[Acura604]

https://youtu.be/3uakHnLHsBk

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/03/29/im-gonna-break-the-window-smashing-vpd-arrest-video-ignites-online-firestorm/

thoughts? although we dont have full details but looks like the dude getting arrested has some charges filed against him re: possession and even intent on trafficking.



YouTube video taken from the inside of a vehicle on a rain-soaked November night in Vancouver is piling up the views as the online community piles onto both parties involved.

On one side of a semi-cracked window are two members of the Vancouver Police Department, who have, according to the driver taking the video, pulled him over for what is described as a “motor vehicle infraction.”

“Hit the brakes, you moron,” shouts a VPD sergeant through the slightly opened driver side window, after some initial confusion.

“Turn the car off, now,” instructs the sergeant, who the poster of the video, a man who calls himself Bodhi Sattva on YouTube, apparently identifies in the title.

“Sir, why have you pulled me over?” the driver replies, in as polite of a tone he can muster. “What have I done?”

“I smell marijuana coming out of the vehicle,” says the sergeant.

Another officer sticks his nose to the window crack and confirms the suspicion.

“Yup, you are under arrest,” he says.

What follows next is some back and forth between the driver and the sergeant, who insists the car door be opened.

“I’m gonna break the window,” the sergeant threatens, before doing just that.

The Vancouver police confirmed on Sunday night that the driver was charged with possession of a controlled substance, possession for the purposes of trafficking and obstructing a police officer.

“While the video clearly doesn’t show the entire encounter between the driver and police, the officer clearly stated the driver was under arrest and asks him several times to get out of the car,” said VPD Const. Brian Montague.

“Despite the multiple warnings, the driver fails to do as instructed. I can only guess this is because he is trying desperately to distract from what he has inside his vehicle of buy time to figure his way out of the situation.” Montague said.

Hundreds of online observers have commented on the video, with some agreeing the arrest was warranted and others screaming police abuse.

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 conducting an unlawful arrest.

While Const. Montague could not disclose the initial reason for the driver to be pulled over, he sees it differently.

“It is quite simple. If someone does not want the police to use force then they need to comply. We never have to use force with a co-operative person.”

The driver has not made any official complaint about the incident, according to police, who are not able, at this time, to provide his identity, why he was pulled over in the first place and what exactly was found in the vehicle.

[quasi]

Thoughts? That was well deserved, roll down the window answer some questions and if there was nothing out of the ordinary he's on his way.

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

Ow, my shoulder, sir!

[GabAlmighty]

Lol, if you got nothing to hide then why bother creating an issue for yourself.

[quasi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgtQj8O92eI

[EmperorIS]

I wish a cop abuses my rights for once.... would be a nice downpayment for a small condo

[6o4__boi]

:facepalm:

because idiots.

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

if he wasn't doing anything wrong, he should comply and just jump through the hoops, and then be on his merry way.

if he was doing something wrong, he was doing it wrong, cuz he got caught.

although the cop should have gone into robotic regurgitating info mode and just be reciting the reason for pulling over and why he has to step out and then proceeding to force him out of the car... i guess the cop shoulda jumped through his procedural hoops as well.

[Tone Loc]

I don't understand the "logic" behind these armchair lawyers who want to make it hard for cops to do their job - and ultimately make their own lives harder in the process. All I know is, there's a guy here with a badge and a gun who can legally impound my car and make my life very difficult (like handing me a VI for my Corolla)... so why aggravate him/her? Especially if I'm not doing anything wrong.

Personally I have never had a problem with police, just be polite, do what you are instructed to do, 99.9% of the time you will be treated the same way.

People need to realize this isn't the USA...

That being said, the cop isn't perfect either. He probably shouldn't have called the guy a "moron", and if he just answered the guy in the first place as to why he was under arrest and what grounds he had to arrest him, maybe this whole thing could have been avoided.

[7seven]

Thoughts? This idiot created and escalated the issue himself, good on the officers.

[GLOW]

dealing drugs and still acting so cocky when pulled over :lawl:

[duy-]

cop: i smell marijuana
retard: no you dont

yup, we got ourselves a bonified moron. cop really should have pulled the glass towards him to shatter it but pretty satisfying how that played out. IM JUST WAITING FOR ME MAYTE

[tool001]

what did the cops pull him over for initially?

[white rocket]

I fucking hate douche bags that act like that. Saying "sir" a bunch of times doesn't make you creditable. Same with "I know my rights". It makes you look guilty as fuck and is just plain annoying.

[jasonturbo]

The best part is how they will use the video as evdience to support the obstruction of justice charge lol

[Manic!]

The guy is an idiot.

Who the hell a lawyer on speed dial. Also what did he think would happen if he called his lawyer at night?

[tool001]

The guy is an idiot.

Who the hell a lawyer on speed dial. Also what did he think would happen if he called his lawyer at night?

jp, and WW have Saul on speed dial, whats ur point :whistle:

[Anjew]

i hate these video camera tough guys....

[Genzlinger]

rookie...he obviously don't get pulled over much. Here's a tip...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR465HoCWFQ

[Soundy]

"The driver has not made any official complaint about the incident..."

Of course not, that would require actually having to prove his case. Putting the video on YouTube and crying about being the poor innocent victim is a sure-fire way to get support without having to actually prove anything.

[320icar]

I agree that he should have just complied with the officers. BUT he was very clear and calm, and somewhat respectful. The officers should have told him why they pulled him over or why they are arresting him.

A simple "we have suspicion that you are operating s motor vehicle under the influence of a narcotic." And then if the kid does not comply, THEN step it up as he is obstructing justice.

Both could have done a bit better

[smoothie.]

Good for VPD

although he most likely will get off on a technicality.

[Soundy]

I agree that he should have just complied with the officers. BUT he was very clear and calm, and somewhat respectful. The officers should have told him why they pulled him over or why they are arresting him.
We don't know that they didn't... the video conveniently starts partway into the encounter.

In fact... note how he asks repeatedly why the cops pulled him over, then at 0:43 he makes it clear he knows why: "you pulled me over for a motor vehicle violation!"

Ten bucks says the cops DID state the reason, he DID get it on video, and he edited it out... then we he asks repeatedly for the reason, it makes him seem reasonable, and the cops not so much.

Inb4 cop dashcam video is released backing up this theory... :accepted:

[Bouncing Bettys]

Are we required to fully roll down our window when pulled over? I can recall at least one time I rolled it down only a couple inches to pass my license and reg through on a cold ass night and the officer didn't seem to have an issue.

[underscore]

^ I don't believe you are, but you are required to exit the vehicle when you're being arrested for possession for the purpose of trafficking.

I fucking hate people like this, if you're going out of your way to make someones job harder because you have a carrot up your ass you're an idiot, plain and simple. And if they're gonna insist on making the polices job harder, they better be 110% sure they are doing everything flawlessly (like CiC wasn't a few weeks back) or they're gonna have a real bad time since they don't have to do you any favours either.

[rriggi]

I've been pulled over by this same cop, and funny enough my window was not smashed?

Theres no point in arguing with a cop about your legal rights and how you dont need to roll your window down 0.000125 inchs, how you can film him etc etc

Just STFU and be polite and a cop usually wont have a "power trip".

[geeknerd]

Kid: "sir you pulled me over for a motor vehicle violation"
Cop: "excellent"
...
Kid: "i have not done anything wrong for you to do this for me"
Cop: "actually you have"
Kid: "what have i done"
Cop: "i smell marijuana coming out of the vehicle"

cop ended up actually explaining in a calm manner before he broke the window for not complying.

[ancient_510]

Time and time again... don't talk to the police.
This kind of escalation likeley wouldn't have happened if the YouTuber just sat there and looked stupid silently.

https://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc

[Ohkun]

The officers found marijuana in the vehicle, I am prescribed cannabis for medical purposes and was licensed under the MMAR. I did not sign with the MMPR as there was no way that i could afford to purchase my medicine at a ridiculous 400% increase in cost. I have been waiting for the pending verdict for the constitutional challenge. I have not been given reasonable access to a reasonable supply of medicine, thus violating my constitutional rights and greatly affecting my health and the quality of my life.
Source : http://vpdmisconduct.blog.com/

Coles note:
Yes I had illegal durgs in my car but I had right to have it because medicinal marihuana cost too much.


:rukidding::rukidding:

[GabAlmighty]

Sounds like a fucking winner

[InvisibleSoul]

Kid: "sir you pulled me over for a motor vehicle violation"
Cop: "excellent"
...
Kid: "i have not done anything wrong for you to do this for me"
Cop: "actually you have"
Kid: "what have i done"
Cop: "i smell marijuana coming out of the vehicle"

cop ended up actually explaining in a calm manner before he broke the window for not complying.

Apparently the smell of burnt marijuana is NOT sufficient grounds to make an arrest and search a vehicle:

Smell of weed no longer grounds for arrest, search (http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/story.html?id=157c77e4-9d4c-47c1-bc41-39000752dbd3)

He actually has a leg to stand on here. What happened to him sounds exactly like what happened as described in that article, and that case was ultimately thrown out.

[Soundy]

Apparently the smell of burnt marijuana is NOT sufficient grounds to make an arrest and search a vehicle:
Burnt, maybe. Fresh bud has a very distinct odor as well, and if he's carrying enough to be considered trafficking, it would be pretty strong.

