Cop Watch (was Ont. cops trained by Israeli Army)

[skdadl]

This is especially interesting today, given the release in England of the shocking video of the assault on Ian Tomlinson.

Interestingly, the guy who filmed the incident is -- wait for it -- an investment fund manager from New York.  The Guardian is keeping him anonymous, but it sounds as though he actually got back to the U.S. before he got in touch with the Guardian and offered up his tape.

Y'know, if the state is gonna film us all the time, then maybe we had better start walking around with our cams trained on them. Without this kind of evidence, knowing what they say before this kind of evidence turns up, how can we believe anything they say?

[Toedancer]

Yeah I read that, thank goodness for the widow and son of Tomlinson. Now bet the cops will say pre-existing heart-attack waiting to happen.  :roll:

[Mandos]

Y'know, if the state is gonna film us all the time, then maybe we had better start walking around with our cams trained on them. Without this kind of evidence, knowing what they say before this kind of evidence turns up, how can we believe anything they say?

I am planning on eventually doing this.  It will soon be possible to upload video directly to YouTube as you film it.

[Toedancer]

Cops can now 'take all your stuff'

In other words, if the police want your car, house, money or any other assets, they can get away with it without even arresting you as long as they convince a judge something doesn't smell right. No conviction necessary.

 :shock:

[skdadl]

I find that very confusingly written. The police have always been able to do certain things "on a balance of probabilities" before any trial occurs -- on what the Merkins call "probable cause" (maybe we do too, but I'm not sure) -- that's how they get warrants. All of that is a long way from conviction -- conviction is sort of irrelevant if the cops can talk a judge into believing that something is going wrong.

As the law professor there says, the police have to convince the judge that the "stuff" they want to seize is in some way instrumental to a crime. And it's not very realistic to think that no one will have been arrested and charged in such a situation.

This isn't so different from what happens when an accused comes up for bail. Even before a trial, the judge has to make a decision about whether to let an accused back out on the streets. That's done on balance of probabilities too.

I have no doubt that this system is often unfair and discriminatory, but there is an inherent tension in the law between presumption of innocence and probable danger. Think Paul Bernardo. Would you have let him go free on bail?

[Toedancer]

The Pest makes more sense

What I'm thinking about is how far some cops will go for the prosecution, including giving false testimony or perjuring themselves, destroying evidence etc. Now I know they do that most especially when they know the person is guilty, but there is also entrapment and other nefarious police tactics. Regarding entrapment Hurricane Carter comes to mind. And now we know previous policy telling officers not to use a taser repeatedly has been deleted despite the Robert Dziekanski fiasco. I can imagine a lot of cars being seized if cops even suspect you've got personal use grams of pot/hash. The judges are more than likely to side with the cop too.

[skdadl]

Toe, they scare me too, and we all know the discriminatory leaps they make, not first because they think you're guilty but because you look poor or black or native or crazy or otherwise just not the right sort of person to them.

So they scare me too. We had this discussion a week or so ago somewhere at POGGE, and PLG said something like "We need them, even if we need to reform them." (He went on to say that he didn't see why we need the intel guys, and I would agree with that too.)

We do need the cops, though, and there are a lot of times they have to act on probabilities. I do wish the stupid war on drugs would end, though.

[Toedancer]

6,000 British Army MP's learning how to use the Taser in Medicine Hat

“It was a bit more painful than I expected,” said British Army Warrant Officer Brett Stanford shortly after receiving a jolt from the Taser.
“I was rather nervous before hand but it was good fun, good training.”

Uh-huh, urban warfare training.

Is this what Harper meant when he said he wanted to boost military in our cities?

[Toedancer]

What Morton heard on the radio. Toronto police will search, so the radio says, 6000 homes all without a warrant.

Sheesh, none of the commentors even 'checked' for a source, to find out why.

60 investigators join hunt for Mariam

Mariam's disappearance has had me scratching my head many times. My final conclusion was she was spoken to by a stranger, who maybe called from his car to the school entrance, on some sort of pretext, she was taken and is being held prisoner for all kinds of nefarious, sick reasons. Except that doesn't explain finding the schoolbag behind in a parking lot, unless she was fearful enough to throw her bag out as a clue.

Regarding without a search warrant is another question. I know I would say yes, for the goal of finding her.

[skdadl]

Hmmn. We need a lawyer to advise.

I've always been told that you should never invite the police into your home because they are then free to do a lot of things you didn't think you were inviting them in for. If they have a warrant, you have to let them in, but otherwise, no.

I see the problem in cases like these. I'm wondering whether there shouldn't be some legal instrument that a judge could give the police that authorizes mass searches for a single purpose but puts very strict limits on them.

Hard to imagine a cop not looking at everything he can, though, and of course some people are more vulnerable to abuse from the cops than are others. I remember the cop who arrived with the paramedics at our place one morning -- he had a very fast walk-through and scoped out everything (as T was having a grand mal seizure).

[Bacchus]

If a cop thinks/believes a felony is cirrently going on in a residence, he can enter without invitation or warrant

[Toedancer]

I know, I just posted in the RCMP/Tazering thread, but I can't help but post this as well. Just to let you all know nothing has changed with protecting their own. This time his word against a 15 year old, except she's older now and pushed on by her bf to speak.

Trial resumes for N.B. Mountie charged with sexual exploitation of girl This scum was a family friend.

“You don’t remember telling him all the fun he could have with you if he didn’t believe in God?” said James Letcher during his cross-examination of the woman Monday in court of Queen’s Bench in Moncton, N.B.
“And that no one would believe he did anything wrong because he was a Christian?”
The 20-year-old woman, who was 15 when the alleged incidents occurred in the fall of 2004 and can’t be named due to a court-ordered publication ban, said she didn’t say those things to Codiac RCMP Cpl. Alain Boulianne.

Boulianne is again only suspended with pay.

You can google and look all over the entire country, from sea to sea to sea, and see the same thing. Nothing's changed. It's sick, it's exploitive, and it continues on with THIS GOVERNMENT especially. Because Calvinists are all in the same club. Fuck You!

[Bacchus]

Not to defend these fucks but given that they are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, they could only be suspended with pay, pending the outcome of the court. Anything more and their rights would be violated. After the guilty verdict then they should be fired :rant:

[skdadl]

Calvinists? Where did that come from?

Bacchus is right: you can't sentence anyone before he's even been tried.

We don't usually make fun of people's names here, but it's beyond irony that that attorney's name is Letcher.

[Toedancer]

Calvinists? Where did that come from?

 :lol:  I was equating their Omnipotent God to the RCMP's Omnipotent powers to always cover their asses.