$1:
First of all i laid out that citizens themselves and civil rights lawyers would
be on this board.
Hyperion, am I going to be dealing with a selective memory? Here’s your original proposal for the make up of the board:
$1:
I mean current civil rights lawyers and the proposed group would not be
'reactive' but proactive, it would permanently be watching members of law
enforcement and investigating any civilian complaints, including but not limited
to racism, corruption and brutality
Did I miss the inclusion of citizens in your description? Because you didn’t mention them.
$1:
The reason i laid out that current or former law enforcement
would not be allowed on this board is that history has shown that Police cannot
be safely trusted ti investigate themselves. How would investigate the police,
it maybe complicated for you. But we do have laws in place , and police are
required to follow them, and they also have internal regulations within police
forces. It's a matter of common sense and following the rule of law
And with a wave of your hand you try to dismiss criticisms of your board. While you give a superficial nod to the difficulty of investigating the police, or rather just conducting thorough investigations in general, with “it maybe complicated for you”, you fail to address qualifications for these citizens recently included on the board, what training they would receive and who would supply it, what instructions they would receive in exercising their mandate and who oversees
them?
It’s interesting that you say “we do have laws in place and police are required to follow them” because you make a complete mockery of that later on.
$1:
And what is the problem with getting a a security clearance? UIf peopel are
willing to serve on this board then it is entirely reasonable that they can get
this clearance. In the Navy , even Able Seaman are given a "Secret" security
clearance. It's entirely reasonable and do-able to get clearances for these
members
Getting a security clearance would enable one to be able to view Top Secret files I agree, but how do you know that foreign governments entrusting Canada with intelligence secrets are going to be dandy with it? Have you contrasted your proposed plan of Top Secret cleared citizens being given sensitive state secrets with any sort of intelligence sharing protocols between Canada, whether governed by a treaty or not?
I also directed your attention to confidential informants and the Supreme Court decision in R v. Leipart not as an exercise in name-dropping, but rather as a cogent point.
Which you missed.
Had you read the decision, you’d know that the police cannot waive confidential informant privilege and hand out names and information to citizens. It remains the privilege of the Crown and the informant. This has nothing to do with security clearances, this has to do with Supreme Court decisions. I asked you who would be responsible for the breach of confidentiality and named in the lawsuit? Would it be you personally?
$1:
As for privacy i value it, which is why i specifically said that potential law
enforcement candidates would sign waivers allowing this board access to their
records, If candidates don't want to sign it, they can go work elsewhere.
You pay lip service to the idea of valuing privacy, but your proposal shows nothing but contempt for privacy. By disclosing rape files, assault files, incest files and anything else degrading to the victim, you’re doing nothing to protect their privacy, but rather, you’re wantonly victimizing them again by handing out their files to citizens with no qualifications or reason to read them.
$1:
These "Third Parties" would be part the police force and would these parties
would be held to the same classifications as other forces. However the point is
not to investigate police committing crimes
Alright, I’ll admit it, your tortured grammar here has made your point incomprehensible. These citizens are now part of the police force? Then they’re no longer citizens! Your proposal hinged on eliminating law enforcement from investigating themselves, but now the board has mysteriously merged itself into the police force so you just triggered the destruction of your proposal! Also, you’re going to have a hell of a time reconciling how investigating the police committing crimes with all of your proposals for complete financial disclosure.
$1:
It's only a problem if the police make it so, they should be more than happy to
cooperate with the board in their own investigations. With the civilian board
held to the same security clearances that information is perfectly safe.
Again, you wave your hands as if it will make your problems disappear. The point is not whether the police are co-operating with the board, but rather that you’ve gone and disclosed sensitive information, such as murder hold-back information, to citizens. Your proposal directly jeopardizes investigations.
$1:
If wiretaps are revealed they are revealed to a board which is already part of
the police force , so no conflict is occuring
Ah yes, now that the citizens board is actually the police board with no police but still part of the police operating closely enough to avoid conflict of interest or privacy breaches but with enough distance to maintain the appearance of propriety in investigating the police which is not the point. You’re not doing well Hyperion.
And wiretaps carry their own unique challenges. Because you’ve gone and exposed the board to all of the files, affidavits and records which comprise both the supporting materials and the fruits of the wiretap, you’ve happily made each and every citizen on the board a compellable witness to court! Any notes, comments or records they make regarding what they’ve read now become disclosable to defence; if they don’t comply, defence can make application for remedy for non-disclosure and these investigations are further jeopardized! Who needs to make a Garafoli application, just line up the citizens with no formal training to hack away at trial!
Nice plan!
Also, I haven’t even broached the topic of client-solicitor privilege which exists between the police and Crown. By creating standards in which that could be breached, you’re now jeopardizing the privilege itself. Take that jurisprudence for any accused!
$1:
As i said the notes, information, tapes would be open to call by this board. The
board as i have said is already part of said police force so the chain is not
broken
Who signs your pay-cheque is immaterial to the fact that the cop has not maintained control of his notebook from when he made his notes to when he testified using them to refresh his memory. So, it doesn’t matter if your citizen has mysteriously become a pseudo-cop, the cop is going to get crucified at the voire-dire regarding the custody of his notes. In other words, you haven’t fixed this problem with your pseudo-cop biffle-baffle.