He actually has a leg to stand on here. What happened to him sounds exactly like what happened as described in that article, and that case was ultimately thrown out.
Doesn't change the fact that had he simply got out of the vehicle when he was asked, he would never had got his window smashed. He could have got out, answered their questions, and either been on his way, OR they might have searched his car and found... whatever... and then that might have been thrown out later. MAYBE. We don't know what else in this situation may have given the cops probably cause to search his car; all we have to go on is the snippet of video that dipshit has chosen to share because it supports his claim.

[InvisibleSoul]

Burnt, maybe. Fresh bud has a very distinct odor as well, and if he's carrying enough to be considered trafficking, it would be pretty strong.
Not necessarily. Apparently it's 30g or more to get charged with trafficking, which is like a sandwich bag or so, which isn't that much.

Obviously nobody except those officers themselves know whether they smelled fresh bud, or burnt marijuana... but my guess it's the latter.

Doesn't change the fact that had he simply got out of the vehicle when he was asked, he would never had got his window smashed.

The question at the end of the day is whether the officer actually had sufficient grounds to demand he get out of his vehicle. That is what's being debated, and the answer doesn't seem to be a clear yes.

[Soundy]

Not necessarily. Apparently it's 30g or more to get charged with trafficking, which is like a sandwich bag or so, which isn't that much.
No, but if he's been doing it for a while... that smell can linger.

No, I don't know this because I've done it. Working in the music biz though, I've worked around a lot of chronics. When they carry it constantly, that smell can get trapped up in anything cloth.

Obviously nobody except those officers themselves know whether they smelled fresh bud, or burnt marijuana... but my guess it's the latter.
True... also, the article doesn't specify exactly WHAT he's charged with trafficking. They have have found a dozen pounds of heroin, for all we know.

The question at the end of the day is whether the officer actually had sufficient grounds to demand he get out of his vehicle. That is what's being debated, and the answer doesn't seem to be a clear yes.
Not a clear no, either. But if you put it together with all the other behaviour we see (or hear) from the driver on this video, I'd lean toward the cops' story. Why does he not just roll the window down, if there's nothing to be concerned about them seeing in the car? Why not just get out and talk to them as requested?

"Sufficient grounds" are required for them to search the vehicle, but I don't believe they're required for them to ask him to get out.

Look at it from their side: buddy is refusing to roll his window down, refusing to get out, being highly argumentative (in a passive sort of way)... essentially BEHAVING like he's trying to hide something. They don't know if he might be hiding a gun down the right side of his seat, or in some other way putting THEIR lives at risk. The more he protests getting out of the car, the more suspicious it seems.

[bobbinka]

I fucking hate people like this, if you're going out of your way to make someones job harder because you have a carrot up your ass you're an idiot, plain and simple. And if they're gonna insist on making the polices job harder, they better be 110% sure they are doing everything flawlessly (like CiC wasn't a few weeks back) or they're gonna have a real bad time since they don't have to do you any favours either.

inb4 this was actually CiC

[pinn3r]

The following is to my understanding of offences involving motor vehicles:

If an officer has reasonable grounds to "suspect" impaired driving, the officer is authorized to immediately demand a physical coordination test. This is stage 1 of the screening test, based on suspicion.
In this case, we have a pretentious ignoramus refusing to comply.

During stage 1, the officer is NOT required by law to permit the suspect to consult with a lawyer when demanded of a roadside sobriety test or asked about alcohol consumption.

A suspect only has the right to counsel if a breathalyzer sample or drug test by a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) is demanded. This is stage 2. Stage 2 comes into effect when the officer has reasonable grounds to "believe" that the suspect has committed an impaired driving offence. Belief comes into play when the suspect fails the Standardized Field Sobriety Test, or blows "red" on a handheld roadside device.





Guy in the video's being a lil bitch, thinking he's all smart n shit

[CharlesInCharge]

What if a Chinese cop did the same thing to medical marijuana legend Wayne Gretzky? Can you imagine how that would shake up the country's conscious?

[quasi]

What if a Chinese cop did the same thing to medical marijuana legend Wayne Gretzky? Can you imagine how that would shake up the country's conscious?

What if they didn't do there due diligence, he was impaired drove down the street and ran over a toddler and a mother crossing the road? Can you imagine the fire the cop would be under for not doing his job? You can what if any scenario to death, he allegedly had drugs on him he'll get his day in court nobody hurt but his ego and his window.

[meme405]

You guys all missed a critical point right at the beginning of the video.

The reason the cop calls this kid a moron, and tells him to hit the brakes, and put it in park, is because the car started to roll forward when the cop walked up to the window.

That all on it's own is a stupid enough thing to do to make a cop think about impaired driving, what kind of stupid retard doesn't put the car in park, and shut it off when they get pulled over.

Only a guilty person pulls half the shit this kid did, like starting to film the officer, not rolling down your window fully, arguing, the kid knew he was fucked, and decided to make a scene to hopefully get off on some technicality, or to make a scene out of it.

I for one hope the judge sees right through this shit and shoves the gavel so far up his ass that he won't even feel the rape while he enjoys his short stint in prison. Sorry not sorry.

[fliptuner]

Wouldn't have to listen to all the banter in the vid if VPD just had this guy on the force:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1RhrITVCvrM/hqdefault.jpg

[CharlesInCharge]

What if they didn't do there due diligence, he was impaired drove down the street and ran over a toddler and a mother crossing the road? Can you imagine the fire the cop would be under for not doing his job? You can what if any scenario to death, he allegedly had drugs on him he'll get his day in court nobody hurt but his ego and his window.Yes any scenario can be made up, but putting Wayne Gretzky behind those polite "sirs" with the thought that all humans in this country are equals, is not a scenario that makes the officers action excusable.

I also doubt some newer generation settler immigrant cops would recognize the aging, slut looking of a daughter, stressed Gretzky.

[Verdasco]

doesn't matter if the guy in the car is a douchbag or not.... his window doesn't deserve to get smashed.

[SoNaRWaVe]

Yes any scenario can be made up, but putting Wayne Gretzky behind those polite "sirs" with the thought that all humans in this country are equals, is not a scenario that makes the officers action excusable.

I also doubt some newer generation settler immigrant cops would recognize the aging, slut looking of a daughter, stressed Gretzky.

Wayne Gretzky would also be smart enough to comply.

[GabAlmighty]

Yes any scenario can be made up, but putting Wayne Gretzky behind those polite "sirs" with the thought that all humans in this country are equals, is not a scenario that makes the officers action excusable.

I also doubt some newer generation settler immigrant cops would recognize the aging, slut looking of a daughter, stressed Gretzky.

Don't you talk that way about Paulina! She's a nice lady!

[Manic!]

What if a Chinese cop did the same thing to medical marijuana legend Wayne Gretzky? Can you imagine how that would shake up the country's conscious?

Why are you bringing the Great One and his family into this? Isn't Jackie Chans son in jail for weed?


Are you even Canadian?

[Recon604]

lool this guy was purposely not cooperating. If he cooperated, he would have probably got off easy.

cop "I smell marijuana come out of this vehicle"

kid "no you do not...!"

[Mr.Money]

THC doe's some funny things if you're Already Fucking retarded.

[7seven]

Source : http://vpdmisconduct.blog.com/

Coles note:
Yes I had illegal durgs in my car but I had right to have it because medicinal marihuana cost too much.


:rukidding::rukidding:

What a complete idiot. So now he is claiming this bs excuse, but when the officers pulled him over and told him they smelled marijuana, he flat out lied and told them they didn't. If he really believed this nonsense he would have explained that to the officer when confronted instead of coming up with this bs after.


doesn't matter if the guy in the car is a douchbag or not.... his window doesn't deserve to get smashed.

I think it did, officers were attempted to place the subject under arrest, be it for suspicion of impaired driving, possession of a control substance or even just being detained while they investigate, the subject refused to multiple times to exit the vehicle while the officer was attempting to place him under arrest, so the officer had to go get him by smashing the window. If this clown didn't want his window smashed, then exit the vehicle when an officer is attempting to place you under arrest.

[Soundy]

No no, he's right, that poor innocent pane of glass really didn't deserve to pay the ultimate price for its owner's utter stupidity....

[underscore]

Poor window, ????-2015 RIP :(

Why must the good die young?

[Gumby]

It is quite simple. If someone does not want the police to use force then they need to comply. We never have to use force with a co-operative person.
Why do some people not understand this?

[GLOW]

Why do some people not understand this?

because
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9aPdXlqy2s

[AzNightmare]

when you pull over, you should turn the car off and put your hands on the steering wheel.

These simple actions will relieve the officer from 2 things:
1) You're not going to drive off
2) You're not a threat (carrying a weapon or such)

The fact this dumbass still had his car running already pissed off the cop.
Legally, you don't need to lower your window all the way. But why wouldn't you?
Its' late at night, it's hard for the officer to see the driver's face, hence why he had to shine his flashlight in his face. It's just suspicious.

[Timpo]

I don't think you guys understand the situation from legal perspective.

Most of you say "if you have nothing to hide, why don't you cooperate?"
Well once you consent to searches, police can do whatever they want.

Here's the scenario:

You get pulled over on the road block, you aren't drinking or smoking weed, so you consent to searches because you have "nothing to hide"
If you ask lawyers, they will straight up tell you it's better not to consent to police searches.

Cops can tear your car down, doors, dashpanels, seats, everything.
They will literally throw your baggage outta trunk, and strip your car down.
Guess what, they aren't gonna fix everything in place for you, because you already consent it, and cops have no obligation to fix everything. Even if they broke something, like plastic pieces on your dash panel, your cell phone charger, anything.

