|
Man arrested at Ex for the devious act of.... (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Carney |
| ^^^^ i work in public parks and with the city. If we see people taking pictures of kids we are suppose to stop it or call the po. |
|
|
| Form&Funktion |
| quote: | | to confront this man and tell him to off otherwise he's going to get hurt. But that doesn't justify police assuming control of the matter. |
| quote: | | Again, there's no right to use physical force at all, by citizens or by police. |
I fail to see the consistency here.......what then is this HURT you speak of in the first statement if you do not advocate physical force?
| quote: | | Besides which, the codification of pedophilia as a criminal offence is a gray issue at best |
The fact that you concede that the laws regarding Pedaphilia are gray at best confirms my point that both the police and the courts are forced to make these borderline decisions on activity that suggests such offences and yet there is no shade of grey in your opposition to their actions towards this man. That is an inbalance in scope my friend.
I not once claimed he was guilty of anything...that is the rightful duty of the courts and "due process" to discern, not you or I. But it is clear his actions and subsequant non-cooperation after being confronted forced them to arrest him and in this environment of grey law interpretation...as you admit....it was their right to consider the situation and feel compelled to charge him. |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
public parks are in fact private property which why the city can enact and enforce its own bylaws. As well, the city can ask you to leave even if you arent doing anything illegal. If you refuse you can be charged with trespassing. Look to dundas square as an example of this. The rules regarding this square are pathetic to say the least. |
who is the enforcing body? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Carney
^^^^ i work in public parks and with the city. If we see people taking pictures of kids we are suppose to stop it or call the po. |
sure so that the polie can escort them off the property. Not so that they can get arrested for it. There's a huge difference |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
who is the enforcing body? |
city by-law dept... |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
city by-law dept... |
who enforces the criminal offences tho, not by-laws? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Form&Funktion
I fail to see the consistency here.......what then is this HURT you speak of in the first statement if you do not advocate physical force? |
Geez it was a figure of speech. You know, "beat it before I knock your block off." It's an empty threat, but very few people will take it lightly and intentionally escalate things to a potential fistfight. I think this applies ESPECIALLY to dirty old men who *probably* aren't overly confident in their ability to hold their own in hand-to-hand combat. :p
| quote: | | The fact that you concede that the laws regarding Pedaphilia are gray at best confirms my point that both the police and the courts are forced to make these borderline decisions on activity that suggests such offences and yet there is no shade of grey in your opposition to their actions towards this man. That is an inbalance in scope my friend. |
No Aaron, I'm not drifting into the realm of subjectivism here. I called the laws gray-area because despite being popular and morally easy to digest, they restrict freedom of expression in order to prevent an activity - an activity which does not necessarily cause harm to anyone or violate their own rights. It is in effect codifying morals, which is *precisely* the kind of action that our charter of rights was designed to prevent.
The certainty of my opposition, however, has little to do with whether or not the law is grey. Even if we accept the legitimacy of that law at face value, what this man did was not breaking it in any way or form. The police do not have authority to investigate every single instance of odd behaviour - not unless there is probable cause to believe that a law has been broken, which in this case, there was certainly not!
People have called this a "suspicious activity." Well think about what the word means. One dictionary definition of "suspicion" is The act of suspecting something, especially something wrong, on little evidence or without proof. Most definitions of suspicion hinge on the principle of doubt or uncertainty. Suspicion alone is not enough to warrant a police investigation - there has to be probable cause. Has nobody here heard this phrase before??
| quote: | | I not once claimed he was guilty of anything...that is the rightful duty of the courts and "due process" to discern, not you or I. But it is clear his actions and subsequant non-cooperation after being confronted forced them to arrest him and in this environment of grey law interpretation...as you admit....it was their right to consider the situation and feel compelled to charge him. |
Guilty or not guilty is not the issue here, the police had no right to arrest him or even investigate. Again, how many times must I bring up the words "probable cause?" That is supposed to be the cornerstone of good policing. What probable cause was there here? What criminal act could they have legitimately believed he might have been up to? Nobody has answered this question yet!
Edit: man, this concept should be easy to understand just by watching gritty detective shows. The police are glorified in these shows, but they'll never show the police actually making an arrest before there is a substantial body of evidence on which to do so.
The courts are only there to determine whether or not the evidence is valid and proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean that the police can make arrests without any evidence to begin with. |
|
|
| Flec |
| why was he not charged with resisting arrest if he ran away? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Flec
why was he not charged with resisting arrest if he ran away? |
How can you charge someone with resisting arrest when there's no grounds to arrest them in the first place!?
Argh, does nobody understand the concept of a criminal justice system? Even when a crime has ALREADY been committed, the police can't just run around arresting every suspect, they have to have evidence first! In this case, a crime hasn't even been committed!
You know, even if they had found out by ransacking his house that he was a child molester (which I'm sure was what they were hoping to find), I still would stand by my assessment of this. It is absolutely ridiculous that they would make an arrest. Maybe, MAYBE it would justify the police keeping an eye on him for a few days, making sure he doesn't do anything more serious, but that is as far as it should go. |
|
|
| djeso |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
So these kids were naked in public? If so its the parents that need to be charged. |
haven't you ever heard of a program like photoshop? |
|
|
| djeso |
| quote: | Originally posted by Form&Funktion
I fail to see the consistency here.......what then is this HURT you speak of in the first statement if you do not advocate physical force?
The fact that you concede that the laws regarding Pedaphilia are gray at best confirms my point that both the police and the courts are forced to make these borderline decisions on activity that suggests such offences and yet there is no shade of grey in your opposition to their actions towards this man. That is an inbalance in scope my friend.
I not once claimed he was guilty of anything...that is the rightful duty of the courts and "due process" to discern, not you or I. But it is clear his actions and subsequant non-cooperation after being confronted forced them to arrest him and in this environment of grey law interpretation...as you admit....it was their right to consider the situation and feel compelled to charge him. |
well said!!!!! |
|
|
| Form&Funktion |
| I think we are all forgetting that the police searched his home using a LEGAL search warrant. Therefore, it is irrefutable that clearly they presented enough "just cause" through evidence to convince a judge (who would understand law better than any of us any day of the year) to sign the warrant as legal and valid. So therefore, either both the police force AND the preciding judiciary, both are ignorant and/or brazenly ignoring standard law.......OR.....there WAS just cause!!!! |
|
|
|
|
