Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > Canada > The Maple Leaf
Reload this Page >

Spare a thought for these families.

Spare a thought for these families.

Old Sep 24th 2012, 2:24 am
  #256  
Banned
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 314
didikai is a name known to alldidikai is a name known to alldidikai is a name known to alldidikai is a name known to alldidikai is a name known to alldidikai is a name known to alldidikai is a name known to alldidikai is a name known to alldidikai is a name known to alldidikai is a name known to alldidikai is a name known to all
Default Re: Spare a thought for these families.

Originally Posted by Alan2005
Now we're talking. If I remember your reply was something about how your 'A' game was great. I think you were using some kind of code for a sexual act you liked. If I recall I made my excuses and left the conversation.
That's right. You said you were glad I was Arthur, because you were Martha
didikai is offline  
Old Sep 24th 2012, 2:48 am
  #257  
Banned
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,088
Boy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Spare a thought for these families.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
Do you have legal authority that supports your assertion that someone acquitted is anything other than innocent of the charges laid? If the Crown cannot prove their case, the accused is deemed innocent, are they not?

It is any wonder why the RCMP are held in such contempt by the public when you come on here alleging you are a member and spouting stuff like this?
i can hear crickets!

As for legal authority. It comes out of the presumption of innocence at common law and under the charter, which really only serves to illustrate burden of proof on the crown. The presumption exists throughout trial and the presumption ends on a finding of guilt. If a not guilty verdict is returned the burden is presumed to have not been met. not guilty really means not proven (of interest under scottish law a finding of not proven can be entered). The courts don't enter a finding of innocence only guilty or not guilty. It may seem like the same thing, but from a legal perspective it's not. The courts want to be viewed as only deciding on a person's proven guilt not proven innocence. It's the same throughout most western nations as far as i know.
Boy d is offline  
Old Sep 24th 2012, 4:27 am
  #258  
limey party pooper
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,979
bats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Spare a thought for these families.

Originally Posted by Boy d
im guessing you are deaf. I agree that there needs to be better training in some regards, but where do we do the draw line? I cant sign, cant speak greek or Klingon...we deal with all types, angry, scared, desperate, suicidal, frustrated, high, mentally ill, deaf...its difficult to know what the underlying causes are. We can only assess what's happening infront of us. Arrest is often the safest way to take control. policing is not perfect.....its a difficult job.
and because it isn't perfect, none of us are, then guns are not the answer.
bats is offline  
Old Sep 24th 2012, 5:11 am
  #259  
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 14,227
Alan2005 has a reputation beyond reputeAlan2005 has a reputation beyond reputeAlan2005 has a reputation beyond reputeAlan2005 has a reputation beyond reputeAlan2005 has a reputation beyond reputeAlan2005 has a reputation beyond reputeAlan2005 has a reputation beyond reputeAlan2005 has a reputation beyond reputeAlan2005 has a reputation beyond reputeAlan2005 has a reputation beyond reputeAlan2005 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Spare a thought for these families.

Originally Posted by Boy d
The courts want to be viewed as only deciding on a person's proven guilt not proven innocence. It's the same throughout most western nations as far as i know.
Aren't innocence and guilt mutually exclusive?

Innocent = not guilty
Not innocent = guilty

I know the scotch have not proven, but that doesn't mean "guilty but we couldn't prove it" even though that's what everyone thinks it means.

Besides, this is just semantics. There was obviously enough doubt about the conviction of blakelocks killers that they had to be released. Everyone can have an opinion on whether they were fitted up or actually did it, but (imo) it's better to let scum bags go free than keep innocent people locked up.
Alan2005 is offline  
Old Sep 24th 2012, 1:57 pm
  #260  
Banned
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,088
Boy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Spare a thought for these families.

Originally Posted by Alan2005
Aren't innocence and guilt mutually exclusive?

Innocent = not guilty
Not innocent = guilty

I know the scotch have not proven, but that doesn't mean "guilty but we couldn't prove it" even though that's what everyone thinks it means.

