foundation have to say, or some online article written by someone who I have no idea has what kind of biases.
I am going solely on the video which was posted and the facts of this case. This is not an opinion piece.
Like I said let this rest and when it comes back around and the retard gets his day in court I will be sure to come back to bump this and tell you "I told you so".
You are totally 127% wrong. Before you arrest someone you have to tell him why he is being arrested.
If a cop sees a man repeatably stabling someone he has to go to the guy and say sir sir you are being arrested for stabbing someone then read him his Miranda rights before he can touch the guy and stop him from stabbing the person.
I'm 128% right because I took a media law class at BCIT and the instructor drove a Porsche.
__________________ Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.
I've done this almost everytime whenever the Police have stopped me. Never had them tell me to roll the window down. Nor have they gotten pissed about it.
__________________
Quote:
[23-07, 02:03] shawn79 i find that at vietnamese place they cut ur hair like they cut grass
[23-07, 02:03] shawn79 do u go to vietnamese places for haircuts
(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
the way i read that section, to me it means you can arrest or detain the person, then tell the person immediately why he/she is being arrested/detained. not prior.
You are totally 127% wrong. Before you arrest someone you have to tell him why he is being arrested.
If a cop sees a man repeatably stabling someone he has to go to the guy and say sir sir you are being arrested for stabbing someone then read him his Miranda rights before he can touch the guy and stop him from stabbing the person.
I'm 128% right because I took a media law class at BCIT and the instructor drove a Porsche.
reminds me of this joke:
Quote:
The Cop Stop
A cop stops a man for running a stop sign and the subject gives the cop a lot of grief explaining that he did stop.
After several minutes, the cop explained to the gentleman that he didn't stop, he just slowed down a little.
The gentleman said 'Stop or slow down, what's the difference?'.
The cop pulled the guy out of the car and worked him over for about a minute and then said, 'Would you like for me to stop or just slow down?'
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNaRWaVe
the way i read that section, to me it means you can arrest or detain the person, then tell the person immediately why he/she is being arrested/detained. not prior.
You probably have the perfect scenario running through your head in which if you just cooperate with the police when they approach your vehicle and begin yelling or aggressively ordering you to get out of you car, you'll be just fine.
When you've experienced or seen first hand when a friend or yourself is dragged out and thrown to the ground and cuffed for no reason given and later the police realizes it was a mistake, you'll want to exercise your rights.
I can see where you're coming from but let me ask you this: how do you think your situation will be improved by "exercising your rights"? It's all well and good to tell people to do so, but I'm failing to see how doing this while you're being arrested could possibly make things better for you at that time in the slightest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manic!
You are totally 127% wrong. Before you arrest someone you have to tell him why he is being arrested.
If a cop sees a man repeatably stabling someone he has to go to the guy and say sir sir you are being arrested for stabbing someone then read him his Miranda rights before he can touch the guy and stop him from stabbing the person.
I'm 128% right because I took a media law class at BCIT and the instructor drove a Porsche.
No no no no no, you're missing one key thing, the cop can't tell the guy he's being arrested, the cop must first ask him if he feels it is within his rights to be arrested for stabbing someone. Only once he confirms it is within his rights and the officer has a completed form 137a-4 signed and witnessed by a neutral third party can he stop the guy from stabbing someone and place him under arrest. If at any time he no longer feels like being under arrest the officer must stop immediately, complete a form 137c-6 again signed and witnessed by a neutral third party and release the guy.
Now here's the important part, if the guy changes his mind yet again and permits himself to be arrested the process must be started again using a new form 137a-4 and a different, neutral third party witness. all three forms must all be collected together and accompanied by a form 476e-9 and sent in triplicate to both the Supreme Court of Canada and the UN for verification as a legitimate re-arrest and not a human rights violation or war crime.