$1:
It's not siezing 'all' records as you falsely allege but this board would have
access to these materials without notie and without delay, to prevent police
from altering such records in the case of a police member being investigated
The point is that the same sensitive materials held in the records are held in the notebook. Cops take an awful burden of responsibility when using a notebook, what with the information recorded in it, but it bails their ass out in court. So, in seizing the notebook, you are seizing “all” of the records. Unless your pseudo-cop citizen board is going to rip pages out of the notebook. Good luck with that!
$1:
Actually in terms of employment any employer can fire an employee for lack of
performance. It's called termination with grounds.
How are you going to equate exercising one’s constitutional rights with a lack of performance? I’d love to see how you would parse THAT one! Also, you since you seem to be grossly unfamiliar with the Canadian Labour Code, you should know that an employer bears some responsibility to assist an employee in lack of performance before termination. Are you going to hold courses for cops on “Flushing your Constitutional Rights Down the Toilet: Hyperion’s Guide to Continued Employment”?
And remember how you typed this?
$1:
But we do have laws in place , and police are required to follow them
Well, the most fundamental law we have IS the constitution, but the police are now required NOT to follow it. You can’t suck and blow at the same time.
$1:
So we should no be investigating corrupt police, or rather we should let the
police investigate police? Because that's worked out so well
This is a complete non-sequitur. Your ignorance concerning the functioning of the Charter was in regards to pre-validating laws the cops are expected to enforce. Instead, you rhetorically appeal to police investigating police.
Your proposal failed miserably on this point and your attempted dodge has not gone un-noticed nor un-remarked upon.
$1:
Context? what context was there in the Starlight Rides made by cops?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon_freezing_deaths Again, another non-sequitur when faced with the sobering reality that your proposal is untenable in actual practice. Your appeal to rhetoric doesn’t avoid the outright failures you proposed.
$1:
As i laid out before an employer can terminate an employee for grounds, i dont
see any difference.
The difference is quite important. I’m glad you’re finally acknowledging the limitations of your own legal knowledge. In this instance, you want to fire a police officer because he refused to be compelled to be a witness against himself. In other words, he exercised his constitutional right to silence, so he got fired for it. He didn’t refuse to do his job, because you can’t make constitutional waivers a mandatory term of employment.
I also drew your attention to how ignoble you were being. You purport to do this for a love of law and justice, but your efforts hinge on attacking the constitution. Why not have a waiver which makes S. 7 of the Charter inadmissable and you can lash the cop with a whip too?
$1:
No one is forcing them to cooperate, but if someone wants to join the police
force then not only they, but their families would have to have to accede. Or
said recruit can go train for something else
Yes, you are forcing them to co-operate under threat of termination of employment. Your proposal is borderline extortion as per S. 346 of the Criminal Code. Now not only is your board operating in disregard of the Charter, you’re now coming close to committing crimes in order to have any efficacy. I bet a crafty Crown could convince a Judge there is no reasonable justification for threatening a child to waive his S. 8 rights for banking records for his parent’s continued employment. Then your board would be going to jail for doing THEIR jobs.
This is a fantastic fucking plan you’ve created!
And, it didn’t go un-noticed nor un-remarked that you failed miserably to address how your proposal would work with compelling banks or other third party record-holders to disclose their records to the pseudo-cop police board of citizens. They do have the Privacy Act hanging over their heads, so you’ve made them liable. What happens if the banks simply refuse to disclose their records?
$1:
I don't think it's punitive, it means that cops would be held to a standard that
they themselves hold other people to if not higher. If one is going be a police
officer presumably they actually believe in what their doing as a career, If
they don't, we don't need them
I notice you didn’t comment on the ignorant part. But, it is punitive in that every measure in your proposal results in the automatic compulsion to waive Charter rights, become suspended without pay or fired. If a child doesn’t acquiesce to these demands, their parent is suspended or fired. How is that not punitive? Why is visiting suspicion on a child holding a cop to a higher standard?
$1:
As i said before no one drafted them.If they don't like the job , the get out.
just because their chosen profession is hard does not mean they are above the
law Seriously. For far too long cops have come up with all sorts of reasons why
"They cant do this , and they cant do that". If cops really believe in law ans
order, really believe in justice and really believe in protecting the public
then they should be more than happy to serve the public.
It’s not that they don’t like the job so they require a higher paycheque to motivate them to keep going, but how are you going to attract recruits, who have other options available to them in other fields of employment, when it’s a mandatory requirement they waive their constitutional rights in addition to their family’s, they can be suspended without pay at the drop of a hat by an unqualified board that is mandated to second-guess him and use speculation to replace his circumstances? This is all in addition to shift-work, getting shot at, high-stress et cetera?
$1:
But if is really only about a paycheck then again, GTFO. We don't need cops who
are simply marking time till retirement, we need people who actually believe in
serving the public and take that seriously
You fail to properly understand human nature. Once can make the same argument for paying doctors $50 a year. Afterall, they get the prestige of being a doctor, helping humanity and saving lives. What? They want more compensation for the high stress and high risk they place themselves in? Get the fuck out you money-grubbing dick! We’ll get our doctors elsewhere! Oh wait, the recruit lines are pretty thin...
$1:
Actually no it didn't and considering the number of investigation that have
happened to police forces in Canada, blind trust is not the answer.
Oh, it blew up in your face. You were forced to make rhetorical non-sequiturs when you were factually stumped by your own unworkable proposal. You took a citizen’s board and made them quasi-police to try and shore up leaks in your plan without regard to what that would actually mean. You actively threw the constitution in the toilet alongside privacy and you mandated a board to expose themselves to criminal convictions. And you make a final straw-man argument by saying blind-trust is not the answer.
That’s a kaboom buddy.