Besides, this is just semantics. There was obviously enough doubt about the conviction of blakelocks killers that they had to be released. Everyone can have an opinion on whether they were fitted up or actually did it, but (imo) it's better to let scum bags go free than keep innocent people locked up.
As i said i dont know anything about blakelocks so for all i know they were innocent. I guess it could be viewed as semantics. As for the scots not proven allows them to retry on new evidence. here the crown might enter a stay if certain evidence is lost, in theory allowing for a re-trial.

The presumption is an outdated concept and is at odds with how an accused is treated. They are afterall, arrested, their bodily integrity often invaded, homes searched, held without bail etc...hardly bodes with a presumption of innocence.

The concept, which is really poorly worded, speaks to the nature of our adversarial system. It's the crown's job to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt not the accused's job to prove they are innocent, so in short innocence is not relevant. The judge will consider certain evidence, may exclude some, and will be either convinced by certain evidence or not convinced. If he's not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt then he/she will enter a finding of not guilty. I guess they are trying to take the guess work out of assigning guilt...that is, it's not a case of what I think but what the evidence says. This is fundamentally what is wrong with a jury as they often convict on what they believe rather than what the evidence says (jury trials are very rare here and an accused can elect to have or to not have one). It's very rare that truly innocent people go on trial (in Canada that is...cant say the same for the US...our burden of proof is very high....there are only about 20 wrongful convictions in Canada going back the last 40 years or so).

Disclosure law requires defences to be forwarded before trial. An example would be an alibi defence. Police are then expected to investigate further. As i said there are no surprises on the stand.

Most trials turn on charter arguments anyway and consider admissibilty of evidence. It makes boring tv.

Last edited by Boy d; Sep 24th 2012 at 2:10 pm.
Boy d is offline  
Old Sep 24th 2012, 2:15 pm
  #261  
Banned
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,088
Boy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Spare a thought for these families.

Originally Posted by bats
and because it isn't perfect, none of us are, then guns are not the answer.
In a perfect world i agree. But it's not perfect is it? Its about managing risk. Guns have their down sides for sure. I personally wouldn't do front line policing without one.

All the ex Brits cops here I know feel the same and wouldn't go back to the UK model which they view as flawed.
Boy d is offline  
Old Sep 24th 2012, 2:38 pm
  #262  
Assimilated Pauper
 
dbd33's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 40,014
dbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Spare a thought for these families.

Originally Posted by Boy d
In a perfect world i agree. But it's not perfect is it? Its about managing risk. Guns have their down sides for sure. I personally wouldn't do front line policing without one.

All the ex Brits cops here I know feel the same and wouldn't go back to the UK model which they view as flawed.
That's what one would expect them to say, they're all people who chose to leave a non-gun force to join a gun force. It'd be more interesting to ask a sample of people who were police officers in an armed force and who now work in the UK. It may be that they'd go along with the majority view among British police officers and elect not to be armed.
dbd33 is offline  
Old Sep 24th 2012, 2:41 pm
  #263  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Almost Canadian's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: South of Calgary
Posts: 13,373
Almost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Spare a thought for these families.

Originally Posted by Boy d
As i said i dont know anything about blakelocks so for all i know they were innocent. I guess it could be viewed as semantics. As for the scots not proven allows them to retry on new evidence. here the crown might enter a stay if certain evidence is lost, in theory allowing for a re-trial.

The presumption is an outdated concept and is at odds with how an accused is treated. They are afterall, arrested, their bodily integrity often invaded, homes searched, held without bail etc...hardly bodes with a presumption of innocence.

The concept, which is really poorly worded, speaks to the nature of our adversarial system. It's the crown's job to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt not the accused's job to prove they are innocent, so in short innocence is not relevant. The judge will consider certain evidence, may exclude some, and will be either convinced by certain evidence or not convinced. If he's not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt then he/she will enter a finding of not guilty. I guess they are trying to take the guess work out of assigning guilt...that is, it's not a case of what I think but what the evidence says. This is fundamentally what is wrong with a jury as they often convict on what they believe rather than what the evidence says (jury trials are very rare here and an accused can elect to have or to not have one). It's very rare that truly innocent people go on trial (in Canada that is...cant say the same for the US...our burden of proof is very high....there are only about 20 wrongful convictions in Canada going back the last 40 years or so).

