PDA

View Full Version : The so called



Seth
03-03-2008, 12:14 AM
From this article which occured in British Columbia, Canada.

Source: http://www.nowpublic.com/world/b-c-appeals-court-acquits-cocaine-dealer


Police noticing a vehicle driving at night with his headlights off, stop the vehicle, notice a open liquor bottle, conduct a further search for liquor, discover cocaine, the accused admit to being dealers, get arrested, upon court trial, appeals Judge aquits Cociane Drug dealing, and opt to just charge pair for open liquor in the car, because Police violated the accused rights because their intent was to seach for alcohol, not drugs, so a acquital was warranted.
------------------------------------------------

My disdain for governmental characteristics is epitomized by the "Justice System". (A self perpetuating entity)

I can sum it up very briefly here:

The JS pronounces a pedophile has been rehabilitated and the judge releases him back into society.

How about we ask that judge if he/she would want the pedophile to live next door? Or better yet, Since the "judge" deems the pedophile "rehabilitated", then it is our DUTY to ask the judge if he would have no issue with letting the pedophile babysit HIS children.

Regarding the article:

Most of us our good people who wish no harm to fellow beings. We don't give a **** how the police find scum. We just want them to such and get rid of them.

My "god" is logic, and by following the logic of said court, a drug raid on a house must ignore the dead bodies found in the tool shed, because the police only had a warrant for a drug search...NOT murder.

"Justice" my ass. The justice system is a BUSINESS designed to keep the rich from becoming poor.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the whole "North America and its allies ARE a democracy" ********. "Democracy" is nothing more than a better managed and advertised dictatorship.

....Seth waits for the inevitable "knock on the door" and a bullet to his head.

Wolfeymole
03-03-2008, 09:42 AM
Seths favourite movie (http://imdb.com/title/tt0061747/)

JEBWrench
03-03-2008, 03:08 PM
The fact you can rant like that ought to tell you something, Seth old boy. ;)

Seth
03-03-2008, 04:24 PM
Free speech is a good start Jeb.

Well that was my rant for the month.

JEBWrench
03-03-2008, 04:58 PM
Now, the trouble with the comment "most of us don't give an <expletive> about how..." is that most of us really DO. We'd hate for the police to simply barge in to our houses and start writing us up for every tiny infraction.

It's only when it pertains to other people that we think that all the hoops the police need to jump through are (pardon the pun) unwarranted. ;)

help4me
03-03-2008, 05:10 PM
Now, the trouble with the comment "most of us don't give an <expletive> about how..." is that most of us really DO. We'd hate for the police to simply barge in to our houses and start writing us up for every tiny infraction.

It's only when it pertains to other people that we think that all the hoops the police need to jump through are (pardon the pun) unwarranted. ;)
Yes I agree that it seems to work that way... "don't infringe on my rights but nail the guy next door". However the American system was designed to protect the innocent from injustice... but at the same time it is protecting the guilty. We have to live within a flawed system... are you saying that what was pointed out is unfair? Would you want a rehabilitated pedophile babysitting my kids? Your future step kids? How much are YOU willing to gamble to give people a second chance? And you know me... you know that I am all for second chances... to a certain point. But there is a point when is enough is enough!

(not going to spell check this... so deal with it :p )

help4me
03-03-2008, 05:18 PM
And here is another point for all y'all .... with my deepest respect and no offense intended...


Jay Leno's letter:


"The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine
and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be
true given the source, right?

The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of
Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69
percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In
essence 2/3s of the citizenry just isn't happy and want a change.

So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started
thinking, ''What we are so unhappy about?'' Is it that we have electricity
and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the
result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?
Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it
is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in
moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

Maybe it is the ability to drive from the
Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification
papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean
and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary
shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from
around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck
our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all and even
send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of
Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the
unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in
moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving
you, your family and your belongings.

Or if, while at home watching one of your
many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped
with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family
against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of
bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90
percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

How about the complete religious, social and
political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?
Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.