__________________ 1991 Toyota Celica GTFour RC // 2007 Toyota Rav4 V6 // 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee
1992 Toyota Celica GT-S ["sold"] \\ 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD [sold] \\ 2000 Jeep Cherokee [sold] \\ 1997 Honda Prelude [sold] \\ 1992 Jeep YJ [sold/crashed] \\ 1987 Mazda RX-7 [sold] \\ 1987 Toyota Celica GT-S [crushed]
Quote:
Originally Posted by maksimizer
half those dudes are hotter than ,my GF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevYouUp
reading this thread is like waiting for goku to charge up a spirit bomb in dragon ball z
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good_KarMa
OH thank god. I thought u had sex with my wife. :cry:
Last edited by underscore; 04-05-2015 at 08:28 AM.
I've done this almost everytime whenever the Police have stopped me. Never had them tell me to roll the window down. Nor have they gotten pissed about it.
You probably weren't acting all sketchy and trying to piss them off at the same time, or waving around a phone recording the whole incident, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by underscore
I can see where you're coming from but let me ask you this: how do you think your situation will be improved by "exercising your rights"? It's all well and good to tell people to do so, but I'm failing to see how doing this while you're being arrested could possibly make things better for you at that time in the slightest.
This is the key: "AT THAT TIME".
There's a time and a place to "exercise your rights" but standing on the roadside arguing with a cop is not the time OR the place, especially not when you're been stopped for suspected impaired driving.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Why yes! I would like to participate in an internet argument
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_chin
I don't think these cases would make the news headline.
This was a test to see if you actually understood your claims. Any mention of Eric Garner would be appropriate discussion material. I digressed a little, but let's move back to damages and police and Canada.
The police are expected to act reasonably and are not allowed to use excessive force or damage property for no reason.
The greater the departure from the standards of behaviour required by the common law and the Charter, the heavier the onus on the police to show why they thought it was necessary to use force in the process of an arrest or a search. The evidence to justify such behaviour must be apparent in the record, and must have been available to the police at the time they chose their course of conduct. R. v. Genest, [1989] 1 SCR 59, 1989 CanLII 109 (SCC)
As soon as they depart "from the standards of behaviour required by the common law and the Charter," they open themselves to civil suit.
The language of s. 24(1) is broad enough to include the remedy of constitutional damages for breach of a claimant’s Charter rights if such remedy is found to be appropriate and just in the circumstances of a particular case. Vancouver (City) v. Ward, [2010] 2 SCR 28, 2010 SCC 27
If you "comply to a false arrest" (your words) your right to seek damages does not magically disappear. If anything, the moment you understand that you are going to be arrested (justly or not in your opinion), if you lay down on the ground and remain limp and still, the police's standards of behaviour required to arrest you must match your conduct. Your action or inaction must be matched by the police's use of force (or lack thereof).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_chin
So basically you're going to give in to a marshal law if it happens one day and never stand for your rights?
My last encounter with the police was 3 weeks ago. I was stopped for an alleged MVA offence. I exercised my rights. Want to know which rights? Section 13 Charter rights by not saying a single word (except for BC MVA sec 73 name and address statement).
WVPD lights em up and I pull over
WVPD:License, registration, and proof of insurance.
510: hands stuff over
WVPD: What's your name?
510: Firstname Surname
WVPD: And you still live on *street*
510: Yes
WVPD: Do you know what the speed limit is here?
510: Looks stupidly at the officer and says nothing
WVPD: Do you know what the speed limit is here? (slightly louder)
510: Looks stupidly at the officer and says nothing
WVPD: I measured you going xx km/h
510: Looks stupidly at the officer and says nothing
WVPD: That's yy over the posted limit.
510: Looks stupidly at the officer and says nothing
WVPD: Walks back to car with my paperwork
WVPD: Comes back with a ticket in hand
WVPD: Blah blah explaining payment terms and early payment discount.
Then I peel out in a big smokey burnout
Rights were exercised without having to sing songs or carry signs(, mostly saying hooray for our side).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_chin
Yes, a police officer will get you out of your vehicle when they are determined to and nothing will stop them. But that doesn't mean you should just comply and let them have their way with whatever they think you've done.
Oh but it does. One wants to provide absolutely no reason for police to use any kind of force whatsoever.
This way, any force used by police will be measured against an extremely low baseline of resistance by a suspect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_chin
There is a reason why we have rights and it is there to protect us from situations where we've done nothing wrong and for when a police officer is there where he intimidates you and to get you when you've done nothing wrong.