Disclosure law requires defences to be forwarded before trial. An example would be an alibi defence. Police are then expected to investigate further. As i said there are no surprises on the stand.

Most trials turn on charter arguments anyway and consider admissibilty of evidence. It makes boring tv.
You do not seem to understand the maxim "Innocent until proven guilty"

If a Trial occurs and the defendant is acquitted, they are innocent, despite how "wrong" you think this is.

Most trials do not turn on charter arguments. They turn on facts. The facts presented may turn on charter arguments, but those are decided by a Judge.
Almost Canadian is offline  
Old Sep 24th 2012, 3:01 pm
  #264  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere between Vancouver & St Johns
Posts: 19,840
Former Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Spare a thought for these families.

I tend to think the vast majority of coppers all over the world today will put on their uniform and see the gun as a tool and part of the uniform. They accept it is there and dont discuss if they will think they will have to use it today.
It is there for their own protection and the protection of others whom they have a duty to protect.
They will go about their day to day duties and look forward to going home to their families at the end of the shift.
The force they have joined dictates if they will carry a gun that day. All officers are professionaly trained by professionals. There is no cowboy shit taught on any course I have attended.
You cannot predict how an officer will react or if they change into some wannabe gun slinger. That is a decision the individual makes as they are certainly NOT taught that.
Every job has its good and bad apples and unfortunately the Police have theirs.
Because society has changed and become IMHO more violent removing guns from a police officer especially any North American force will prove almost impossible.
You can train an individual to the highest standards possible but there is no guarantee that the individual will always follow those procedures.
Shit happens sometimes in an instant moment and the officer has to make a split second decision.
Armed police forces are here to stay we can only hope the individuals who join their forces are professional and do their job.
I have no qualms in defending their actions when legally justified regardless of what others might think but I have no problem in attaching blame when they clearly go outside the rules.
Those who have never done the job really dont appreciate how hard of a job it can be at times and there are shit sides as well as rewarding aspects to the job. Yes you can have opinions but its not always black and white.
We can sit on our keyboards and post what we think blah blah but until you have done the job and faced certain situations then sometimes you have no idea what its like.
As you go about your daily mundane job today in whatever it is you do just remember some copper is likely informing a family that a loved one has been lost due to a fatal motor vehicle accident or something else.
Is that something you would like to do on a daily, weekly, monthly basis.
Former Lancastrian is offline  
Old Sep 24th 2012, 3:07 pm
  #265  
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 14,227
Alan2005 has a reputation beyond reputeAlan2005 has a reputation beyond reputeAlan2005 has a reputation beyond reputeAlan2005 has a reputation beyond reputeAlan2005 has a reputation beyond reputeAlan2005 has a reputation beyond reputeAlan2005 has a reputation beyond reputeAlan2005 has a reputation beyond reputeAlan2005 has a reputation beyond reputeAlan2005 has a reputation beyond reputeAlan2005 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Spare a thought for these families.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
You do not seem to understand the maxim "Innocent until proven guilty"

If a Trial occurs and the defendant is acquitted, they are innocent, despite how "wrong" you think this is.

Most trials do not turn on charter arguments. They turn on facts. The facts presented may turn on charter arguments, but those are decided by a Judge.
I've done jury duty. I sat on five different trials and every time we were told to only consider facts. The fact that you had real power over the direction of somebodies life meant that everyone took it very seriously and took a lot of care to leave emotion out of it. Maybe that's not typical, but I was actually quite impressed by the way it worked.
Alan2005 is offline  
Old Sep 24th 2012, 3:20 pm
  #266  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere between Vancouver & St Johns
Posts: 19,840
Former Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Spare a thought for these families.

Originally Posted by Alan2005
I've done jury duty. I sat on five different trials and every time we were told to only consider facts. The fact that you had real power over the direction of somebodies life meant that everyone took it very seriously and took a lot of care to leave emotion out of it. Maybe that's not typical, but I was actually quite impressed by the way it worked.
Hence the saying better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
OJ Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal trial but found guilty in the the civil suite. Who was right or who was wrong. Sometimes juries get it wrong as well. They go on the facts and evidence presented and arrive at a decision based on that and that alone regardless of what they might think.
Former Lancastrian is offline  
Old Sep 24th 2012, 3:29 pm
  #267  
.
 
