TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Film Lounge Raided
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 4 [5]

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced entering Jay's world is like watching your dad get molested by a clown....you know its going to affect you but your not quite sure how.

thats exactly how i feel about left wing politicians and activists LOL

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 the same world that allows politicians to pass laws about said "public places" like smoking laws, licensing, and just about any other law that defines between a public establishment (open to the general public) and your own private residence.

you have as little notion of actual law as you do about analogies.
public spaces are not those in which the general populace may reside or travel, but rather spaces owned by the government and not by private enterprise or citizens of the state.

film lounge ran under a business license. i suggest next time you keep that in mind before using words such as "public" space to describe that which is anything but.

moreover you might also like to educate yourself regarding actual case law concerning privacy rights in canada before forming an opinion on the matter. in particular i refer you to R. v. Edwards, [1996], or even more pertinently, discovering the correct use of terminology prior to espousing a legal opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT are you really serious in attempting to compare an entire residential area of a city

yes I Am

Everyone knows Jane & Finch has a high crime rate with loads of dealers. If the Law subjected all residents of that area to "a search" to determine whc's a crimnal, that would just be wrong.

I Am in no way defending drug dealers.

All i am saying is that patrons of a club can not be treated as drug dealers by Police.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 1) i dont defend drug dealers. I defend the innocent bystanders that get caught up in the middle of political bravado.

15 of ~84 were arrested for possession or dealing...and that doesn't include the # who ditched them, as drugs were noted to be on the floor. I think that's a significant enough % to toss your "innocent bystanders" comment.

we are also not talking about prolonged inconvenience or undue harassment. I think it's fair to say that anyone at Film knows what goes on there. you take your chances when going there vs. going to another club with no such documented history or % of people involved with drugs. this is precisely why location, context, etc. is very relevant to issues of warrantless search and seizure. common sense CAN prevail.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 2) how can the distinction be made between film and anywhere in public? I do know that the bus station washrooms are known havens for drug dealers. Should the police raid the washrooms and search everyone for possibly being invoved in drugs when they are just there to take care of nature's business? Seriously. How do you defend this?

you can't compare what goes on in an unsupervised public washroom with what is going on in a place of business, with staff directly involved. do you also think that a quarter to a third of all people using said washroom are dealing or in possession of drugs? I think not. that is relevant context.

Film lounge is not a bus station washroom. it is a commercial establishment with staff on hand...staff who were arrested for possession or dealing too.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced watching your dad get molested by a clown....you know its going to affect you but your not quite sure how.

JFL

quote:

Originally posted by Iwasthere yes I Am Everyone knows Jane & Finch has a high crime rate with loads of dealers. If the Law subjected all residents of that area to "a search" to determine whc's a crimnal, that would just be wrong. I Am in no way defending drug dealers. All i am saying is that patrons of a club can not be treated as drug dealers by Police.

yes, it would be wrong...because comparing a residential area of a city to a commercial establishment is pretty damn illogical.

if you can't make that distinction as it would apply under the law, then thank goodness you're not (I assume) in a position of power within the legislature, court system, or police dept.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT yes, it would be wrong...because comparing a residential area of a city to a commercial establishment bar is pretty damn illogical. if you can't make that distinction as it would apply under the law, then thank goodness you're not in a position of power within the legislature or police dept.

your post contains no facts that prove me wrong.

your attempt to make this arguement based on what you consider a "bad analogy" is pathetic

quote:

Originally posted by -g- you have as little notion of actual law as you do about analogies. public spaces are not those in which the general populace may reside or travel, but rather spaces owned by the government and not by private enterprise or citizens of the state. film lounge ran under a business license. i suggest next time you keep that in mind before using words such as "public" space to describe that which is anything but. moreover you might also like to educate yourself regarding actual case law concerning privacy rights in canada before forming an opinion on the matter. in particular i refer you to R. v. Edwards, [1996], or even more pertinently, discovering the correct use of terminology prior to espousing a legal opinion.

can u enlighten me then as to why the government will call this "public space" when it comes to passing such things as smoking laws?

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT 15 of ~84 were arrested for possession or dealing...and that doesn't include the # who ditched them, as drugs were noted to be on the floor. I think that's a significant enough % to toss your "innocent bystanders" comment.

ive been there numerous times. I dont do drugs, possess or deal in them nor do my friends. Had i been there that night I would have been an innocent bystander as many others would have been.

quote:

we are also not talking about prolonged inconvenience or undue harassment.

so being forced on the ground at gunpoint by a small army of cops and/or SWAT team is not undue harassment when you have done nothing and no one is in any danger?

quote:

I think it's fair to say that anyone at Film knows what goes on there. you take your chances when going there vs. going to another club with no such documented history or % of people involved with drugs. this is precisely why location, context, etc. is very relevant to issues of warrantless search and seizure. common sense CAN prevail.

whether they do or dont shouldnt make them a subject of harassment by the state in a supposed free democracy.