Sure, in this particular case, the guy may have been smoking weed, but I've heard of completely innocent people in BC getting screwed over by this police searches without search warrant.

Also if the guy had a right to get a lawyer, he should have been able to. It's not illegal to get a lawyer, as soon as he said he's gonna call lawyer, sure maybe cops thought that he better hurry up because it may cause some mild to medium inconvenience to the officers, but if that's how legal system works/allows him to do, cops should have followed that rule. We're in Canada, not in China, North Korea or some messed up place where citizens have little to no rights.

I'm not supporting DUI in any way, I'm just talking about constitutional rights, if he had any in that situation. I don't think that cop was too bad, at least he warned the guy and stuff, but if he had a right to get a lawyer, he should have.

[meme405]

I don't think you guys understand the situation from legal perspective.

Most of you say "if you have nothing to hide, why don't you cooperate?"
Well once you consent to searches, police can do whatever they want.

Here's the scenario:

You get pulled over on the road block, you aren't drinking or smoking weed, so you consent to searches because you have "nothing to hide"
If you ask lawyers, they will straight up tell you it's better not to cooperate to police searches.

Cops can tear your car down, doors, dashpanels, seats, everything.
They will literally throw your baggage outta trunk, and strip your car down.
Guess what, they aren't gonna fix everything in place for you, because you already consent it, and cops have no obligation to fix everything. Even if they broke something, like plastic pieces on your dash panel, your cell phone charger, anything.

Sure, in this particular case, the guy may have been smoking weed, but I've heard of completely innocent people in BC getting screwed over by this police searches without search warrant.

Also if the guy had a right to get a lawyer, he should have been able to. It's not illegal to get a lawyer, as soon as he said he's gonna call lawyer, sure it may cause some mild to medium inconvenience to the officers, but if that's how legal system works/allows him to do, cops should have followed that rule.

In this scenario the officer was not asking the individuals consent for a search, he flat out told the kid he was under arrest.

The kid starts off by saying all this crap about tell me why I was pulled over and that bullshit, in BC an officer doesn't have to have a reason to pull you over, he can pull you over just to check paperwork.

In this case I'm willing to bet this kid had flags on his tags, or his previous history alerted police to the fact that something could be up here. Coupled with his obvious attempts to hide something and the fact that it probably did smell like weed if they found weed in the car and you have a pretty clear case.

This case might have had some merit of the kid had a clean history, and had nothing in his car, but as it stands the kid was breaking the law and refused a direct order when asked to comply by an officer.

[InvisibleSoul]

It is quite simple. If someone does not want the police to use force then they need to comply. We never have to use force with a co-operative person.

Why do some people not understand this?

Because what if it's an unlawful request? Then we're going down a slippery slope where you're giving up your rights and complying just to avoid the use of unjustified force.

I'm not saying this is the same thing as what happened in this case, but this is to illustrate that for unlawful requests, you have the right to refuse to comply. If they use force to make you comply, they are violating your rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg

[Timpo]

ok well then maybe in this scenario everything was fine, looks like they even posted on their facebook page too.

[meme405]

Also if the guy had a right to get a lawyer, he should have been able to. It's not illegal to get a lawyer, as soon as he said he's gonna call lawyer, sure maybe cops thought that he better hurry up because it may cause some mild to medium inconvenience to the officers, but if that's how legal system works/allows him to do, cops should have followed that rule. We're in Canada, not in China, North Korea or some messed up place where citizens have little to no rights.

You have the right to a lawyer once you are arrested.

This isn't pirates of the carribean, telling a police officer you are going to call a lawyer doesn't mean they can't arrest you all of a sudden.

[Soundy]

I don't think you guys understand the situation from legal perspective.
I don't think you understand it from a life perspective.

Most of you say "if you have nothing to hide, why don't you cooperate?"
Well once you consent to searches, police can do whatever they want.

Except this:

In this scenario the officer was not asking the individuals consent for a search, he flat out told the kid he was under arrest.


The question of searching the car never came up, at least not in the portion of video the kid chose to share. If there's something before the video starts that includes a request to search, well, maybe he shouldn't have edited that out.

The video as everyone has seen it doesn't even include to cop asking for his DL and regi. It doesn't include the cop stating why he was pulled over, despite it being clear from later comments that he WAS told. So it's obvious there's more to the encounter that we're not being shown, probably because it doesn't suit this twat's purpose of making cops look like dicks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg
Again with the US videos. Really, REALLY not the same kinda system here. Canadians need to get over the "Miranda rights" and all that other shit they've had crammed into their heads by American cop shows. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY HERE.

[van_city23]

Again with the US videos. Really, REALLY not the same kinda system here. Canadians need to get over the "Miranda rights" and all that other shit they've had crammed into their heads by American cop shows. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY HERE.

You do have your charter rights but i'm not sure if those kick in after being arrested or once you're detained.

[Soundy]

Yes we do have charter rights, but they're nowhere near the same as those under the US Constitution. For starters, the wording is substantially more Olde English and convoluted, but while much (not all) of the spirit of those rights are the same, a lot of the specifics are very different.

[pinn3r]

You do have your charter rights but i'm not sure if those kick in after being arrested or once you're detained.

Random vehicle stops are authorized by the Motor Vehicle Act under section 73. Sure, some may argue that this infringes upon one's right to be free from arbitrary detention; but, the SCC has held that "the objective of controlling the social evil of drunk driving is of sufficient importance that the infringement is justified." It's a reasonable limitation under section 1 of the Charter.

Essentially, an officer is allowed to randomly stop a vehicle; s/he doesn't have to give you a reason. At this time, the officer will be able to observe the driver for signs of impairment to decide whether there are grounds to demand a breath sample. This is when one's right to counsel kicks in.

In this fool's case, the officer could smell marijuana coming out of his vehicle; this is sufficient for the officer to demand that he exit his vehicle.

However, this bumbling idiot refuses to comply, has his window smashed in, and gets dragged out. All of which are completely justified.

[underscore]

Because what if it's an unlawful request? Then we're going down a slippery slope where you're giving up your rights and complying just to avoid the use of unjustified force.

I'm not saying this is the same thing as what happened in this case, but this is to illustrate that for unlawful requests, you have the right to refuse to comply. If they use force to make you comply, they are violating your rights.

If an unlawful request is being made, at the roadside is not the time or place to be arguing it. Complying and dealing with it afterwards via the proper channels is going to end a lot better than refusing to comply with the same person that made the request.

[Trak3]

Wish the kid didn't edit the video down so much, have too many questions..

[InvisibleSoul]

If an unlawful request is being made, at the roadside is not the time or place to be arguing it. Complying and dealing with it afterwards via the proper channels is going to end a lot better than refusing to comply with the same person that made the request.

So essentially, you would have to give up your rights.

No matter what a cop says, you should always comply?

Sure, you can deal with what results from it like getting your case thrown out of court or what not, but you will never reverse the fact that your rights were violated though.

[tool001]

as per police cheif

This was not a traffic stop,” he said in a release Tuesday, “it was a drug arrest. Impaired driving alerted the officer to the danger the driver posed to public safety and marijuana smoke billowing from the car made the cause of that impairment obvious.


also Chu noted that charges are pending in the case for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. He also noted that no one was injured and no police complaint was filed.


hmm , however he wasn't charged with impaired driving or being under influence, but possession charges are pending..?!

[InvisibleSoul]

Again with the US videos. Really, REALLY not the same kinda system here. Canadians need to get over the "Miranda rights" and all that other shit they've had crammed into their heads by American cop shows. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY HERE.

Miranda warning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning)

I don't see what the connection is with Miranda rights with this is.

What is "all that other shit" that's different from US than Canada that applies to this case? I would really like to know.

[underscore]

So essentially, you would have to give up your rights.

No matter what a cop says, you should always comply?

Sure, you can deal with what results from it like getting your case thrown out of court or what not, but you will never reverse the fact that your rights were violated though.

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.

[BoostedBB6]

"Possession of Marijuana Over 30 gr, 2x Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, and Obstruction/Willfully Resist Arrest"

These are the charges against the driver with regards to this stop. So if you are wondering why this happened.....yeah he got what he deserved.

[Soundy]

Miranda warning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning)

I don't see what the connection is with Miranda rights with this is.
Example | Define Example at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/example)

What is "all that other shit" that's different from US than Canada that applies to this case? I would really like to know.
What constitutes probable cause... reasonable search... reasonable doubt. "I want my one phone call!" Blah blah blah. Zulu, sho, and other resident cops have commented on the differences many times. Perhaps you should start paying attention.

[Manic!]

Chris rock got pulled over 3 times in the last 2 months and no windows where broken.
Someone should take a lesson.


Chris Rock Police Photos: Comedian Claims He Was Stopped By Cops Three Times in Two Months, Posts Selfies - Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/chris-rock-police-photos-comedian-785805)

[InvisibleSoul]

What constitutes probable cause... reasonable search... reasonable doubt. "I want my one phone call!" Blah blah blah. Zulu, sho, and other resident cops have commented on the differences many times. Perhaps you should start paying attention.

Well, we already went over this earlier.

We don't know all of the details, but IF the officer only smelled burnt marijuana, not fresh marijuana, then this has been proven to be NOT sufficient grounds for arrest or vehicle search, IN CANADA.

IF that is what actually happened, then that guy's rights were violated.

Without know any additional details, I don't know if his rights were violated or not.

[van_city23]

Well, we already went over this earlier.