Oink's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 20,185
Oink has a reputation beyond reputeOink has a reputation beyond reputeOink has a reputation beyond reputeOink has a reputation beyond reputeOink has a reputation beyond reputeOink has a reputation beyond reputeOink has a reputation beyond reputeOink has a reputation beyond reputeOink has a reputation beyond reputeOink has a reputation beyond reputeOink has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Spare a thought for these families.

Is justice the same as fairness?
Oink is offline  
Old Sep 24th 2012, 3:30 pm
  #268  
Banned
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,088
Boy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Spare a thought for these families.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
You do not seem to understand the maxim "Innocent until proven guilty"

If a Trial occurs and the defendant is acquitted, they are innocent, despite how "wrong" you think this is.

Most trials do not turn on charter arguments. They turn on facts. The facts presented may turn on charter arguments, but those are decided by a Judge.
I can only comment on criminal trials. I did talk at length about the presumption which really speaks to the nature of burden of proof, that is only during trial. I agree with Alan in all fairness that it comes down to semantics. But you are not legally correct at law.

Common law as i noted is really only talking about the onus on the crown. The criminal code actually does not use such language as innocent until proven guilty"

6. (1) Presumption of innocence

a person shall deemed to not be guilty of the offence until he is convicted or discharged under section 730......

My understanding as always been that innocence is a moral concept while not guilty is a legal term that, in the context of a criminal trial, means not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.....this is, not proven.

It comes down, as noted, to the notion of out trial system which only considers evidence of guilt. That is, the courts don't get to decide if a person is innocent or guilty only if the evidence supports guilt.

Theres a famous case of Quebec where someone was found not guilty after being convicted. A finding of innocence was demanded and the courts declined. It was something to do with creating a context of 3 verdicts: not guilty, guilty and innocent (not factually guilty). To do so would create different classes of those that can prove innocence vs those that can't , that is does having 3 findings highlight that a not guilty person may be actually guilty as they weren't found inncent? It creates something of a pardox. It also creates confusion as to the role of our trial system. Maybe civil trials etc operate differently. I have no idea. I can only comment on what i deal with. I've testified in many trials.

Certainly those found not guilty can be innocent and those found not guilty may be not innocent. Was OJ innocent? how about casey anthony?

Anyhow it really does come down to semantics i suppose but you are not correct at law.

As for your last point, yes i agree. Trials turn on facts and interpretation of facts. The reality is though, that most cases turn on the notion of how the police obtained evdience 24(2 ) of the Charter and the notion of fundamental justice. It's really the police investigation that is on trial, not the accused. Which again accords with the principle of assessing guilt not innocence. The accused rarely tesitifies.

Last edited by Boy d; Sep 24th 2012 at 3:44 pm.
Boy d is offline  
Old Sep 24th 2012, 3:34 pm
  #269  
Banned
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,088
Boy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond reputeBoy d has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Spare a thought for these families.

Originally Posted by Alan2005
I've done jury duty. I sat on five different trials and every time we were told to only consider facts. The fact that you had real power over the direction of somebodies life meant that everyone took it very seriously and took a lot of care to leave emotion out of it. Maybe that's not typical, but I was actually quite impressed by the way it worked.
Oh, they can work, just the risk that juries will convict on emotion and belief. So at least you understand the notion of assessing evidence and not guilt or innocence.

I guess i've been around the criminal justice system too long
Boy d is offline  
Old Sep 24th 2012, 3:41 pm
  #270  
Assimilated Pauper
 
dbd33's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 40,014
dbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Spare a thought for these families.

Originally Posted by Boy d
As for your last point, yes i agree. Trials turn on facts and interpretation of facts. The reality is though, that most cases turn on the notion of how the police obtained evdience 24(2 ) of the Charter and the notion of fundamental justice. It's really the police investigation that is on trial, not the accused.
I think this post eloquently makes the case that people can be in the police force too long. The idea that a trial is about the quality of argument presented by the police, with the accussed being peripheral, isn't one that would be advanced by anyone but a long term police officer. At some point experience should could count against police officers, their increased knowledge of criminal investigation is offset by their narrowing focus.
dbd33 is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.