Who's the thug, cop or driver?

[Ken7]

Actually, they can't do that. And again with the lawyer talk....at least I'm not so weak minded to not know my rights. Blind capitulation to authority isn't good for anyone, especially humanity as a whole. Just ask people from the 30's and 40's about that....

Can't do what? Detain you for the purpose of ensuring your not impaired?

[zerograv]

No, search your vehical during a highway act offence (including impaired)

[Ken7]

No, search your vehical during a highway act offence (including impaired)

I'd suggest if you are ever stopped and confronted by police, listen to the nice police officer. Argue your case in court and save yourself a lot of headaches!! Not sure where you have taken your training in law, but take my advice it's free!

[zerograv]

I'd suggest if you are ever stopped and confronted by police, listen to the nice police officer. Argue your case in court and save yourself a lot of headaches!! Not sure where you have taken your training in law, but take my advice it's free!

I don't take advice from people who don't have a clue what they are talking about, sorry ;)

[Ken7]

I don't take advice from people who don't have a clue what they are talking about, sorry ;)

Funny, I forgot more about law due to the changes over the 25.5 years I policed. I think I have a little better grip of the law than you might think you have. I further locked many a fool like you up over the years who later found out, I was right and they should have listened!!

Good luck young fellow!

[zerograv]

Funny, I forgot more about law due to the changes over the 25.5 years I policed. I think I have a little better grip of the law than you might think you have. I further locked many a fool like you up over the years who later found out, I was right and they should have listened!!

Good luck young fellow!

The video in question is a perfect example that 25.5 years of being a cop doesn't mean you automatically know laws. why do you think it had garnished so much attention from media and lawyers condemning that officers actions all over the world? Police are breaking rights in this country all the time. Monty Robinson.Michael Ferguson.Commissioner Zaccardell.Const. Justin Harris.Robert Dziekański. Ian Bush.....Frank lesser.rcmp bombing in Alberta.high river. G20.......should I go on?

And you don't have any idea what my age or what I do or do not know or even what my background even is so don't patronize me. That attitude you have displayed in your posts is exactly the crap that is wrong with police in this country. I don't have to give up my rights because Mr. Nice policeman says I do. So using your many years of experience, am I wrong when I say police cannot search your vehical during highway traffic act violations? Or how about when i said that people have a right to be free from unwarranted search and detention? ..........yeah I thought not....

[Ken7]

The video in question is a perfect example that 25.5 years of being a cop doesn't mean you automatically know laws. why do you think it had garnished so much attention from media and lawyers condemning that officers actions all over the world? Police are breaking rights in this country all the time. Monty Robinson.Michael Ferguson.Commissioner Zaccardell.Const. Justin Harris.Robert Dziekański. Ian Bush.....Frank lesser.rcmp bombing in Alberta.high river. G20.......should I go on?

And you don't have any idea what my age or what I do or do not know or even what my background even is so don't patronize me. That attitude you have displayed in your posts is exactly the crap that is wrong with police in this country. I don't have to give up my rights because Mr. Nice policeman says I do. So using your many years of experience, am I wrong when I say police cannot search your vehical during highway traffic act violations? Or how about when i said that people have a right to be free from unwarranted search and detention? ..........yeah I thought not....

You are correct on one fact, there are police officers in Canada and USA who fail to uphold the law and make the rest look badly. That is human nature, and it happens. Sadly that is when tragedies occur such as several you have mentioned.

The point I'm making, is many person just like you create more problems for themselves by thinking they know their rights and the law. They end up resisting arrest, or obstructing justice and end up having their day in court along with a night in cells.

This is why I gave you advice which you feel is not necessary, oh well matter not to me.

As for your posts, I won't pick them apart. It is apparent to me you have a interest in law which is good. As for your direct question, law changes every time a officer makes a decision. It is now the law, after that it is up to the courts to make a decision on weather the split second decisions of the officer fall within the meaning of the law and was it correct at the time. If in fact his actions were correct, the law once again changes.

That is why case law is so important to any active officer. You have to keep your knowledge current or the arrest will be found to be unlawful, evidence will be disregarded and there are many other factors which cause a charge to be dismissed.

To answer your question, without having all of the facts such as the case you constantly are attempting to defend you can't. Why we do not have all the facts pertaining to the events which took place.

That's all I have to say, you can continue if you like although I give up as you seem to believe you know more then anyone else who has commented on this incident.

Good luck!!

[LoneWolf_53]

why do you think it had garnished so much attention from media and lawyers condemning that officers actions all over the world?

Because cop bashing has been all the craze for a few years now, and just as in this case, there are regrettably too many just like you, all too eager to get on the same band wagon.

Instead of a valid defence of your stand, you resorted to bashing the Vancouver police chief, because you've got nothing else.

If the guys marijuana licence was valid, and being adhered to, I highly doubt he would have been arrested for trafficking, and his lawyer would be all over the news already.