We don't know all of the details, but IF the officer only smelled burnt marijuana, not fresh marijuana, then this has been proven to be NOT sufficient grounds for arrest or vehicle search, IN CANADA.

IF that is what actually happened, then that guy's rights were violated.

Without know any additional details, I don't know if his rights were violated or not.

I think it's a sufficient ground to arrest or search to prevent destruction of evidence or to preserve evidence. That's really broad. Smelling burnt weed could reasonably lead to presuming there is more drugs in the car? seems viable.

[BoostedBB6]

Well, we already went over this earlier.

We don't know all of the details, but IF the officer only smelled burnt marijuana, not fresh marijuana, then this has been proven to be NOT sufficient grounds for arrest or vehicle search, IN CANADA.

IF that is what actually happened, then that guy's rights were violated.

Without know any additional details, I don't know if his rights were violated or not.

Charges after being arrested this time.
"Possession of Marijuana Over 30 gr, 2x Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, and Obstruction/Willfully Resist Arrest"

What would you like to bet he has others that would give an officer justified cause to pull this individual over?
Given that he was found to be in possession of marijuana (what the officer said he smelt) and had enough to have charges put against him I think really solidifies all the bullshit that keeps going on in this thread.
He's a drug dealer who got busted by a cop....job well done IMO.

[freakshow]

Well, we already went over this earlier.

We don't know all of the details, but IF the officer only smelled burnt marijuana, not fresh marijuana, then this has been proven to be NOT sufficient grounds for arrest or vehicle search, IN CANADA.

IF that is what actually happened, then that guy's rights were violated.

Without know any additional details, I don't know if his rights were violated or not.

If an officer states 'You are under arrest', it's not an invitation to discuss whether or not you think he has grounds for it. If he didn't have grounds for it, there will be recourse later.
I can't believe you're still trying to make arguments from the kids side.. just stahp..

[sho_bc]

I think it's a sufficient ground to arrest or search to prevent destruction of evidence or to preserve evidence. That's really broad. Smelling burnt weed could reasonably lead to presuming there is more drugs in the car? seems viable.

According to caselaw, the smell of burnt marihuana on its own is not enough to for an arrest (one of i'm sure several similar caselaw cases was posted earlier in this thread).

Given how much they found, its probable that there was an odour of fresh marihuana and that it was quite obvious. None of us will know for sure all the details of this case until it goes to court and/or the decision is posted.

[El Dumbasso]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v332/dumbass/10guy.png
Like a stoned Obi-Wan Kenobi.

[InvisibleSoul]

I think it's a sufficient ground to arrest or search to prevent destruction of evidence or to preserve evidence. That's really broad. Smelling burnt weed could reasonably lead to presuming there is more drugs in the car? seems viable.

Read the case law linked earlier. The court made a decision that burnt marijuana is NOT sufficient grounds for arrest or search.

Charges after being arrested this time.
"Possession of Marijuana Over 30 gr, 2x Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, and Obstruction/Willfully Resist Arrest"

What would you like to bet he has others that would give an officer justified cause to pull this individual over?

Given that he was found to be in possession of marijuana (what the officer said he smelt) and had enough to have charges put against him I think really solidifies all the bullshit that keeps going on in this thread.
He's a drug dealer who got busted by a cop....job well done IMO.

I'm not arguing that he is guilty of possessing marijuana. The argument is whether his rights were violated in order to find these charges against him.

IF the police officers did in fact smell FRESH marijuana, then there are no problems here.

If an officer states 'You are under arrest', it's not an invitation to discuss whether or not you think he has grounds for it. If he didn't have grounds for it, there will be recourse later.
I can't believe you're still trying to make arguments from the kids side.. just stahp..
I'm not trying to vindicate that guy. I couldn't care less about him. My interest is more so on the police officer's side, and whether he actually conducted himself in a lawful manner or not.

[BoostedBB6]

Read the case law linked earlier. The court made a decision that burnt marijuana is NOT sufficient grounds for arrest or search.



I'm not arguing that he is guilty of possessing marijuana. The argument is whether his rights were violated in order to find these charges against him.

IF the police officers did in fact smell FRESH marijuana, then there are no problems here.


I'm not trying to vindicate that guy. I couldn't care less about him. My interest is more so on the police officer's side, and whether he actually conducted himself in a lawful manner or not.

Given that "fresh" weed was found in his possession, a LOT of it, and the officer said he smelt it there is NO problem here.

Given the officers reasons to arrest him (which are made 100% valid upon the possession of the drugs) and the suspects resisting the arrest by putting a barricade between himself and the officer with a running vehicle the officer was justified in his actions to remove the suspect from the vehicle that IS in possession of a large amount of drugs.

His rights were not violated by arresting him for a criminal offence. The facts are he was pulled over, officer smelt marijuana, suspect refused to get out of the vehicle, officer removed him and arrested him and found a large quantity of drugs.....now I may not be the most educated person around, but if you think that this is wrong its clear that my education level is higher than some.

[Soundy]

Read the case law linked earlier. The court made a decision that burnt marijuana is NOT sufficient grounds for arrest or search.

Read what sho_BC wrote:

According to caselaw, the smell of burnt marihuana on its own is not enough to for an arrest

[InvisibleSoul]

Given that "fresh" weed was found in his possession, a LOT of it, and the officer said he smelt it there is NO problem here.

It all hinges on whether the officer smelled burnt weed or fresh weed.

Read what sho_BC wrote:

I did. The point is IF only burnt weed was smelled, the officer would not have probably cause to search his vehicle to FIND the fresh marijuana to arrest him.

[BoostedBB6]

It all hinges on whether the officer smelled burnt weed or fresh weed.



I did. The point is IF only burnt weed was smelled, the officer would not have probably cause to search his vehicle to FIND the fresh marijuana to arrest him.

No it does not, the officer had to have more than just the smell of weed to arrest the person. Such as having previously had charges for possession, failing to comply with an officer etc.
The only thing that came from the ruling was that they can not arrest and search with "smell of burnt" being the only thing that they were working with.

[InvisibleSoul]

No it does not, the officer had to have more than just the smell of weed to arrest the person. Such as having previously had charges for possession, failing to comply with an officer etc.

IANAL, but I'm not sure this is a valid argument.

Even if he had a previous charge of possession, not sure that combined with smelling burnt marijuana is sufficient grounds for search or arrest.

Failing to comply with an officer as grounds for search or arrest seems like circular logic. Not talking specifically about this case, but if an officer actually had zero reason to search a vehicle and wanted to search it, but the person refuses, the officer can then search it because the person failed to comply with an officer?

[vvd]

You guys arguing about burnt vs unburnt are kinda forgetting something: he's operating a vehicle.

Unburnt weed in the car = possession
Burnt weed because he smoked it = DUI

Either way he's kinda screwed...

[Noir]

You guys arguing about burnt vs unburnt are kinda forgetting something: he's operating a vehicle.

Unburnt weed in the car = possession
Burnt weed because he smoked it = DUI

Either way he's kinda screwed...

Sometimes when people have nothing to go on... semantics is the only way to argue

Shame on the officer for not specifying the state of weed he smelled. The atrocity is borderline Gestapo :whistle:

[ChaKo]

His rights were not violated by arresting him for a criminal offence. The facts are he was pulled over, officer smelt marijuana, suspect refused to get out of the vehicle, officer removed him and arrested him and found a large quantity of drugs.....now I may not be the most educated person around, but if you think that this is wrong its clear that my education level is higher than some.

You may not be as educated as you seem to think. Like others have said, there may be more to the video, but just going on what is available, it seems as though his section 10(a), and arguably 10(b), rights were violated; I say arguably because there is case law that indicates that 10(b) can be given some time after the arrest is made.

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.

Once an arrest is made, police are given the common law power to make a search incident to arrest, which extends to the vehicle as well. This could be especially important because if the arrest is found to be unlawful, or that the officer infringed the accused's section 10(a) rights, then the evidence could be excluded.

R. v. Greffe (a Supreme Court ruling):
In fact, even if reasonable and probable grounds existed, support for which was not established by the Crown, there is still the admission by the Crown that the police deliberately failed to provide the appellant with the proper reason for the arrest, thereby infringing his rights under s. 10(a) of the Charter. The Crown refers to this as "foolish" and a "blunder", but in fact it amounts to the police deliberately misleading the appellant and using that deception as an artifice to conduct a highly invasive rectal search. Whatever the motives for this deception, it can only lead to an inference of extreme bad faith on the part of the police in that they wilfully circumvented the Charter, a factor which further supports the exclusion of the evidence in this case.

In the above case, although the rectal search was obviously more invasive, the case is analogous in that the search was also incidental to an arrest. The point is, not providing an individual with his 10(a) rights is a violation of his rights and can result in the case being thrown out. Obviously, there could be more to the story, and there probably is; however, a lot of people seem to think that, based on what we can see, no rights have been violated and that is not necessarily the case.

[underscore]

^ does it state that "promptly" means "prior" anywhere?

[ChaKo]

^ does it state that "promptly" means "prior" anywhere?

there is a tedious framework to determine when an accused is detained or arrested, but it doesn't necessarily occur when he is physically constrained. We don't need to go through the analysis here, because the officer explicitly states that the accused is under arrest, so let's assume it begins at that moment. I would imagine promptly means he should have been told as soon as he told the accused he was under arrest or, at the very least, when the accused asked why. After all, one of my bolded points indicates that an individual has the right to know why before he is obliged to comply.

