|
Film Lounge Raided (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| -g- |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
public place |
in what strange world do you live? |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by -g-
in what strange world do you live? |
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. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
no, not 'exactly'. that is a ridiculous analogy and you guys do nothing but hurt your position when this type of garbage forms part of your arguments.
that is *not* what the logic states. reread the post and maybe do a *tiny* bit of research before making such ignorant comments.
are you really serious in attempting to compare an entire residential area of a city (never mind using the ill-defined boundary of an intersection when labelling it) with a specific commercial establishment with a well-documented history of illegal behaviour occurring within its walls by a significant % of patrons?
imagine how stupid it would sound to bring up that analogy as a defence in court.
the exceptions to warrants being required are not that wide ranging and if you bother to do any research, you will find all sorts of cases that have been thrown out of court where police have overstepped the law. as mentioned, relevant details include location, context, and even the method of the search and how that search was carried out.
and save your bull slippery slope 'wait until this happens at _________" crap because a distinction CAN be made between Film and whatever bar/club you're about to mention.
this didn't happen in someone's home or vehicle...or even out on the street. it also didn't happen where there was no prior history. this happened at a commercial establishment with a history of illegal behaviour. surely to god you're not so dense that you can't appreciate the difference.
pick your battles, people. defending drug dealers and users at a place like Film ought not be one of them. |
1) i dont defend drug dealers. I defend the innocent bystanders that get caught up in the middle of political bravado.
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? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by -g-
in what strange world do you live? |
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. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| 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 |
|
|
| -g- |
| 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. |
|
|
| Iwasthere |
| 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. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| 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. |
|
|
| Adamo |
| 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 |
|
|
| MarkT |
| 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. |
|
|
| Iwasthere |
| 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 |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| 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? |
|
|
|
|
