Spare a thought for these families.
#256
Banned
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 314
Re: Spare a thought for these families.
That's right. You said you were glad I was Arthur, because you were Martha
#257
Banned
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,088
Re: Spare a thought for these families.
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?
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?
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.
#258
limey party pooper
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,979
Re: Spare a thought for these families.
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.
#259
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 14,227
Re: Spare a thought for these families.
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.
#260
Banned
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,088
Re: Spare a thought for these families.
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.
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.
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.
#261
Banned
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,088
Re: Spare a thought for these families.
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.
#262
Re: Spare a thought for these families.
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.
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.
#263
Re: Spare a thought for these families.
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.
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.
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.
#264
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere between Vancouver & St Johns
Posts: 19,840
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.
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.
#265
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 14,227
Re: Spare a thought for these families.
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.
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.
#266
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere between Vancouver & St Johns
Posts: 19,840
Re: Spare a thought for these families.
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.
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.
#268
Banned
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,088
Re: Spare a thought for these families.
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.
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.
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.
#269
Banned
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,088
Re: Spare a thought for these families.
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.
I guess i've been around the criminal justice system too long
#270
Re: Spare a thought for these families.
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.