[Dayseed]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

That's your erroneous characterization because it suits your purpose. As i mentioned and you're to myopic to read it that people sign waivers all the time. If a a prospect wanted to sign on to train to be a police officer they would sign a waiver as well.

Actually, you called me a jackass right after you confused a Charter right with a contract respecting another's property right. That's not a "characterization", that's a factual analysis of your erroneous ignorance. Despite me telling you you cannot make permanent forsaking of constitutional rights a mandatory term of employment, you flagrantly ignore it.

$1:

I'm not going to apologize about my proposal, frankly none of the cop worshipers have come up with anything else other than "more of the same"

See? Now that's a characterization suited to your agenda! I handed you your ass cooked, seasoned and sliced to serve on a silver platter!

Nobody's asking you to apologize for it, just admit it was an illegal unworkable mess that extorted children, trampled rights, defied legal precedents, threatened viable cases, endangered informants, mangled terms, confused constitutional rights with property rights, was downright vengeful that you tried two or three times to fix with even more disastrous results each time.

That's not too much to ask of you, is it?

[HyperionTheEvil]

Dayseed Dayseed:

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

That's your erroneous characterization because it suits your purpose. As i mentioned and you're to myopic to read it that people sign waivers all the time. If a a prospect wanted to sign on to train to be a police officer they would sign a waiver as well.

Actually, you called me a jackass right after you confused a Charter right with a contract respecting another's property right. That's not a "characterization", that's a factual analysis of your erroneous ignorance. Despite me telling you you cannot make permanent forsaking of constitutional rights a mandatory term of employment, you flagrantly ignore it.

$1:

I'm not going to apologize about my proposal, frankly none of the cop worshipers have come up with anything else other than "more of the same"

See? Now that's a characterization suited to your agenda! I handed you your ass cooked, seasoned and sliced to serve on a silver platter!

Nobody's asking you to apologize for it, just admit it was an illegal unworkable mess that extorted children, trampled rights, defied legal precedents, threatened viable cases, endangered informants, mangled terms, confused constitutional rights with property rights, was downright vengeful that you tried two or three times to fix with even more disastrous results each time.

That's not too much to ask of you, is it?

Hardly, you made no factual references or specific case law where my proposal for waivers would be illegal. Until you do all you can do is spin

[Benn]

What the heck was this thread about again.............

[Dayseed]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

Hardly, you made no factual references or specific case law where my proposal for waivers would be illegal. Until you do all you can do is spin

Oh I see. You're correct until proven otherwise? Does this mean you've conceded that you extorted children, endangered the lives of informants, threatened lawyer-client privilege, ruined cases, exposed wiretaps, don't know the difference between a constitutional right and a property right and ruined the objectivity of your board?

Oh, and here's case law where a parent can't waive their child's rights to sue, Wong v. Lok, BC 2009. An excerpt: “the act does not permit a parent or guardian to bind an infant to an agreement waiving the infant’s right to bring an action in damages in tort.”

Uh-oh, a parent can't waive a child's rights? Well, that means that you can't force a child to waive its own rights!

Now, what about demanding the cop testify against himself at your demand?

R v. Dubios, SCC 1985.

"A plain reading of s.13 indicates that it is a very specific form of protection against self-incrimination and must therefore be viewed in the light of two closely related rights, the right of non-compellability and the presumption of innocence, set forth in ss. 11(c) and (d). The purpose of s.13, when viewed in this context, is to protect individuals from being indirectly compelled to incriminate themselves, to ensure that the Crown will not be able to do indirectly that which s.11(c) prohibits. Section 13 inures to an individual only at the moment an attempt is made to use previous testimony to incriminate its author. At a new trial ordered by a court of appeal, to allow the prosecution to read into evidence the accused's previous testimony at the first trial would, in effect, allow the Crown to do indirectly what it is estopped from doing directly by s.11(c) and would also permit indirect violation of the right of the accused to be presumed innocent and remain silent until proven guilty as guaranteed by s.11(d):"

Wow, that's 2 rights you trampled right off the hop and a 3rd when you try him as recognized by the Supreme Court!

Now the onus is on you to prove, FACTUALLY LIKE I JUST DID, that you can indeed impose the mandatory waiving of constitutional rights as a pre-condition to employment.

I'll be waiting.

[ShepherdsDog]

He's too busy determiningg what National Defence policy should be right now.
international-politics-f2/ied-attacks-from-wikileaks-afghanistan-war-logs-t90827.html

Try not to laught too hard....I think it's congenital.

[Dayseed]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

He's too busy determiningg what National Defence policy should be right now.
international-politics-f2/ied-attacks-from-wikileaks-afghanistan-war-logs-t90827.html

Try not to laught too hard....I think it's congenital.

Oh. I didn't know Hyperion was off arrogating to himself supreme powers of analysis elsewhere.

I'm waiting for him to come on back here and do another one of his "Durrrrrr, me only admit me wrong when me completely smashed into ground, karate is dangerous lol!" posts.

I've got the knockout punch all ready for him and his ignorance.

In the meantime, it is amusing to watch him attempt to have government lay itself bare before him.

[Dayseed]

Benn Benn:

What the heck was this thread about again.............

