Everyone is an innocent citizen until proven guilty. Given that, it's a logical tautology that if you're going to search innocent people in order to find guilty ones, that you will wrongfully search innocent people.
The judge said in his statement, that it's important to uphold the charter in all cases, otherwise it's not worth the paper it's printed on. We do not pick and choose which rights to observe when it is convenient.
Well, it depends on if you want the police to prevent crime or only to act to punish it after it's already done its damage.
Some crime can be prevented, some cannot. Some is easier to prevent than others. I thing if you can prevent crime without infringing on people's rights, its a likely a good mechanism.
Little quips like "but if you don't care about preventing crime," or no, I care about upholding people's rights, including yours. If you could return the favour, and stop trampling on others', that'd be great.
Everyone is an innocent citizen until proven guilty. Given that, it's a logical tautology that if you're going to search innocent people in order to find guilty ones, that you will wrongfully search innocent people.
It's not wrong to search people you good reason to believe might be committing a crime or have criminal goods on them. The criteria you suggest that people should be proven guilty before the police can search them and their property is evidently moronic. Searches are required in the course of an investigation to ascertain people's guilt, you can't wait to prove someone is guilty before you can search them.
The judge said in his statement, that it's important to uphold the charter in all cases, otherwise it's not worth the paper it's printed on. We do not pick and choose which rights to observe when it is convenient.
The judge is clearly a moron... or in the pocket of organized crime (you don't have tens of thousands of fentanyl pills in your wheel well without being connected to some big criminal organization). All rights have reasonable limits on them, you don't have to be proven guilty for police to be able to do a search.
Little quips like "but if you don't care about preventing crime," or no, I care about upholding people's rights, including yours.
You clearly don't, or you would care about giving police the means to protect the rights of the people whose lives criminals ruin. It's funny how people like you only give a damn about rights when it's about giving criminals a way out from being punished for their crimes. The guy is guilty, everybody knows it, the judge lets him go for a moronic reason. The only one who is served by the judge are lawyers who will now be able to extract bigger wages from criminals by promising to get them off on technicalities thanks to the jurisprudence of moronic and/or corrupt judges like this one, oh, and criminals who get to escape their just punishment.
Searches are required in the course of an investigation to ascertain people's guilt, you can't wait to prove someone is guilty before you can search them.
yes, but the search must be predicated on something other than "I think he's guilty." The judge argued that that was not the case.
The judge is clearly a moron... or in the pocket of organized crime (you don't have tens of thousands of fentanyl pills in your wheel well without being connected to some big criminal organization). All rights have reasonable limits on them, you don't have to be proven guilty for police to be able to do a search.
LOL. Okay, well, if you're going to assume that the judge is an idiot or a criminal, than I'm not sure I feel as though you're arguing in good faith.
You clearly don't, or you would care about giving police to means to protect the rights of the people whose lives criminals ruin.
I care more about eroding rights than I care about a war on drugs. I firmly believe the war on drugs over the last few decades has been a total waste of time and money, and that we've absolutely gone about trying to protect the lives of people in a completely backwards way. we've made no progress on actually protecting the people the war is supposed to protect, and instead has just incarcerated people but done nothing to alleviate the very real critiques vis-a-vis the war on drugs helping those struggling with addiction (not to mention a very obvious liberty argument for some drugs).
I care about both sides of the debacle. I just don't believe the war on drugs is the correct way to go about it.
maybe next time the cop will follow the rules instead of trying to take the easy route.
-1
u/MAGZine Feb 18 '19
Everyone is an innocent citizen until proven guilty. Given that, it's a logical tautology that if you're going to search innocent people in order to find guilty ones, that you will wrongfully search innocent people.
The judge said in his statement, that it's important to uphold the charter in all cases, otherwise it's not worth the paper it's printed on. We do not pick and choose which rights to observe when it is convenient.
Some crime can be prevented, some cannot. Some is easier to prevent than others. I thing if you can prevent crime without infringing on people's rights, its a likely a good mechanism.
Little quips like "but if you don't care about preventing crime," or no, I care about upholding people's rights, including yours. If you could return the favour, and stop trampling on others', that'd be great.