[BigBri]

He will walk on this.

[DrCaleb]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

And now...

The publication ban! Gotta love democracy in Canada. This is just one of the reasons our allies don't trust us, why wouldn't such an important trial be allowed equal coverage as any other trial? In the U.S these trials are shown on tv 24/7, in Canada we censor the proceedings...

Because people deserve a fair trial, not a trial by media. I thought you of all people would appreciate that.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

And now...

The publication ban! Gotta love democracy in Canada. This is just one of the reasons our allies don't trust us, why wouldn't such an important trial be allowed equal coverage as any other trial? In the U.S these trials are shown on tv 24/7, in Canada we censor the proceedings...

Because people deserve a fair trial, not a trial by media. I thought you of all people would appreciate that.

Freedom of the press much?

[peck420]

$1:

486.5(7) In determining whether to make an order, the judge or justice shall consider
(a) the right to a fair and public hearing;
(b) whether there is a real and substantial risk that the victim, witness or justice system participant would suffer significant harm if their identity were disclosed;
(c) whether the victim, witness or justice system participant needs the order for their security or to protect them from intimidation or retaliation;
(d) society’s interest in encouraging the reporting of offences and the participation of victims, witnesses and justice system participants in the criminal justice process;
(e) whether effective alternatives are available to protect the identity of the victim, witness or justice system participant;
(f) the salutary [positive] and deleterious [negative] effects of the proposed order;
(g) the impact of the proposed order on the freedom of expression of those affected by it; and
(h) any other factor that the judge or justice considers relevant.

Everybody here 100% certain that the publication ban is to protect the charged officer?

There is more then 1 party involved, and some of the parties involved could be facing some very serious ramifications if their identities get revealed...like, just for example, a citizen that is providing testimony against the charged.

Judges don't just whip this stuff out, it is fairly well though out before being issued.

[Xort]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Maybe you should wait for the trial? That's when ACTUAL evidence outside of iPhone video will be presented.

I'm asking you to make up a reasonable situtation where the 6 follow up shots are legal.

[shockedcanadian]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

And now...

The publication ban! Gotta love democracy in Canada. This is just one of the reasons our allies don't trust us, why wouldn't such an important trial be allowed equal coverage as any other trial? In the U.S these trials are shown on tv 24/7, in Canada we censor the proceedings...

Because people deserve a fair trial, not a trial by media. I thought you of all people would appreciate that.

Well Caleb, I do understand trail in secrecy, but this is different, this is a charge of a public servant in a high profile case who will have his day in court with a lawyer paid for him.

What I find absurd is that the lawyer of the accused states that we shouldn't jump to any conclusion simply based on the video, well he won't have to worry about anyone's mind changing because society apparently isn't in a mature enough democracy for us to see the facts of the case.

[Xort]

Secret courts and secret justice is not justice at all. Our legal system is the will of the people to enforce judgement on someone, if the people are kept in the dark, they can not give assent or support to the legal action.

[shockedcanadian]

Xort Xort:

Secret courts and secret justice is not justice at all. Our legal system is the will of the people to enforce judgement on someone, if the people are kept in the dark, they can not give assent or support to the legal action.

I agree 100% If someone is guilty of something, charge them, let the entire world view the trail and the evidence, let those on trial speak freely. The state should not be ashamed of their accusations and the defendant should be free to create reasonable doubt. Hell, let the media into the courtroom (outside of crime involving minors etc.) and show the trial on a 24/7 courtroom channel. THAT is democracy, transparency, justice without prejudice.

The comment was made in reference to what I have experienced in Canada, let me assure you I was neither tried or even accused, but they interfered with two of my careers and had me held at a border, my passport taken for a period of time. I can assure you I have never taken the life of another animal let alone a human being.

I guess if I had been a cop who put 9 slugs in a kid I would be better protected, much like the officers who beat me and caused my hearing loss and tinnitus. If you are a kid from the wrong side of the tracks; "hey, fair game for the budget!", fodder for those looking to further their careers, if you are a cop "this poor man has been ruined" (not the dead kid of his family mind you, but the trigger man according to some).

[saturn_656]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

And now...

The publication ban! Gotta love democracy in Canada. This is just one of the reasons our allies don't trust us, why wouldn't such an important trial be allowed equal coverage as any other trial? In the U.S these trials are shown on tv 24/7, in Canada we censor the proceedings...

Because people deserve a fair trial, not a trial by media. I thought you of all people would appreciate that.

I'm sure he would appreciate it if he didn't already want to see the guy run up a rope in town square.

Usually the way it works.

[shockedcanadian]

I don't want him working as a police officer, there's no doubt about that. Furthermore, it is customary for a person charged with murder to spend 24 hours in prison, the courts let him turn himself in while a free man. Now the publication ban.

You want fairness, it works both ways. No special treatment, no security of employment, no full pay while awaiting trial, no publication ban. I am not different than alot of people in that I believe the video showed a hell of a lot of damaging information to his cause, but I don't even think he should be charged with murder.

Charge him with a lesser charge, let him do some time in Kingston out of general population (for his safety), let him move on with his life as a truck driver or telemarketer and leave policing to those who society can trust to make the right decisions.

[llama66]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

I don't want him working as a police officer, there's no doubt about that. Furthermore, it is customary for a person charged with murder to spend 24 hours in prison, the courts let him turn himself in while a free man. Now the publication ban.