I don't understand people who believe everything the Toronto Police Service says in their press releases/news conferences. They claimed that they couldn't walk two feet without stepping on a vial of G and that it was a drug den.

Give me a break, these are the same people who said Zone was a the Bulk Barn of drugs. The hardest part is cutting out the bull shit and finding out the facts. Most of the stuff TPS puts out is propaganda made to make them look good.

I have been to Film a number of times and always went to support my friends and have a good time. Sure there were some things going on there that were questionable but find me a club that is drug free. Every club in Toronto will have drugs and like someone said in an earlier post, the cops target the smaller venues. They will never raid a club like Circa or Guvernment just for the fact they would need the military for crowd control.

Stuff like this happens from time to time, my guess Film will be safe for a while (unless the cops pull a zone and raid again right after) now as the police shift focus to the next one.

Long live Film Lounge <3

lisa needs braces

quote:

Originally posted by Brennen They will never raid a club like Circa or Guvernment just for the fact they would need the military for crowd control.

you obviously werent at republik that night it got raided... they practically did call in the army. 100 cops and dozens of SWAT in full riot gear all to find 2 guys with charges dropped almost immediately.

They knew they fucked up large the moment it happened which is why you never read about it in the newspapers.

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan I'm no lawyer, or an expert in law in any sense, but my understanding of law is that it is based upon common sense, and being 'reasonable' You're a cop and you make a drug bust at a club. You make several other busts at clubs. Would it be reasonable to believe that clubs have higher chance of being a place where drugs are found? And that you allocate resources accordingly to clubs because that's more likely place? And that people who frequent these clubs voluntarily have higher chance of associating with drug deals and whatnot? You put yourself under suspicion moment you choose to associate yourself with certain groups, no matter how innocent or guilty you are. Unless you're a complete numpty potatohead, you know there are drugs at clubs. So by agreeing to go to clubs, you put yourself voluntarily under suspicions.

Yeah, that's not even remotely how it works. Probable cause has to be established by individual circumstances; pointing to a statistic or loose correlation does not meet the bar.

In this case, however, it was the club that was being targeted, and there may very well have been real probable cause. In order to "search" that club, they had to search the people inside it, and once again, the story gives no detail as to whether they really pinned people to the ground and started turning out their pockets or if they were just able to use stupid psychological tricks to get what they wanted.

Most likely they don't even care about these individual possession charges, they're just going to try to plea-bargain them into making official statements that they can use as evidence against the owners and dealers.

You seem to be confusing concepts from civil law, where judges have considerable leeway as to how to interpret the facts of a case, and criminal law, where the rules are very specific about what police can and cannot do.

quote:

Originally posted by Iwasthere your post contains no facts that prove me wrong. your attempt to make this arguement based on what you consider a "bad analogy" is pathetic

the differences are reflected in our laws and in the case history of our courts.

if you think I'm going to invest the time and effort into looking that all up and reciting it here for you, assuming those are the 'facts" you need, that's not going to happen, lol.

so I dunno...I guess you win!

quote:

Originally posted by activate lisa needs braces

dental plan!

quote:

Originally posted by Iwasthere All i am saying is that patrons of a club can not be treated as drug dealers by Police.

Yes they can. If you think otherwise, then go ahead and tell the cop what you think and then see where that get's ya.

Did you forget the rule.

1) The cop is always right.

2) If you think the cop is wrong, then see rule number 1.

Cops have the law standing behind them, even when they apply undue force...no one. Not even you can say boo to them without paying a price.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 you obviously werent at republik that night it got raided... they practically did call in the army. 100 cops and dozens of SWAT in full riot gear all to find 2 guys with charges dropped almost immediately. They knew they fucked up large the moment it happened which is why you never read about it in the newspapers.

This was a bit different. They were under the impression a major smuggling ring was operating there and actually had names on a warrent they were going to arrest. When thye found out they were wrong it was obviously too late and they trumped up a few charges on two people that eventually got tossed out of court...

OS

quote:

Originally posted by b4k-oz Yes they can. If you think otherwise, then go ahead and tell the cop what you think and then see where that get's ya. Did you forget the rule. 1) The cop is always right. 2) If you think the cop is wrong, then see rule number 1. Cops have the law standing behind them, even when they apply undue force...no one. Not even you can say boo to them without paying a price.

Yes... you are absolutely right.....

And THAT is the outrage that you all accept as normal, deal with it, too bad for you, life...

quote:

Originally posted by DJOS2 They were under the impression a major smuggling ring was operating there

wow cops really are retarded.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.