Fact is, we are the largest group of
ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world
loves the U.S. , yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for
what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but
complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country
instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

I know, I know. What about the president
who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a
measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided
the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to
bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has
Been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the
spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks?

The commander in chief of an all-volunteer
army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the
President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much,
make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all
the good things and be glad?

Think about it......are you upset at the
President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the
"Media" told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every
day.

Make no mistake about it. The troops in
Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have
died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They
didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a
''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case
scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.

So why then the flat-out discontentment in
the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on
the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody
will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids
selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are
for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to
defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask
why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about
how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this
way......Insane!

Stop buying the negativism you are fed
everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York
Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all
we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.

We are among the most blessed peoples on
Earth and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and
appreciative."

"With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of
control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country
from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist
attacks, "Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of
Allegiance?"

Jay Leno

Seth
03-03-2008, 05:20 PM
Now, the trouble with the comment "most of us don't give an <expletive> about how..." is that most of us really DO. We'd hate for the police to simply barge in to our houses and start writing us up for every tiny infraction.

It's only when it pertains to other people that we think that all the hoops the police need to jump through are (pardon the pun) unwarranted. ;)
The statement was meant in the context of the law. That is, provided that the police have relevant grounds for the search. I would have no problem with the police searching my car or house under such grounds.

So JEB, what do you think of the acquittal from the original post?

JEBWrench
03-03-2008, 05:21 PM
A great point, but I'm willing to bet that wasn't actually Leno.

(And I'm willing to make our usual wager. ;))

Wolfeymole
03-03-2008, 05:24 PM
You have some weird laws you guys.

If the guy in the car was nicked over here he'd be done for no lights, possibly being ****ed and doing hard time for the drugs.
The judge would say, "What rights, your nicked tinkerbell tough ****."

JEBWrench
03-03-2008, 05:26 PM
The statement was meant in the context of the law. That is, provided that the police have relevant grounds for the search. I would have no problem with the police searching my car or house under such grounds.

So JEB, what do you think of the acquittal from the original post?
I'm generally opposed to the coddling of criminals, the trouble is, you have to go draw a line somewhere.

Suppose the police came by your home for some minor infraction for whatever reason, and then decided to search your home? Would you feel your privacy was violated over a relatively minor issue?

You need to establish boundaries - and that leads to a problem of grey areas.

help4me
03-03-2008, 05:37 PM
A great point, but I'm willing to bet that wasn't actually Leno.

(And I'm willing to make our usual wager. ;))
Of all that you are going to pick at the authenticity of the letter? Who cares if it's Leno or not... the point still stands and I am waiting for a better answer than "you have to draw a line somewhere"!

C'mon JEB... if the police stop by for a minor infraction.. and you have something to hide... then you DESERVE to get nailed for it! End of story! Don't want to get caught... then don't do it. Period!

JEBWrench
03-03-2008, 05:42 PM
It's not a question of guilt. It's a question of ethics.

Anyone and everyone on the planet is guilty of something. So, by that logic, the police should be able to thoroughly investigate everyone and all their possessions at any given time.

(And as far as the authenticity goes, I just wanted the bet. :P)

(Addendum: I can hear the rapid-fire clattering of keys beside me.)

(Addendum to Addendum: I'm taking cover.)

help4me
03-03-2008, 05:52 PM
It's not a question of guilt. It's a question of ethics.

Anyone and everyone on the planet is guilty of something. So, by that logic, the police should be able to thoroughly investigate everyone and all their possessions at any given time.

(And as far as the authenticity goes, I just wanted the bet. :P)
Agreed... however.. if you get caught for something small... and it's blatantly obvious something larger is amiss.. then yes... you should be investigated for that. Such as the case that Seth originally made...


Police noticing a vehicle driving at night with his headlights off, stop the vehicle, notice a open liquor bottle, conduct a further search for liquor, discover cocaine, the accused admit to being dealers, get arrested, upon court trial, appeals Judge aquits Cociane Drug dealing, and opt to just charge pair for open liquor in the car, because Police violated the accused rights because their intent was to seach for alcohol, not drugs, so a acquital was warranted.
Andf this point as well...