You want fairness, it works both ways. No special treatment, no security of employment, no full pay while awaiting trial, no publication ban. I am not different than alot of people in that I believe the video showed a hell of a lot of damaging information to his cause, but I don't even think he should be charged with murder.

Charge him with a lesser charge, let him do some time in Kingston out of general population (for his safety), let him move on with his life as a truck driver or telemarketer and leave policing to those who society can trust to make the right decisions.

You dont just lock someone up to "teach them a lesson". He will stand trial and be convicted if he's guilty, and be found innocent if he's not.

[llama66]

Xort Xort:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Maybe you should wait for the trial? That's when ACTUAL evidence outside of iPhone video will be presented.

I'm asking you to make up a reasonable situtation where the 6 follow up shots are legal.

Playing Devil's Advocate, Suspect was commanded to drop the knife, when the suspect did not- at that point the constable would have fired until he felt the danger had passed.

[shockedcanadian]

llama66 llama66:

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

I don't want him working as a police officer, there's no doubt about that. Furthermore, it is customary for a person charged with murder to spend 24 hours in prison, the courts let him turn himself in while a free man. Now the publication ban.

You want fairness, it works both ways. No special treatment, no security of employment, no full pay while awaiting trial, no publication ban. I am not different than alot of people in that I believe the video showed a hell of a lot of damaging information to his cause, but I don't even think he should be charged with murder.

Charge him with a lesser charge, let him do some time in Kingston out of general population (for his safety), let him move on with his life as a truck driver or telemarketer and leave policing to those who society can trust to make the right decisions.

You dont just lock someone up to "teach them a lesson". He will stand trial and be convicted if he's guilty, and be found innocent if he's not.

Well there is no debate that he killed this kid. I am not even sure what sort of defense he could build, even more confusing is why there would be a publication ban on the evidence in the trial, is there some top secret National Security evidence going to be exposed? The publication ban is almost as disturbing as the accusations.

I think the debate should go beyond the court case and the question should be, is this man fit to be in a position of extreme power and trust that being a police officer entails? If he is exonerated, does this mean he goes along his merry way and punches back into work? As one poster suggested, the six bullets being fired after the initial three are very difficult to justify, the video has provided a horrible vision that is etched in my mind quick honestly.

Remember in all of your defenses of his actions, he was the only officer of the 22 who acted as he did...

[llama66]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

llama66 llama66:

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

I don't want him working as a police officer, there's no doubt about that. Furthermore, it is customary for a person charged with murder to spend 24 hours in prison, the courts let him turn himself in while a free man. Now the publication ban.

You want fairness, it works both ways. No special treatment, no security of employment, no full pay while awaiting trial, no publication ban. I am not different than alot of people in that I believe the video showed a hell of a lot of damaging information to his cause, but I don't even think he should be charged with murder.

Charge him with a lesser charge, let him do some time in Kingston out of general population (for his safety), let him move on with his life as a truck driver or telemarketer and leave policing to those who society can trust to make the right decisions.

You dont just lock someone up to "teach them a lesson". He will stand trial and be convicted if he's guilty, and be found innocent if he's not.

Well there is no debate that he killed this kid. I am not even sure what sort of defense he could build, even more confusing is why there would be a publication ban on the evidence in the trial, is there some top secret National Security evidence going to be exposed? The publication ban is almost as disturbing as the accusations.

I think the debate should go beyond the court case and the question should be, is this man fit to be in a position of extreme power and trust that being a police officer entails? If he is exonerated, does this mean he goes along his merry way and punches back into work? As one poster suggested, the six bullets being fired after the initial three are very difficult to justify, the video has provided a horrible vision that is etched in my mind quick honestly.

Remember in all of your defenses of his actions, he was the only officer of the 22 who acted as he did...

why do I respond to you.

1. Publication Ban is S.O.P. it protects the rights of the accused. Bans happen on every major trial, it happened for the picton trial, bernardo, magnotta...

2. of the 22 alleged cops (on the screen I could only count 5-6 of which all but one had thier firearms drawn) on the scene he was the closest, ever occur to you the kid did ssomething off screen that made the constable think there was a clear and present threat to the assembled police and bystanders?

3. seroiusly take your Amitriptyline when the nurse comes back. Your comments that police and security apparatuses are out of control and you are somehow living in a totalitarian police state are getting quite thin. I've had my limit of crazy from Banu or whatever his name is. If this was a totalitarian police state the contable wouldn't have faced an ivestigation much less been charged with murder.

[shockedcanadian]

[/quote]

If this was a totalitarian police state the contable wouldn't have faced an ivestigation much less been charged with murder.[/quote]\

Right. So would you bet your life that this officer would be facing a murder charge if no video were present?

As of 2010, I believe the numbers from the SIU were as follows, 3600 investigations, 16 charges laid. If the Crown had such a batting average of convictions there would be a hell of a lot of criminals running around wouldn't there?

Publication ban
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_ban

"A publication ban is a court order which prohibits the public or media from disseminating certain details of an otherwise public judicial procedure. In Canada, publication bans are most commonly issued when the safety or reputation of a victim or witness may be hindered by having their identity openly broadcast in the press. They are also commonly issued when the crime involves minors or is sexual in nature."

When there is a dead 19 year old, ones "reputation" shouldn't matter should it? Furthermore, let's say it was a cop who's identity they were trying to hide, do you not think the others on the force would know exactly who it was?

In countries where press freedom is the norm, an actual ban on publication is used mostly for ongoing court cases where publicity may affect the case.

Notice the difference in which Canada uses this and how U.K and the U.S use this, much rarer.