I think people need to exercise their Section 13 rights more often and just be quiet. Youtube link to the "Don't talk to the police" video... again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_chin
The act of sitting in your car not complying to an unlawful arrest is not so he will hopefully walk away and let you free. It's so he would escalate the situation so that you have a case to build on.
As mentioned before, "the greater the departure from the standards of behaviour required by the common law and the Charter, the heavier the onus on the police to show why they thought it was necessary to use force in the process of an arrest or a search."
The onus is on the police here; not the person being arrested.
Do not escalate; do not engage; do not debate.
There is no curbside courthouse.
Last edited by ancient_510; 04-05-2015 at 03:41 PM.
I can see where you're coming from but let me ask you this: how do you think your situation will be improved by "exercising your rights"? It's all well and good to tell people to do so, but I'm failing to see how doing this while you're being arrested could possibly make things better for you at that time in the slightest.
You're right, it doesn't make the situation better. Cooperating to an unlawful arrest is like taking a gamble. You open the door, step out and hope for the best, hope they don't use anymore force than they need to to detain you and cuff you.
But what are you to do when you fall victim to excessive force by police officers once you opened that door?
I guess it all depends on your appearance and the way you dress, look, act, etc. I mean, if you're rolling in family sedan with glasses and braces, probably best to cooperate and just let the police officer do his thing.
Back then was much different, because my friend was driving an escalade and quite a few times we were targeted by gang squad for no reason, just because of the way we dress.
Spoiler!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient_510
Why yes! I would like to participate in an internet argument
This was a test to see if you actually understood your claims. Any mention of Eric Garner would be appropriate discussion material. I digressed a little, but let's move back to damages and police and Canada.
The police are expected to act reasonably and are not allowed to use excessive force or damage property for no reason.
The greater the departure from the standards of behaviour required by the common law and the Charter, the heavier the onus on the police to show why they thought it was necessary to use force in the process of an arrest or a search. The evidence to justify such behaviour must be apparent in the record, and must have been available to the police at the time they chose their course of conduct. R. v. Genest, [1989] 1 SCR 59, 1989 CanLII 109 (SCC)
As soon as they depart "from the standards of behaviour required by the common law and the Charter," they open themselves to civil suit.
The language of s. 24(1) is broad enough to include the remedy of constitutional damages for breach of a claimant’s Charter rights if such remedy is found to be appropriate and just in the circumstances of a particular case. Vancouver (City) v. Ward, [2010] 2 SCR 28, 2010 SCC 27
If you "comply to a false arrest" (your words) your right to seek damages does not magically disappear. If anything, the moment you understand that you are going to be arrested (justly or not in your opinion), if you lay down on the ground and remain limp and still, the police's standards of behaviour required to arrest you must match your conduct. Your action or inaction must be matched by the police's use of force (or lack thereof).
My last encounter with the police was 3 weeks ago. I was stopped for an alleged MVA offence. I exercised my rights. Want to know which rights? Section 13 Charter rights by not saying a single word (except for BC MVA sec 73 name and address statement).
WVPD lights em up and I pull over
WVPD:License, registration, and proof of insurance.
510: hands stuff over
WVPD: What's your name?
510: Firstname Surname
WVPD: And you still live on *street*
510: Yes
WVPD: Do you know what the speed limit is here?
510: Looks stupidly at the officer and says nothing
WVPD: Do you know what the speed limit is here? (slightly louder)
510: Looks stupidly at the officer and says nothing
WVPD: I measured you going xx km/h
510: Looks stupidly at the officer and says nothing
WVPD: That's yy over the posted limit.
510: Looks stupidly at the officer and says nothing
WVPD: Walks back to car with my paperwork
WVPD: Comes back with a ticket in hand
WVPD: Blah blah explaining payment terms and early payment discount.
Then I peel out in a big smokey burnout
Rights were exercised without having to sing songs or carry signs(, mostly saying hooray for our side).
Oh but it does. One wants to provide absolutely no reason for police to use any kind of force whatsoever.
This way, any force used by police will be measured against an extremely low baseline of resistance by a suspect.