[sho_bc]

One could easily articulate an urgency in having him exit before going into further explanation by the simple fact that guy's car is still rolling as he's standing at his window (hence the "hit the brakes" direction that was given). He has told guy that he is under arrest and may be concerned that continued useless banter back and forth is a distraction tactic for preparing to take off - which I've had happen to me and nearly had my foot run over. His concern may have been getting guy out of the car and in custody before entering what was sure to be a "i know the law better than you because i've seen some tv shows and read some blogs" debate.

*disclaimer* The above may not be the case, but is plausible and entirely realistic. Again, the only way to find out what actually happened is to wait for the trial and/or the written decisions by a judge.

[ChaKo]

One could easily articulate an urgency in having him exit before going into further explanation by the simple fact that guy's car is still rolling as he's standing at his window (hence the "hit the brakes" direction that was given). He has told guy that he is under arrest and may be concerned that continued useless banter back and forth is a distraction tactic for preparing to take off - which I've had happen to me and nearly had my foot run over. His concern may have been getting guy out of the car and in custody before entering what was sure to be a "i know the law better than you because i've seen some tv shows and read some blogs" debate.

*disclaimer* The above may not be the case, but is plausible and entirely realistic. Again, the only way to find out what actually happened is to wait for the trial and/or the written decisions by a judge.

I concede that you'd likely know the law better than I would. 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.

for underscore:
this is what i have in my notes as the test, from r v grant, for when a detention occurs. it's probably more useful for situations in which a detention isn't as obvious.

whether the reasonable person subject to non-legal compulsion would conclude they were detained depends on the following criteria considered in their totality:
i. The circumstances giving rise to the encounter as reasonably perceived by the individual;
ii. The nature of the police conduct, including language, physical contact, place it occurred, presence of others, duration
iii. The particular characteristics or circumstances of the individual where relevant, including: age, physical stature, level of sophistication

[sho_bc]

I don't and can't ever claim to know everything about the law as its forever changing and evolving. I understand and interpret laws and caselaw a certain way and rely on much more knowledgeable people than myself to steer my understanding and interpretations in the right direction, but in the end, a Judge will be deciding if what I do or don't do is correct.

[ChaKo]

I don't and can't ever claim to know everything about the law as its forever changing and evolving. I understand and interpret laws and caselaw a certain way and rely on much more knowledgeable people than myself to steer my understanding and interpretations in the right direction, but in the end, a Judge will be deciding if what I do or don't do is correct.

I dont think anyone could, not even chief justice mclachlin. but like you said, it really will come down to how the court decides the case based on the facts, which are largely unavailable to us. i would imagine that any criminal lawyer worth his salt would be able to argue that, based on the demeanour of the officers and the fact that they were willing to banter to a certain extent, that they didn't seem overly concerned with the possibility of the accused fleeing. they were willing to state that they smelled marihuana, but ignored his question as to why he was being arrested.

in the end, even if his charter rights were found to be infringed, a court could still include the evidence anyways. it just sucks that by the time a ruling comes down, we'll probably all have lost interest or forgotten about this guy.

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

well, whatever happens, he's gonna use smell proof containers next time that's for sure LOL.

[BoostedBB6]

You may not be as educated as you seem to think. Like others have said, there may be more to the video, but just going on what is available, it seems as though his section 10(a), and arguably 10(b), rights were violated; I say arguably because there is case law that indicates that 10(b) can be given some time after the arrest is made.

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.

Once an arrest is made, police are given the common law power to make a search incident to arrest, which extends to the vehicle as well. This could be especially important because if the arrest is found to be unlawful, or that the officer infringed the accused's section 10(a) rights, then the evidence could be excluded.

R. v. Greffe (a Supreme Court ruling):
In fact, even if reasonable and probable grounds existed, support for which was not established by the Crown, there is still the admission by the Crown that the police deliberately failed to provide the appellant with the proper reason for the arrest, thereby infringing his rights under s. 10(a) of the Charter. The Crown refers to this as "foolish" and a "blunder", but in fact it amounts to the police deliberately misleading the appellant and using that deception as an artifice to conduct a highly invasive rectal search. Whatever the motives for this deception, it can only lead to an inference of extreme bad faith on the part of the police in that they wilfully circumvented the Charter, a factor which further supports the exclusion of the evidence in this case.

In the above case, although the rectal search was obviously more invasive, the case is analogous in that the search was also incidental to an arrest. The point is, not providing an individual with his 10(a) rights is a violation of his rights and can result in the case being thrown out. Obviously, there could be more to the story, and there probably is; however, a lot of people seem to think that, based on what we can see, no rights have been violated and that is not necessarily the case.

Promptly, not instantly. No officer is required to state the reason for arrest simply because a suspect is requesting it, and in doing so resisting arrest.
Once the situation is handled, they would be informed of the reason for the arrest (of which he was).

And yes, there is more to the story. This person is rather well know the the VPD.....can you guess what for?

Like all law, it is open to interpretation. Copy and paste does nothing for you here. Same applies with obtaining legal counsel. An officer is not required to allow a suspect to make a phone call when he is being arrested.

The number if book smart, life stupid people in this world really astounds me at times. Sad to say, but what you learn in school has little to do with how you live.

Personally, idiots like this guy who have watched one to many US freedom and rights videos on YouTube deserve every little bit he got. He is a drug dealer, not suspected, he is a DRUG DEALER. There is a very good reason why he was pulled over, and it is proven by the fact that he now was drug related criminal charges against him. Lets process that now........ok, so are we all agreeing that he (the suspect) being arrested for dealing and possession of drugs is a good thing?...if the answer is yes then perhaps its time to drop the hypothetical bullshit and realize that they just took a DRUG DEALER off the streets....A+ good job, glad to see real criminals getting what they deserve and not another bullshit "i was speeding, should I dispute it" thread.

[ChaKo]

Promptly, not instantly. No officer is required to state the reason for arrest simply because a suspect is requesting it, and in doing so resisting arrest.
Once the situation is handled, they would be informed of the reason for the arrest (of which he was).

And yes, there is more to the story. This person is rather well know the the VPD.....can you guess what for?

Like all law, it is open to interpretation. Copy and paste does nothing for you here. Same applies with obtaining legal counsel. An officer is not required to allow a suspect to make a phone call when he is being arrested.

The number if book smart, life stupid people in this world really astounds me at times. Sad to say, but what you learn in school has little to do with how you live.

Personally, idiots like this guy who have watched one to many US freedom and rights videos on YouTube deserve every little bit he got. He is a drug dealer, not suspected, he is a DRUG DEALER. There is a very good reason why he was pulled over, and it is proven by the fact that he now was drug related criminal charges against him. Lets process that now........ok, so are we all agreeing that he (the suspect) being arrested for dealing and possession of drugs is a good thing?...if the answer is yes then perhaps its time to drop the hypothetical bullshit and realize that they just took a DRUG DEALER off the streets....A+ good job, glad to see real criminals getting what they deserve and not another bullshit "i was speeding, should I dispute it" thread.

you totally disregarded this reasoning used by the supreme court many times, which i kindly put in bold for you the first time:

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.

How can he exercise his obligation to submit to an arrest when he's already arrested?

I get that it is popular opinion on this board to side with the police. I've been a member long enough to know the consensus here. I am not disagreeing with taking criminals off the streets, but if the police don't follow proper procedure, it could end up doing more harm than good.

edit: you seemed to also ignore the fact that the case law i cited involved an apparent drug dealer as well and because the police didn't provide him with his 10(a) rights, the evidence couldn't be admitted. in the eyes of the law, it doesn't necessarily matter what common sense tells you. life experience can tell you someone is a drug dealer, but the law can say otherwise.

just so we're clear, in the case i cited, they found drugs wrapped in a condom stuffed up the guy's ass. just because you find out that the guy is a drug dealer, or smuggler, after the fact, doesn't mean you can convict him, especially if you didn't properly execute the arrest.
just because the guy is charged with something now, doesn't mean it'll stick after a trial.

[meme405]

^The cop did state that he smells weed and that the subject is under arrest. So I don't really see your point having any merit. So any reasonable person who isn't retarded like the video uploader, would conclude that he is under arrest for the weed until the cops figure out what the fuck is going on.

Are we seriously going to say that the officer smelled burnt weed vs unburnt weed, especially given the large quantity of unburnt shit they found?

[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.

[BoostedBB6]

http://i.imgur.com/fKmT2l3.gif

Fuck it, I'm out.

[twitchyzero]

Chris Rock Takes A Selfie After Cops Pull Him Over For The 3rd Time In Less Than 7 Weeks (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/01/chris-rock-cops-pulled-over_n_6984720.html)

[sho_bc]

If someone has "medical marihuana", they still need to prove they're legally in possession of their "medical marihuana". The number of people I've come across who are properly licenced can be counted on one finger. Just saying.

[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?

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.

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]

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.

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. :lol

- 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:


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]

This explains a lot.
Do you perchance have any formal education in the area of law?

[InvisibleSoul]

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]

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]

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]

I guess passive aggressive is the theme here. :lol

- 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]

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]

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]

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]

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. :rukidding:

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]

Lack of reading comprehension for the lose. :rukidding:

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.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v332/dumbass/lolfucked.jpg

[Tone Loc]

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]

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:
http://www.leadgenerationmastery.my/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/jedi-mind-tricks.jpg

[Soundy]

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]

*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.

