| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 717.1 | What about due process/reasonable cause? | KAOFS::LOCKYER | NO! (Tact Is For Weenies!!) | Fri Jun 11 1993 17:27 | 15 |
| Did this happen in Canada?
Even though it sounds like the kids might get away with a crime, it
makes sense that the police should have to follow some sort of process,
or have some reasonable cause, before they stop someone and/or search
them. Otherwise, the police could stop anyone, anytime, for any
reason. What would you do if a police officer came up to you and said
"Excuse me sir, it's been reported that you've got some odd looking
angular objects under a blanket in your car. I'd like to search you
and your car." I don't think we would stand for this in any democracy.
I suspect the case might be thrown out for some other reason than "it
hadn't been reported yet".
Lockyer
|
| 717.2 | What's "reasonable" ? | KAOFS::D_STREET | Virtue is relative | Fri Jun 11 1993 17:48 | 18 |
| It happened in BC, and the time was late at night. The day a cop sees
some people walking down the street at let's say 1:00am with VCRs,
tuners, CD players in backpacks and can't even question them, is the
day we may as well stop locking our doors. I suggest that it would be
reasonable cause. What does it take ?
I have also heard of a case here in Quebec (sorry but I am sure it could
have happened anywhere) where a bike was stolen, some kids saw it in a
garage around the corner, and the police said thay couldn't do anything
because there was no reason they could use to search the house to prove
the theft. Like seeing your bike in someone else's garage is not
reasonable cause. I agree we must protect against the "police state", but
the pendulum has swung too far to the side of criminal rights as far as I
am concernd.
Derek
Derek
|
| 717.3 | | KAOFS::J_DESROSIERS | Lets procrastinate....tomorrow | Mon Jun 14 1993 13:22 | 9 |
| Derek,
In another note, you lambased the Montr�al "fans" for destroying
property. In a real police state where the intentions of citicens were
always tought to be "bad", they would have shot and killed MANY people
that night, many who would have been innocent except for being there.
Jean
|
| 717.4 | This read 'em their rights crap is too much... | KAOFS::D_STREET | Virtue is relative | Mon Jun 14 1993 15:35 | 15 |
| Today in the paper I see that some American Marines got off on rape
charges on a 12 YEAR OLD girl, because they were only read their
American Rights. Some of the evidence ruled as inadmissable was
saliva samples (physical evidence), locker searches (more physical
evidence), and a statement made by one of the group implicating the
others in the group. So a 12 YEAR OLD GIRL, has to live with the fact
that known rapists are free today because the criminals were not told
in a Canadian context that they had the right to remain silent, ect...
The police involved are being investigated. These guys did it, and are
free today because of a misguided attempt to "protect" the accused. I
don't think police should be given a free hand, but as it stands now, I
think we are tying their hands.
Derek
|
| 717.5 | Want To Bet "Justice" Will Happen Somehow? | KAOFS::LOCKYER | NO! (Tact Is For Weenies!!) | Mon Jun 14 1993 15:59 | 17 |
| Derek,
Is this the case in Quebec City where 4 Marines alledgedly (sp) raped a
12 year old girl? If so, I heard about this case within the last
couple of weeks. The news report didn't mention inadmissable physical
evidence, but it did say that the girl could not identify any of her
attackers. I think she was given multiple opportunities to identify
them, but never made a conclusive ID until the 4 were in the
"prisoners' box" in court. Supposedly, she ID'd two different marines
for the same offense. I think the judge was quoted as saying he
absolutely believed the girl, but he couldn't convict because he
couldn't determine who was guilty...
A sad situation in any event.
Garry
|
| 717.6 | Can't say she didn't know some of her attackers.... | KAOFS::D_STREET | Virtue is relative | Mon Jun 14 1993 16:26 | 6 |
| The police say she picked the 4 of them out in 3 lineups, the Marines say
she was only able to identify two of her attackers in a single lineup.
Either way she did identify some of her attackers. There was physical
evidence, along with an ID. Not good enough in Canada EH? PITY!!
Derek.
|
| 717.7 | A few rubber bullets would have helped that bash... | KAOFS::D_STREET | Virtue is relative | Mon Jun 14 1993 16:31 | 11 |
|
>>In another note, you lambased the Montr�al "fans" for destroying
>>property. In a real police state where the intentions of citicens
>>were always tought to be "bad", they would have shot and killed MANY
>>people that night, many who would have been innocent except for being
>>there.
I'm sorry, but I can't determin what your point is.
Derek.
|
| 717.8 | exit | KAOFS::M_MORIN | Le diable est aux vaches! | Mon Jun 14 1993 17:11 | 14 |
| I think I can determine what the point it. It was made at a radio
call-in show last week, the day after the riots.
We blame the police for a lot of this BUT thanks to the fact that
extreme restraint was used, NO-ONE was killed. Otherwise, the looting
(which is what it was classifed as by the Insurance Bureau of Canada)
would have turned into a riot and most likely lives would have been
lost.
On a side note, since the event was not classified as a riot, most
businesses will be able to claim insurance. Riot insurance is
apparently not available.
/Mario
|