I think people need to exercise their Section 13 rights more often and just be quiet. Youtube link to the "Don't talk to the police" video... again.
As mentioned before, "the greater the departure from the standards of behaviour required by the common law and the Charter, the heavier the onus on the police to show why they thought it was necessary to use force in the process of an arrest or a search."
The onus is on the police here; not the person being arrested.
Do not escalate; do not engage; do not debate.
There is no curbside courthouse.
Your encounter was just a minor traffic infraction so obviously anybody would just cooperate.
Until you've seen and gone through much worse, you'll want to stay inside and exercise your rights.
Luckily we're on the much greener side of the grass. Back in the 90's, black people in the states wouldn't even step out because they were black. There probably were rare cases in Canada where people fall victim to police brutality for no reason. Don't quote me on it though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manic!
Years back in Nanaimo an Asian family was stopped at a red light. White guy runs up to the car yelling and screaming at them. They can't understand him because they have poor English skills. White guy starts yanking them out of the car. Grandma in the back seat has here belt on and that’s fighting back when the guy starts to grab her. He gives up and leaves. 15 seconds later a train hits the car and kills her.
Next time someone asks you to get out of a car you can say "sir sir sir what are you doing sir. sir I'm calling my lawyer sir sir sir". Or you can think most people including the police are good and just listen and get out of the car.
In my high school years, some vietnamese dude and a couple of his buddies always goes around and breaking into grow ops and robbing houses unmasked.
One day, he was on the news, his body was found. Rumor says that he was pulled over by impersonated police officers and was brought to a rural area to be executed.
True or not, just another story to share when being a victim of an unlawful arrest.
I'm just gonna quote myself here, cause I made a slightly relevant funny, and you all missed it...
Spoiler!
Inb4 nobody gets the parlay reference...
i thought you were going with that...but i read your post twice and did not see the word parlay so i figured it must have been referencing something else
But what are you to do when you fall victim to excessive force by police officers once you opened that door?
Then you seek damages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_chin
Back then was much different, because my friend was driving an escalade and quite a few times we were targeted by gang squad for no reason, just because of the way we dress.
Then "your friend" should exercise their Section 13 rights and be quiet.
If the police are fishing for something to charge "your friend" with, why help with their investigation? It can only hurt him.
Google "Mr Big RCMP" and do some homework.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_chin
Your encounter was just a minor traffic infraction so obviously anybody would just cooperate.
Minor traffic violation these days in BC can easily be a 7 day impound impound
It could be the difference between $196 and ~$2k just because the accused gave evidence to the police.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_chin
One day, he was on the news, his body was found. Rumor says that he was pulled over by impersonated police officers and was brought to a rural area to be executed.
So now real police and fake police need to stay within "standards of behaviour required by the common law and the Charter?"
I didn't think criminals needed to do that being criminals and all...
You're right, it doesn't make the situation better. Cooperating to an unlawful arrest is like taking a gamble. You open the door, step out and hope for the best, hope they don't use anymore force than they need to to detain you and cuff you.
But what are you to do when you fall victim to excessive force by police officers once you opened that door?
You sure hell don't escalate things and give them a reason to use excessive force, you deal with it in court like an adult. As you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_chin
You're right, it doesn't make the situation better.
You can only make the situation worse for yourself, both immediately and later in court, so don't dick around at the side of the road giving someone a reason to use force to arrest you.
__________________ 1991 Toyota Celica GTFour RC // 2007 Toyota Rav4 V6 // 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee
1992 Toyota Celica GT-S ["sold"] \\ 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD [sold] \\ 2000 Jeep Cherokee [sold] \\ 1997 Honda Prelude [sold] \\ 1992 Jeep YJ [sold/crashed] \\ 1987 Mazda RX-7 [sold] \\ 1987 Toyota Celica GT-S [crushed]
Quote:
Originally Posted by maksimizer
half those dudes are hotter than ,my GF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevYouUp
reading this thread is like waiting for goku to charge up a spirit bomb in dragon ball z
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good_KarMa
OH thank god. I thought u had sex with my wife. :cry:
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