[freakshow]

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.
What you're missing is that, while it's a possibility, based on what we know from the article (ie. the fact that the idiot was charged with possession..), it's not reasonable to keep inferring that possibility, and to do so makes it look like you're defending the guy.

It's possible that the officer was high himself, or that he was a unicorn dressed as a man, which would mean the arrest was conducted unlawfully... but we don't talk about those possibilities, because the rest of the story gives us enough context to most likely rule those out.

[meme405]

This is one of those situations, just like ilvtofu's thread in the police forum about his driving incident, where a bunch of people are coming up with "hypothetical this" and "possibility that".

When in the end it will be just as the majority of us are saying. This kid isn't going to get off, he's going to eat those charges, and hopefully think twice about his lifestyle next time.

Mark my words. Come back to me when this plays out exactly as I stated above. Just as it came out exactly how I stated it should have originally in that thread by ilvtofu.

[InvisibleSoul]

*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.

http://oi59.tinypic.com/ra90r4.jpg

Where the fuck in the video did the officer ever say he wanted to conduct a sobriety test? All he says is "you're under arrest" without giving any reason for the arrest. From what I understand, that is not proper conduct.

[InvisibleSoul]

What you're missing is that, while it's a possibility, based on what we know from the article (ie. the fact that the idiot was charged with possession..), it's not reasonable to keep inferring that possibility, and to do so makes it look like you're defending the guy.

It's possible that the officer was high himself, or that he was a unicorn dressed as a man, which would mean the arrest was conducted unlawfully... but we don't talk about those possibilities, because the rest of the story gives us enough context to most likely rule those out.

The fact he was charged with possession as absolutely NO BEARING on the possibility that his arrest was conducted unlawfully. Zero. Zilch. None.

What part of my argument are you not understanding?

I am not arguing that he is guilty of possessing drugs.

I'm arguing it's possible that his arrest was conducted not in accordance to proper procedure.

They are completely separate things.

[InvisibleSoul]

When in the end it will be just as the majority of us are saying. This kid isn't going to get off, he's going to eat those charges, and hopefully think twice about his lifestyle next time.

:thumbs:

Cool, I'm all for it. I don't give a shit if they throw the book at him.

I care more that IF the arrest is proven to have been conducted unlawfully, the police officer should get reprimanded.

I don't dispute that there could be more to the situation that isn't portrayed in the video that exonerates the officer and shows he conducted the arrest in accordance of the law.

All I'm saying is based on WHAT'S SHOWN IN THE VIDEO, the POSSIBILITY EXISTS that his arrest was conducted unlawfully.

Why is this so hard for you guys to digest?

[Noir]

http://oi59.tinypic.com/ra90r4.jpg

Where the fuck in the video did the officer ever say he wanted to conduct a sobriety test? All he says is "you're under arrest" without giving any reason for the arrest. From what I understand, that is not proper conduct.

OMG. I guess even a smidge of common sense is a lot to ask for nowadays.

Are you really telling me that neither you nor the individual in the video can't figure out why he is being arrested? Because when the officer said he smells weed and the guy in the video says "no you don't", knowing what we know now after the fact, and you still can't tell which party was lying?

[InvisibleSoul]

OMG. I guess even a smidge of common sense is a lot to ask for nowadays.

Are you really telling me that neither you nor the individual in the video can't figure out why he is being arrested? Because when the officer said he smells weed and the guy in the video says "no you don't", knowing what we know now after the fact, and you still can't tell which party was lying?

OMG. Is reading comprehension that difficult nowadays?

I know why he was arrested, and what he was arrested for.

What I DON'T know is whether the arrest was conducted lawfully.

Can you understand the difference?

[InvisibleSoul]

*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.

I'm going to reply to this a second time, to address your specific points.

He was pulled over for traffic violation (not arrested), for suspicion of driving under the influence - Legal
That isn't even a fact. We don't know why he was pulled over.
The Province article says "[VPD Const.] Montague could not disclose the initial reason for the driver being pulled over"

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
The officer certainly didn't give any indication he wanted to do a sobriety test. He just told him he's under arrest without giving him the reason.
The Province article says "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."

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.
Are you seriously this dense or just pretending to be? At no point have I said you should always stand your ground and refuse to comply with an officer. If they are making lawful requests and conducting themselves in accordance to proper procedures, you should absolutely comply with what they ask you to do. The issue is when they make unlawful or unreasonable requests. Even then I'm not saying one SHOULD stand their ground and not comply with unlawful or unreasonable requests... but if they have the balls to, good for them. I'll say it right now that

[ilovebacon]

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/complaint-of-excessive-police-force-in-vancouver-1.3018866

[underscore]

I'm arguing it's possible that his arrest was conducted not in accordance to proper procedure.

While it is technically possible, it sits in the camp of very unlikely given that the video was taken and edited by a dumb fuck drug dealer. Where you're running into problems is that you're assuming things that weren't shown in the video definitely didn't happen at all.

[mr_chin]

I definitely wouldn't step out of the car if I know I've done nothing wrong regardless of the fact that I have nothing to hide, unless they give me the reason of arrest.

Complying to a false arrest will eliminate a possibility of a lawsuit if they decide to be aggressive during the arrest.

Everybody always say, just step out and do what you're told and you'll be on your way. This sometimes sounds like a good thing to do, but when your arrest is unknown, you could get dragged out and thrown to the ground when you open your doors. Seen it happened first hand to a friend and later the officer came back and said his car matched a description without even apologizing.

Basically, the officer violated my friend's rights, assaulted him and walked away like nothing happened. What could my friend have done when the incident wasn't recorded and there is no proof other than me being the witness? Most likely the officer will just continue his job had we made a complaint.

Don't just do what police officers tell you to. If they're not following proper procedures, you need stand up for your rights.

[InvisibleSoul]

While it is technically possible, it sits in the camp of very unlikely given that the video was taken and edited by a dumb fuck drug dealer. Where you're running into problems is that you're assuming things that weren't shown in the video definitely didn't happen at all.

From what I can tell, the only "editing" that was likely done on this video was trimming the beginning and/or end off. Could there have contained content that would have completely changed the context or understanding of what transpired? Possible. Maybe the cop said before the video started that he was being arrested for driving while impaired. But given the dialogue in the video, it doesn't seem like there would be anything like that. The cop goes from pretty nonchalant to demanding him to open the door and telling him he's under arrest pretty much in a flash.

I don't know how much clearer I need to be. I'm not assuming anything. That's why I keep saying it's POSSIBLE the search and arrest was conducted unlawfully. At no point did I state the search and arrest was conducted unlawfully as a fact.

[Ludepower]

Why are the HE'S GUILTY camp so adamant that hypothetically the cop is correct.

Yes the video is edited. Yes he's been charged with possession.

But the principal still stands. Were his basic human rights violated. Something we should all be united on.

Both sides will get their day in court. The rule of law will decide.

[van_city23]

The chances of the crown actually following through with the charges would depend on the amount of evidence they have to convict him. This means they would look at why he was arrested and if there were any charter issues that would preclude evidence from being used. If they are charging him, i would assume his rights either were not violated or weren't violated to the extent to result exclusion of evidence.

[Noir]

OMG. Is reading comprehension that difficult nowadays?

I know why he was arrested, and what he was arrested for.

What I DON'T know is whether the arrest was conducted lawfully.

Can you understand the difference?

Reading comprehension has nothing to do with it when your argument has no merit whatsoever. Can you explain to me what was so unlawful about the the arrest?

1) Is it because neither you nor the video poster knew why he was being arrested because you just explicitly said you KNOW why he's being arrested.


Stop trying to look for technicalities and pretending to be some lupoll grandmaster. You're not, and you're not fooling anyone with your feigned legal saviness.


I'm going to reply to this a second time, to address your specific points.
That isn't even a fact. We don't know why he was pulled over.
The Province article says "[VPD Const.] Montague could not disclose the initial reason for the driver being pulled over"


The Province :lol. Watch the video (0:45) and even the guy says it himself why he's pulled over. Nice try bud.


The officer certainly didn't give any indication he wanted to do a sobriety test. He just told him he's under arrest without giving him the reason.
The Province article says "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."


1) If an officer suspects a driver is under the influence whether it be controlled substance or alcohol, why do you think an officer wants you to exit the vehicle? Do you think saying "NO" gives you the legal right to refuse?

2) What makes you think that upon exiting the vehicle and when the officer actually physically arrests a person, that he would not follow all proper procedures then?

You know why the officer says "I'm not playing this game" when the guy in the video shuts himself in and refuses to either roll down the window, or exit the vehicle? Because these are the risks that the video uploader is exposing the officer to by prolonging the argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN3oqdxa6cs


1) You ever wonder why when they pull you for a driving infraction they never ask you to leave your vehicle, and when an officer is processing your ticket, he does so in the safety of his own vehicle?

2) You ever wonder why if you're asked to exit the vehicle for whatever reason, the first thing they do is escort you to the sidewalk?


But no. You and the video uploader would like to have your day in court. Right there in the side of the road. You're thinking about your rights born out of technicality about lack of verbiage, he's thinking about traffic-side safety.


Are you seriously this dense or just pretending to be? At no point have I said you should always stand your ground and refuse to comply with an officer. If they are making lawful requests and conducting themselves in accordance to proper procedures, you should absolutely comply with what they ask you to do. The issue is when they make unlawful or unreasonable requests. Even then I'm not saying one SHOULD stand their ground and not comply with unlawful or unreasonable requests... but if they have the balls to, good for them. I'll say it right now that

Stop being passing aggressive. We know you're defending his right to refuse arrest, and you're argument is clear that you think it was unlawful based on the belief that you believe an officer is required to state the details of your arresting you PRIOR to your arrest.