My "god" is logic, and by following the logic of said court, a drug raid on a house must ignore the dead bodies found in the tool shed, because the police only had a warrant for a drug search...NOT murder.
The last a bit stretchy... but still relevant. How do you justify that? Ignore another obvious issue because you don't have permission?

It's not a matter of digging for additional "charges" but rather acknowledging the ones that are in front of your face!

help4me
03-03-2008, 05:53 PM
And JEB... you're not getting that bet! :p

JEBWrench
03-03-2008, 05:56 PM
However, it's illogical to assess things on a case-by-case basis.

If searching for one thing allows you to find something else in one situation, then it must be so in ALL cases.

For example, should you have a broken taillight, and the police pull you over, and you're listening to music that has been obtained through illicit means, then they should be able to "nail" you for that, as well, by the same logic.

They should also be able to, by that logic, search your entire car for other possible infractions, as well as your person.

help4me
03-03-2008, 06:03 PM
However, it's illogical to assess things on a case-by-case basis.

If searching for one thing allows you to find something else in one situation, then it must be so in ALL cases.

For example, should you have a broken taillight, and the police pull you over, and you're listening to music that has been obtained through illicit means, then they should be able to "nail" you for that, as well, by the same logic.

They should also be able to, by that logic, search your entire car for other possible infractions, as well as your person.
You are missing the point... If i get pulled over for a broken tail light... and I have a dead body in the back seat... in plain sight.. then yeah... the cop should be able to do something about that.

Current law states that they can search your vehicle with probable cause. A dead body in plain sight might be considered probable cause. :P

You are confusing purposefully searching for incriminating evidence and the right to deal with what is in plain sight.

Wolfeymole
03-03-2008, 06:05 PM
Hurrah! :D

JEBWrench
03-03-2008, 06:16 PM
Actually, they can search your vehicle with suspicion of probable cause, but that's neither hear nor there.

Regardless, the situation I mentioned would qualify as probable cause, since you are transporting stolen goods, and they have a reasonable suspicion. (Terry vs. Ohio, 1968)

Once again, is it fair to have a reasonable suspicion of probable cause be a reason for a thorough investigation?

Secondly, let's not forget one thing - the cocaine in the original comment was not in plain sight. (And they were pulled over for a broken taillight.)

Wolfeymole
03-03-2008, 06:21 PM
But they might have had a spliff on the go so that leads to a drugs search.

JEBWrench
03-03-2008, 06:23 PM
Not in Canada, Wolfey.

help4me
03-03-2008, 06:23 PM
Actually, they can search your vehicle with suspicion of probable cause, but that's neither hear nor there.

Regardless, the situation I mentioned would qualify as probable cause, since you are transporting stolen goods, and they have a reasonable suspicion. (Terry vs. Ohio, 1968)

Once again, is it fair to have a reasonable suspicion of probable cause be a reason for a thorough investigation?

Secondly, let's not forget one thing - the cocaine in the original comment was not in plain sight. (And they were pulled over for a broken taillight.)
Yes but the cocain was found under probable cause. A seperate charge and further investigation should be allowed. And again... if you don't want to get caught... don't do it.

JEB... if you get stopped.. and searched under probable cause... and they find the dead body in your trunk... buddy you DESERVE to go have your nuts in a sling.

Probable cause is good enough for just about everything else... why not police investigation?

You're lucky I have to go to work... but if you care to continue this.. I will search out court cases too and this can go on until Wolf bans us both :p

JEBWrench
03-03-2008, 06:25 PM
A further investigation should have been sought, but wasn't. Hence the acquittal. ;)

Wolfeymole
03-03-2008, 06:26 PM
lol Bonnie.

Ok so you go whistling down the highway as high as a kite and that's ok then jeb yes?

JEBWrench
03-03-2008, 06:28 PM
There's no ground for a possession charge with a small amount.

So no search, but a DUI charge.

Wolfeymole
03-03-2008, 06:32 PM
But what if they hear beer bottles rattling round in the boot and find a boat load of hash?

JEBWrench
03-03-2008, 06:41 PM
How big's the boat? :p