Seems all there's been from the guy since his arrest is deafening silence. Nuff said.

[zerograv]

Because cop bashing has been all the craze for a few years now, and just as in this case, there are regrettably too many just like you, all too eager to get on the same band wagon.

Instead of a valid defence of your stand, you resorted to bashing the Vancouver police chief, because you've got nothing else.

If the guys marijuana licence was valid, and being adhered to, I highly doubt he would have been arrested for trafficking, and his lawyer would be all over the news already.

Seems all there's been from the guy since his arrest is deafening silence. Nuff said.

A valid defence? Hahaha All I've done is post examples of the charter of rights and case law. It can't get any more valid than that. I've posted a lot more useful information than you have, your only rebuttal is remarks full of sarcasm that are aimed at somehow trying to insult me or hurt my feelings. Sorry but I dont think bend over and take it is a good way to have your rights trampled.

Having a discussion about certain (nowhere did I say all) police officers pushing the boundaries of what's legal is in no way "cop bashing" as you put it and is needed in a healthy society, especially one where our freedoms are getting less and less in the name of keeping us safe. True north strong and free as they say. I never insulted Chu, I just gave valid points on statements he said that directly contradict the actions of his officers. Why are illegal marijuana dispensaries not worth his time, but this guy is? How come Mr. Chu has so much power that he can pick and choose what he feels should be against the law? His officers either uphold the law or they don't, they don't get to choose.

Being charged and being convicted are two very different things. As I said before, you are innocent until proven otherwise. And actually there isn't deafening silence, he has written a blog detailing the events and how he feels his rights were trampled. As multiple lawyers have now pointed out, the officer never gave the suspect a reason for why he wanted him to exit the car, or even why he pulled him over. Apparently he is known to police, and more than likely that was the only reason they pulled him over in the first place. (Otherwise why no charges for dangerous driving or why did he passed the sobriety tests?) Made up reasons so they can pull over a guy they know without just cause? Chu said they pulled him over for erratic driving, but in the next breath says it's not a traffic violation, it's a drug bust......well which one is it? Te officer has no right to tell the suspect what to do and expect him to obey of he doesn't have just cause. On the other hand, the suspect has every right in the world to refuse to let the angry — and armed — officer anywhere near him. This means he was right to keep his window closed, even though the officer demanded otherwise, and this also means it was illegal for the officer to smash the suspects property to pieces and violently remove him from his own car.

[LoneWolf_53]

Your right to fall for the innocent victim routine, as for me I wouldn't trust anything the little twit has to say. He strikes me as a pothead looking for his ten minutes of fame and nothing more.

The fact of the matter is an honest person, who has nothing to hide, would be prudent to follow any directions given by law enforcement, and had he done so his window would still be in tact. Had he done so the officer's concerns would have been addressed and the innocent law abiding citizen would have been merrily on his way again in a few minutes.

Law abiding folk don't have a need to engage in obstructive tactics, nor to call their lawyers, so it would appear it's criminals avoiding justice that is your crusade here.

[FreeRights]

Are you aware the need to have a valid drivers license and appropriate vehicle registration is enough to have the police stop you? You do not need a obvious violation, as it was for a short time in the 80's.

I'm aware of that. I'm responding specifically to this:

It was not a drug arrest and thats pure BS BS. it was a traffic stop that ultimately turned into a drug arrest

Hence my question, how that particular person knows specifically why the vehicle was pulled over. It could very well have been a traffic stop, but at this point, he nor I are in a position to state that with any amount of honesty.

[FreeRights]

Actually, they can't do that. And again with the lawyer talk....at least I'm not so weak minded to not know my rights. Blind capitulation to authority isn't good for anyone, especially humanity as a whole. Just ask people from the 30's and 40's about that....

Police can detain you pending the results of an investigation.

The video in question is a perfect example that 25.5 years of being a cop doesn't mean you automatically know laws. why do you think it had garnished so much attention from media and lawyers condemning that officers actions all over the world? Police are breaking rights in this country all the time. Monty Robinson.Michael Ferguson.Commissioner Zaccardell.Const. Justin Harris.Robert Dziekański. Ian Bush.....Frank lesser.rcmp bombing in Alberta.high river. G20.......should I go on?

None of those other incidents have any relevance whatsoever to this case.

And you don't have any idea what my age or what I do or do not know or even what my background even is so don't patronize me. That attitude you have displayed in your posts is exactly the crap that is wrong with police in this country. I don't have to give up my rights because Mr. Nice policeman says I do. So using your many years of experience, am I wrong when I say police cannot search your vehical during highway traffic act violations? Or how about when i said that people have a right to be free from unwarranted search and detention? ..........yeah I thought not....

The police are warranted to investigate further into Criminal Code violations if it's suspected that one exists. If the police pull you over for a traffic violation and suspect that a Criminal Code violation is being committed by you, then absolutely can investigate further. You're telling me that if you're pulled over for speeding, and the police officer observes an ax and a bloody object rolled in a carpet in the back seat they would be unable to investigate that further?