Don't be a pussy now and say one SHOULDN'T stand their ground. If you clearly think it's unlawful? If you clearly think it's unreasonable only by YOUR standards? Stand your ground dude. Like I said, just please take a video because I really want to see how your logic plays out and how it's in the best interest for everyone.

[underscore]

From what I can tell, the only "editing" that was likely done on this video was trimming the beginning and/or end off. Could there have contained content that would have completely changed the context or understanding of what transpired? Possible.

I'm going to say it's highly likely, unless we got video from the moment the officer sees the car to the moment the officer hands him over we're not getting all the information.

Maybe the cop said before the video started that he was being arrested for driving while impaired. But given the dialogue in the video, it doesn't seem like there would be anything like that. The cop goes from pretty nonchalant to demanding him to open the door and telling him he's under arrest pretty much in a flash.

As previously stated, there is nothing requiring the officer to tell him why he is under arrest prior to arresting him. Combining that with when the video cuts off I'm going to again say it is *possible* but it is very unlikely that the officer failed to state why he was under arrest.

I don't know how much clearer I need to be. I'm not assuming anything. That's why I keep saying it's POSSIBLE the search and arrest was conducted unlawfully. At no point did I state the search and arrest was conducted unlawfully as a fact.

Again yes it is possible, but it's very unlikely.

[ancient_510]

I definitely wouldn't step out of the car if I know I've done nothing wrong regardless of the fact that I have nothing to hide, unless they give me the reason of arrest.

Complying to a false arrest will eliminate a possibility of a lawsuit if they decide to be aggressive during the arrest.

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.

Don't just do what police officers tell you to. If they're not following proper procedures, you need stand up for your rights.
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...

[InvisibleSoul]

Reading comprehension has nothing to do with it when your argument has no merit whatsoever. Can you explain to me what was so unlawful about the the arrest?
Already been done about a half dozen times in this thread. You can go find them.

1) Is it because neither you nor the video poster knew why he was being arrested because you just explicitly said you KNOW why he's being arrested.

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.


op trying to look for technicalities and pretending to be some lupoll grandmaster. You're not, and you're not fooling anyone with your feigned legal saviness.
I'm not. I have stated earlier that I am not a lawyer, but neither is anyone here as far as I know. Chako is a law student, but that's about as close as it gets. Again, at no point have I declared for a fact that the arrest was unlawful, only saying it could have been. But you guys seem to be fighting it tooth and nail.

The Province :lol. Watch the video (0:45) and even the guy says it himself why he's pulled over. Nice try bud.
Okay, cool... the driver thinks he got pulled over for a MVA violation. Whether or not that was even the actual reason the officer decided to pull him over is debatable. Maybe it was a broken tail light, and the driver just assumed it was for a MVA violation. Maybe it was for failing to stop at a stop sign.

You said:

He was pulled over for traffic violation (not arrested), for suspicion of driving under the influence - Legal
Where did you get that he was pulled over for suspicion of driving under the influence? Total conjecture on your part, or did I miss something?

In the YouTube video description, the driver says they did end up performing a roadside examination and found that he was NOT IMPAIRED OR UNDER THE INFLUENCE.

1) If an officer suspects a driver is under the influence whether it be controlled substance or alcohol, why do you think an officer wants you to exit the vehicle? Do you think saying "NO" gives you the legal right to refuse?

At no point did he give any indication of why he wanted the driver to open his door as he continuously made the demand. Why was it so hard for him to answer the question? Maybe if the officer actually tells him that he wants to conduct a field sobriety test with him because he suspects him of being under the influence, the whole situation wouldn't have gone down the way it did.

2) What makes you think that upon exiting the vehicle and when the officer actually physically arrests a person, that he would not follow all proper procedures then?

Again, I am not a lawyer, but his rights may have already been violated at this point. Doesn't matter if he follows proper procedure after the person exits the vehicle.

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.

You know why the officer says "I'm not playing this game" when the guy in the video shuts himself in and refuses to either roll down the window, or exit the vehicle? Because these are the risks that the video uploader is exposing the officer to by prolonging the argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN3oqdxa6cs

1) You ever wonder why when they pull you for a driving infraction they never ask you to leave your vehicle, and when an officer is processing your ticket, he does so in the safety of his own vehicle?

2) You ever wonder why if you're asked to exit the vehicle for whatever reason, the first thing they do is escort you to the sidewalk?

Pretty weak argument, and equally weak supporting video.

But no. You and the video uploader would like to have your day in court. Right there in the side of the road. You're thinking about your rights born out of technicality about lack of verbiage, he's thinking about traffic-side safety.
Are you in his head? You know for a fact this is the reason the officer did what he did?

Stop being passing aggressive. We know you're defending his right to refuse arrest, and you're argument is clear that you think it was unlawful based on the belief that you believe an officer is required to state the details of your arresting you PRIOR to your arrest.

Don't be a pussy now and say one SHOULDN'T stand their ground. If you clearly think it's unlawful? If you clearly think it's unreasonable only by YOUR standards? Stand your ground dude. Like I said, just please take a video because I really want to see how your logic plays out and how it's in the best interest for everyone.
I'll say it again. I don't know for sure whether the officer acted appropriately or not and within the confines of the law. The debate here is about that, not whether the driver should have refused arrest or not.

I don't plan on being in any situation where my rights may be potentially violated by the police, but thanks for your concern.

[InvisibleSoul]

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.

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...
Cases are not thrown out because an officer conducted the arrest with more force than was necessary, but I'm sure you can find cases where charges are dropped because it was deemed the search and arrest was unlawful.

[Manic!]

We should all just be happy that a drug dealer is off the street.

If this was a edited video from the police people would be screaming but people seem to have no problem with a video edited by a drug dealer.

[InvisibleSoul]

Here's another article that I had previously not read:

Police chief defends officer from window-smashing video | CTV Vancouver News (http://bc.ctvnews.ca/police-chief-defends-officer-from-window-smashing-video-1.2306731)

The Vancouver police officer seen smashing a car window in video viewed more than 250,000 times on YouTube was just doing his job, according to his chief.

The cell phone footage, which was shot in November but only uploaded last Thursday, shows an officer repeatedly ordering a driver to exit his vehicle around 41st Avenue and Maple Street. When the driver doesn’t comply, the officer shatters his window, opens the door and yanks him outside with help from a partner.

The incident has sparked heated debate online about the officer’s actions, and on Tuesday Police Chief Jim Chu spoke out to defend him, stating the vehicle was pulled over due to suspected impaired driving.

“Our officer acted proactively when he saw a car weaving that could at any minute strike another car or pedestrian causing injury or worse,” Chu said in a written statement.
“Marihuana smoke billowing from the car made the cause of impairment obvious.”

A roadside sobriety test was performed, but the driver wasn’t charged with impaired driving.

Pot was allegedly found in the car, however, and the driver, who has not filed an official complaint against police, has since been charged with at least one drug offence. Chu said there were enough drugs to warrant a count of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Multiple requests for comment from the driver have not been returned, but he has defended himself online by insisting he has a prescription for medical pot.

He also argued his constitutional rights were violated.

“I asked him several times why I was being pulled over, he would not tell,” reads a blog post accompanying the video. “I was physically assaulted and it has left me emotionally traumatized. I do not feel safe anymore.”

In the video, the officer can be seen ignoring the driver’s questions about why he was pulled over. He eventually tells the driver he can smell pot coming from the car, shortly before he breaks the window.

Criminal lawyer Paul Doroshenko said police have an obligation to explain why they’re making an arrest under Section 10 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
“It’s a fair and reasonable thing to ask of the police,” he told CTV News over the weekend. “You don’t expect the police to pull you over, yell at you, call you a moron, not answer the question about your one legal right that you’ve got immediately upon detention, smash your window, drag you out of your car and arrest you.”

Chu said no one was injured, but it’s unfortunate the officer had to use force, but that no one was injured.

[meme405]

Holy Fuck. This is just getting annoying now.

I can get expert testimony saying anything I want. Do you know how "experts" are hired?

Allow me to enlighten you:

Call in 20 professionals, present a scenario to them individually, and ask them what they think. If you don't like what they say tell them to fuck off and call in the next one. Eventually one clown is going to tell you what you want. Then you just hire him. An expert opinion has so little bearing on anything it's almost comical.



Your entire argument is based on this post by Chako:

You may not be as educated as you seem to think. Like others have said, there may be more to the video, but just going on what is available, it seems as though his section 10(a), and arguably 10(b), rights were violated; I say arguably because there is case law that indicates that 10(b) can be given some time after the arrest is made.

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.

Once an arrest is made, police are given the common law power to make a search incident to arrest, which extends to the vehicle as well. This could be especially important because if the arrest is found to be unlawful, or that the officer infringed the accused's section 10(a) rights, then the evidence could be excluded.

R. v. Greffe (a Supreme Court ruling):
In fact, even if reasonable and probable grounds existed, support for which was not established by the Crown, there is still the admission by the Crown that the police deliberately failed to provide the appellant with the proper reason for the arrest, thereby infringing his rights under s. 10(a) of the Charter. The Crown refers to this as "foolish" and a "blunder", but in fact it amounts to the police deliberately misleading the appellant and using that deception as an artifice to conduct a highly invasive rectal search. Whatever the motives for this deception, it can only lead to an inference of extreme bad faith on the part of the police in that they wilfully circumvented the Charter, a factor which further supports the exclusion of the evidence in this case.

