Justice

[cutter7]

To Ken7 ...

The fact that the lawyers consistently lie on behalf of their clients is bad enough. The fact that judges consistently believe such fabrications makes a complete mockery of the system.

The fact that such consistent fabrication does not, in the eyes of the judge, bring the system of justice into disrepute helps make the system into the sham that it is today.

I agree with you donald but then again, this works on both sides not just one. the prosecutor blindly accuses the defendant based on evidence given by police and the defence attorney blindly defends in order to acquit.

The truth has little to do with a court case but more to do with who can play the game better, and why the police need to lie in order to win from time to time

[Smurf]

Something just came to mind. Why do police need to be held more accountable than lawyers or judges who I believe are all past lawyers. Are lawyers not also part of the justice system, just as if not more important than police.

[Donald G]

To cutter7 ...

The judges set the rules that the police MUST abide by.

The police win every time all of the evidence that the law has allowed them to collect in the way the judiciary demands gets entered into court.

As painful as it may be to watch a killer or rapist walk free the police often have no option but to allow the travesty to happen

A society where the police set and abide by their own set of rules is a police state. The complete opposite of what we now have in Canada since our Bill of Rights was rewritten and reinterpreted by Trudeau and his group of left wing extremists, including the judges he selected and appointed to see that the New Bill was "properly" interpreted.

[Puddlejumper40]

To Puddlejumper40 ...

Homicide means death involving another person and although it can depict murder it also includes acts of manslaughter, accidental killing and justifiable homicide.

Homicide is likely one of the most misused words in the English language because of TV programs.

I hear what you're saying but that is what was written on the coroners report. It would be inaccurate of me to provide anything less than what was written.

Edited to add part of the final conclusion of the coroners report, hence why I used the term "Homicide".
"Conclusion

I find that Robert Dziekanski died in Richmand on October 14, 2007 of Cardiac Arrhythmia in the presence of a physical altercation and multiple deployments of a conducted energy weapon. I classify this death as homicide .Homicide is a death due to an injury intentially inflicted by the actions of another person. Homicide is a neutral term that does not imply fault or blame."

[FreeRights]

The fact that the lawyers consistently lie on behalf of their clients is bad enough. The fact that judges consistently believe such fabrications makes a complete mockery of the system.

The fact that such consistent fabrication does not, in the eyes of the judge, bring the system of justice into disrepute helps make the system into the sham that it is today.

I agree with you donald but then again, this works on both sides not just one. the prosecutor blindly accuses the defendant based on evidence given by police and the defence attorney blindly defends in order to acquit.

The truth has little to do with a court case but more to do with who can play the game better, and why the police need to lie in order to win from time to time[/quote]
That's not wrong, but generally the police aren't lying when it goes to trial. They provide evidence and information, and the Crown determines whether or not they are going to go ahead with the charges.

Besides the evidence provided from police and other sources, it's true that the Crown and the defending lawyer try to create narratives that benefit their argument and try and convince the jury of which is the truth.

[mexi cali]

Any other words you feel the need to redefine for dramatic reasons ?

Once I get a clear understanding of what exactly you are getting at....Maybe.

[mexi cali]

Oh, sorry. I guess you're saying that because my definition of murder IN THIS CASE differs from the law, I must be attempting to redefine the terms and conditions where a charge of murder is warranted.

Yah, no. Just because the law says it is so, it must be so. If that is what you choose to believe, so be it.

I don't give a ff what you think about my belief in this instance. I am not attempting to get you to believe any differently than what you believe.

I believe that these four police officers contributed and ultimately caused unnecessarily the death of this man. In my eyes, they murdered him regardless of the legal definition of the term.

[FreeRights]

Oh, sorry. I guess you're saying that because my definition of murder IN THIS CASE differs from the law, I must be attempting to redefine the terms and conditions where a charge of murder is warranted.

Yah, no. Just because the law says it is so, it must be so. If that is what you choose to believe, so be it.

I don't give a ff what you think about my belief in this instance. I am not attempting to get you to believe any differently than what you believe.

I believe that these four police officers contributed and ultimately caused unnecessarily the death of this man. In my eyes, they murdered him regardless of the legal definition of the term.

In the court of law, that's true. Judges interpret and apply the law to rulings, not change them.

[Donald G]

To Free Rights ...

Not sure what you meant when you said, " Judges interpret and apply the law to rulings, not change them. "

Can you elaborate ??