Originally it was about an officer that fucked over Toronto and York police forces. Hyperion lept on to pat himself on the back for creating a horribly dangerous and unworkable proposal to attempt to prevent this sort of thing (which it wouldn't). He's now trying to defend his complete disregard for the Constitution while positioning himself as a champion of the law.

It's outright embarassing for him, but he won't quit and admit he's wrong, so I won't quit either.

[andyt]

Absolutely, you can't force a cop to incriminate himself anymore than any other citizen. But as Zipper pointed out to you, being dismissed from the force for not giving a statement is constitutional. In fact it would seem to be just good workforce policy. The thing is, if the cop didn't do anything wrong, why would he be so reluctant to give a statement? Police should treat an officer as a suspect, just as they would with you or me, until their inquiries prove otherwise. He can't be forced to testify against himself in court, and can't be questioned without a lawyer present, but don't try to tell me that the cops would not be very suspicious of a civilian suspect who won't answer their questions.

[EyeBrock]

A little knowledge.......from the man too afraid to tell us what he does for a living.

[andyt]

Jesus loves the little policemen
All the little policemen of the world
Red and yellow, black and white
They are precious in his sight
Jesus loves the little policemen of the world

Every cop is beautiful
In his or her own way
Like a starry summer night
Or a snow covered winter's day
Every cop is beautiful
In their own way
Under God's heaven
The world's gonna find a way

[Dayseed]

andyt andyt:

Absolutely, you can't force a cop to incriminate himself anymore than any other citizen. But as Zipper pointed out to you, being dismissed from the force for not giving a statement is constitutional.

No he didn't. He said that there was no legal compulsion to provide a statement; not being dismissed for refusal to provide one. There's a biiiiiiig difference there.

$1:

In fact it would seem to be just good workforce policy. The thing is, if the cop didn't do anything wrong, why would he be so reluctant to give a statement? Police should treat an officer as a suspect, just as they would with you or me, until their inquiries prove otherwise.

Are you talking about Koester again? He did provide a statement immediately after. According to the report you never read, his emotional state deteriorated after the shooting. Now, if you want to refute the doctors that testified as to that, feel free.

If you're talking in generalities, then you've got to have a reasonable suspicion giving consideration to all the specific factors of your inquiry. You're advocating a blanket suspicion to question him; that's a violation of his S.9 rights.

$1:

He can't be forced to testify against himself in court, and can't be questioned without a lawyer present, but don't try to tell me that the cops would not be very suspicious of a civilian suspect who won't answer their questions.

You can most certainly be questioned without a lawyer present. Your ignorance of Canadian law is showing. If a lawyer wants to be present during questioning, then the lawyer-client privilege is shattered during the questioning and the lawyer can become a compellable witness at trial.

As for basing suspicion on not answering questions, you'd have to find out why they won't answer. Is emotional devastation a good answer? Maybe not to you, but it is to me. Maybe they don't want to answer questions because they're attending the funeral of their spouse and you want to question them for murder.

If a cop were to base suspicion on a person exercising their constitutional rights to silence, a defence lawyer would have a fucking field day with that cop at trial.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Really, just cops though eh?

You never did say what you did for a living. Tell us all what you do and maybe if you screw up we should take your pension eh?

Go an andy, what do you do?

Eyebrock, I'm not one to bash the police but, this wasn't an "accident" or simple "carelessness". This asshole knowingly and willingly put Canadian police officers lives at serious risk when he decided that racial ties are more important than law and order. Yer damn right his pension should be taken from him, and donated to Victims of Crime!!

I understand your anger PA9 but a cop diddler is no different than any other diddler. If we take the pension from one convicted criminal we should do it to all.

A few questions EB. As opposed to the civilian diddler, who pays the policeman's salary? Who pays for their pension? HE didn't contribute fuck all to his pension, the TAXPAYERS did! And you believe that even cops with ties to organized crime should be entitled to a pension? Let his fucking organized crime buddies look after him. After all, they apparently owe him one for trying to help them. You get a pension for doing your JOB!! Not for aiding and abetting gangsters.

[EyeBrock]

[All cops in Ontario have 12% deducted at source from their wages to their pension PA9.

I'm not defending this POS but you can't just lynch people anymore. He paid into it. If you take his pension you take every other convicted criminals pension.

[Benn]

Dayseed Dayseed:

Benn Benn:

What the heck was this thread about again.............

Originally it was about an officer that fucked over Toronto and York police forces. Hyperion lept on to pat himself on the back for creating a horribly dangerous and unworkable proposal to attempt to prevent this sort of thing (which it wouldn't). He's now trying to defend his complete disregard for the Constitution while positioning himself as a champion of the law.

Hand him a pair of tights and a cape and give him a pat on the back and maybe he'll be happy.

[Brenda]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

All cops in Ontario have 12% deducted at source from their wages to their pension PA9.

I'm not defending this POS but you can't just lynch people anymore. He paid into it. If you take his pension you take every other convicted criminals pension.

No no, EB, you miss his point. Since the taxpayer pays his salary, the tax payer also pays his pension, so the taxpayer has the right to decide when to take that away.