In the above case, although the rectal search was obviously more invasive, the case is analogous in that the search was also incidental to an arrest. The point is, not providing an individual with his 10(a) rights is a violation of his rights and can result in the case being thrown out. Obviously, there could be more to the story, and there probably is; however, a lot of people seem to think that, based on what we can see, no rights have been violated and that is not necessarily the case.

Again until you prove DEFINITIVELY that the word "Prompt" means prior, in section 10a of the charter, then you can keep spewing off. Sure Chako provided one single example, but for that one example where they deemed it necessary for the reason prior, there are countless arrests upheld everyday where the police likely tell the individual why they are under arrest after the subject is secured. The example Chako provided was actually because the police "Deliberately" misled the individual, in this case the police didn't mislead him to anything, they just wanted to get the individual to a safe place where they could have a proper discussion to explain the situation to him.

Hell maybe they thought that he wouldn't be able to understand the reason clearly given that he wouldn't shut the fuck up, or roll down his window like a civilized individual.

Following your passive same aggressive attitude: You should just go back to finding me deals on free stuff from Walmart, I liked you much better then.

[InvisibleSoul]

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.

[InvisibleSoul]

Decided to see what else was in the news about this. Just throwing these out there.

Marni Soupcoff: Cops run$amok | National Post (http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/marni-soupcoff-cops-run-amok)

The annoyed Vancouver police sergeant can be heard saying “Hit the brakes, moron” before he eventually breaks the car window of the motorist he has pulled over for — well, we never do find out what for. The November incident was caught on camera and has now been making the rounds as a YouTube video and the focus of a brief CBC television news report.

In the lead-up to the window-smashing, the driver asks repeatedly and politely why he’s been pulled over. The sergeant ignores the questions, and becomes increasingly angry that the driver won’t open his window more than a crack, until finally, crash. The sergeant makes quick work of the auto glass and roughly arrests the driver.

It’s an extremely disturbing video; not because it’s the worst instance of police wrongdoing one can imagine, or because the driver is necessarily an innocent angel. This incident is obviously nowhere near on par with, say, a fatal police shooting of a civilian; and the police have told the CBC that the driver in this case has been charged with possession of a controlled substance, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and (of course) obstructing a police officer.

What makes the video alarming is the police mindset it conveys: The sergeant’s words and actions all seem to betray a casual conviction that the person he has stopped should be expected do exactly what the sergeant wants exactly when he wants it, legal rights and even basic considerations of civility be damned. Don’t listen to a police officer and give him absolute deference? Then expect your property to be destroyed.

It might sound like I’m drawing too broad a conclusion based on the behaviour of a single sergeant, who could theoretically be one bad apple who was just having a particularly bad day. There are a few reasons I don’t think that’s the case.

For one thing, we’re seeing more and more incidents of police using excessive force and behaving like soldiers rather than officers of the law whose duty is to protect all of us. This isn’t all police officers’ fault — they no doubt feel embattled and they genuinely fear for their own safety. But the attitude and behaviour that has resulted is unacceptable and incompatible with a free society.

For another thing, CBC reported that when asked about the November incident, the Vancouver police department said that if drivers didn’t want their windows smashed, they should co-operate with police. Simple as that. So, obviously the Vancouver force is standing completely behind what the sergeant did and suggesting that any other drivers out there who want to know why they were pulled over for a traffic stop should just shut up and do everything and anything they are asked, or expect to have their property destroyed.

It used to be that one of the differences between free countries and totalitarian countries was that in free countries, children were taught to seek out police for help when there was trouble, whereas in totalitarian countries children were taught to avoid and fear police. Sadly, if we continue down the road we are on, we will eventually become more like one of the latter countries, where we must teach our kids that the police are an authoritarian force to be averted whenever possible, and to be placated for fear of retaliation whenever not.

Perhaps the Vancouver police force has forgotten that to do its job effectively and well it needs the trust and respect of the citizens it is policing. At this juncture, I’m starting to wonder if the only way it can be reminded of that truth is to be told so by a court of law.

Marni Soupcoff is executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation (theccf.ca)
msoupcoff@theccf.ca.

[InvisibleSoul]

And Police Chief's Jim Chu's response to that article:

Police chief Jim Chu defends window-breaking officer in arrest (http://www.vancourier.com/news/police-chief-jim-chu-defends-window-breaking-officer-in-arrest-1.1809944)

Police Chief Jim Chu has come to the defence of one of his officers who was captured on video last November breaking the window of a motorist’s vehicle during an arrest.

Chu issued a written statement Tuesday after the National Post published an opinion piece Monday by Marni Soupcoff titled “Cops run amok” that criticized the officer’s actions. Soupcoff is the executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

“This was not a traffic stop, it was a drug arrest,” Chu wrote. “Impaired driving alerted the officer to the danger the driver posed to public safety and marijuana smoke billowing from the car made the cause of that impairment obvious. In order to make the arrest, force became necessary when the person refused to exit the vehicle, which is understandable since he allegedly knew what would be found in his car if he did.”

The article is posted on the Post’s website with a video of the incident that was taken by the driver, who was repeatedly told by the officer to open his door and that he smelled marijuana.

The driver refused, saying the police didn’t smell marijuana in his vehicle. The driver also told the officer he didn’t have his consent to break the window and that he wanted to call his lawyer.

The video captures the window being smashed and officers telling the driver he is under arrest. The driver says something undecipherable about being “exempted” and complains that officers are hurting his shoulder during the arrest.

“What makes the video alarming is the police mindset it conveys: The sergeant’s words and actions all seem to betray a casual conviction that the person he has stopped should be expected to do exactly what the sergeant wants exactly when he wants it, legal rights and even basic considerations of civility be damned,” Soupcoff wrote. “Don’t listen to a police officer and give him absolute deference? Then expect your property to be destroyed.”

Soupcoff ended her article by writing that “perhaps the Vancouver police force has forgotten that to do its job effectively and well, it needs the trust and respect of the citizens it is policing. At this juncture, I’m starting to wonder if the only way it can be reminded of that truth is to be told so by a court of law.”

Chu said the officer “acted proactively” when he saw the car weaving that could “at any minute strike another car or pedestrian causing injury or worse.”

The chief said the video shows the driver was evasive and lying about not having drugs in the car. There was enough marijuana in the car for Crown counsel to approve a charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

“While it was necessary to use some force to extract the driver, it is also important to remember that no one was injured and no complaint was made,” Chu said. “Patrol officers know that every arrest they make and practically every move they make will be scrutinized, analyzed and occasionally criticized. Through it all, they routinely prove that preserving life and public safety trumps whatever slings and arrows they may endure.”

Added Chu: “It would be ideal if force of any kind was never necessary to make an arrest. But for those who are trying desperately to avoid apprehension, it is not always the option they choose.”

[meme405]

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".

[InvisibleSoul]

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?

[meme405]

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.

[InvisibleSoul]

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 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.

[InvisibleSoul]

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 (http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/story.html?id=157c77e4-9d4c-47c1-bc41-39000752dbd3)

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.

[underscore]

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.

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.

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.

[mr_chin]

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.


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.

[Soundy]

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.

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.

[underscore]

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.

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.

[RRxtar]

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

[mr_chin]

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.

[Soundy]

"For no reason" :lawl:

[Manic!]

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.

[Manic!]

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.

[trancehead]

just regarding the 20% window open issue:

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.

[SoNaRWaVe]

Arrest or detention

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; 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.

[GLOW]

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:
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?'

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.

thanked by T4, must be right :accepted:

[underscore]

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.

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.

[Soundy]

just regarding the 20% window open issue:

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.

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.

[meme405]

This isn't pirates of the carribean, telling a police officer you are going to call a lawyer doesn't mean they can't arrest you all of a sudden.

I'm just gonna quote myself here, cause I made a slightly relevant funny, and you all missed it...:wiggle:

Inb4 nobody gets the parlay reference...

[ancient_510]

Why yes! I would like to participate in an internet argument :toot:

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) (http://canlii.ca/t/1ft8j)


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 (http://canlii.ca/t/2bq8r)

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).


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).

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.

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.

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.

[mr_chin]

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.

Why yes! I would like to participate in an internet argument :toot:



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) (http://canlii.ca/t/1ft8j)


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 (http://canlii.ca/t/2bq8r)

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.

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.

[GLOW]

I'm just gonna quote myself here, cause I made a slightly relevant funny, and you all missed it...:wiggle:

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 :lol

[ancient_510]

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.

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.

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 :whistle:
It could be the difference between $196 and ~$2k just because the accused gave evidence to the police.

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...

[underscore]

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:

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.

[Manic!]

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.

You think if the Vietnamese dude had said sir sir sir 50 times he would be alive today?

[Stormspirit]

When you're getting pulled over, the more you resist, the higher the chance you're going into a holding cell and having your car towed. Your choice .

[T4RAWR]

the amount of stupid in this thread is fucking amazing

:facepalm:

[Tone Loc]

When you're getting pulled over, the more you resist, the higher the chance you're going into a holding cell and having your car towed. Your choice .

Exactly this. I may not agree 100% with whatever the cop is doing, but it's in my benefit to be polite... sometimes, "yes sir", "no sir", "please" and "thank you", as well as FULLY turning off your car and keeping both hands on the wheel can mean the difference between a stern warning and impoundment, or worse... a VI.