A valid defence? Hahaha All I've done is post examples of the charter of rights and case law. It can't get any more valid than that. I've posted a lot more useful information than you have, your only rebuttal is remarks full of sarcasm that are aimed at somehow trying to insult me or hurt my feelings. Sorry but I dont think bend over and take it is a good way to have your rights trampled.

Having a discussion about certain (nowhere did I say all) police officers pushing the boundaries of what's legal is in no way "cop bashing" as you put it and is needed in a healthy society, especially one where our freedoms are getting less and less in the name of keeping us safe. True north strong and free as they say. I never insulted Chu, I just gave valid points on statements he said that directly contradict the actions of his officers. Why are illegal marijuana dispensaries not worth his time, but this guy is? How come Mr. Chu has so much power that he can pick and choose what he feels should be against the law? His officers either uphold the law or they don't, they don't get to choose.

Being charged and being convicted are two very different things. As I said before, you are innocent until proven otherwise. And actually there isn't deafening silence, he has written a blog detailing the events and how he feels his rights were trampled. As multiple lawyers have now pointed out, the officer never gave the suspect a reason for why he wanted him to exit the car, or even why he pulled him over. Apparently he is known to police, and more than likely that was the only reason they pulled him over in the first place. (Otherwise why no charges for dangerous driving or why did he passed the sobriety tests?) Made up reasons so they can pull over a guy they know without just cause? Chu said they pulled him over for erratic driving, but in the next breath says it's not a traffic violation, it's a drug bust......well which one is it? Te officer has no right to tell the suspect what to do and expect him to obey of he doesn't have just cause. On the other hand, the suspect has every right in the world to refuse to let the angry — and armed — officer anywhere near him. This means he was right to keep his window closed, even though the officer demanded otherwise, and this also means it was illegal for the officer to smash the suspects property to pieces and violently remove him from his own car.

Your argument is, then, that the person who is accused of committing a criminal offense, is the one who is responsible for deeming whether or not they themselves are guilty and whether or not they should follow the direction of a police officer?

That is truly the most baseless and ridiculous argument that I've ever heard on this subject.

This person was arrested on drug charges. He is not in the position and that is not the time for him to pretend to be a lawyer and allege that the police were unwarranted in arresting him. The accused was under arrest for drug offenses, refused to cooperate with the arrest (obstruction), and was then taken into custody.

Your argument is that you or him, an armchair lawyer, don't have to listen or cooperate with an arresting police officer because the street is the time and the place to defend your rights. Your rights do not include driving around with an allegedly large amount of marijuana. Your rights don't include driving erratically. You bring up a list of names in an earlier post who may have been killed by police officers, and at the same time, you argue that fewer people should cooperate with them because the street is where you defend your rights? Give your head a shake. The court system is the appropriate place for that, and had cooperation occurred here, that window would not have been broken.

[zerograv]

Freerights, if the police notice an axe and a bloody carpet, that is probable cause and would justify further investigation. Smoke billowing from a car window is NOT legal grounds for a search or detainment in Canada. Now if the officer notice a bag of weed on the dash and a pipe in his hand during a routine traffic stop that is a different story. If this guy got pulled over for a traffic violation and the cop "suspected" he was a drug dealer then it's an illegal search and detention....hunches don't mean Jack. why is that do hard to understand? And again this isn't MY argument, legal experts are all saying the same thing, now why would I just assume that they don't know what they are talking about and instead listen to the same castanutters that seem to gang up on people in every thread?

And again with the armchair lawyer talk. Maybe you need to talk about the issues instead of trying to insult me. All you people say I'm wrong to use the video because we don't see the beginning and we shouldn't assume. Well tell my why you should assume anything about my background or knowledge when referring to me as an armchair lawyer. Hypocrites.

[FreeRights]

Freerights, if the police notice an axe and a bloody carpet, that is probable cause and would justify further investigation. Smoke billowing from a car window is NOT legal grounds for a search or detainment in Canada. Now if the officer notice a bag of weed on the dash and a pipe in his hand during a routine traffic stop that is a different story. If this guy got pulled over for a traffic violation and the cop "suspected" he was a drug dealer then it's an illegal search and detention....hunches don't mean Jack. why is that do hard to understand? And again this isn't MY argument, legal experts are all saying the same thing, now why would I just assume that they don't know what they are talking about and instead listen to the same castanutters that seem to gang up on people in every thread?

Did you post case law that proves that the noticeable scent of marijuana coming from the confines of an active motor vehicle does not warrant any further investigation whatsoever?

[zerograv]

Did you post case law that proves that the noticeable scent of marijuana coming from the confines of an active motor vehicle does not warrant any further investigation whatsoever?

I brought it up. It was posted (not by me) and further research on Google would give you your answer. But then again I'm the armchair lawyer who doesn't know anything right? Seems to be the other way around if you ask me.