Bang.....bang.....Don't tell. shhhhh.....
ri...@servtech.com
[Toronto Star Home Page] [Torstar] [Classified ads] [Contact us]
[Star Mall] [Toronto Star Home Page]
[News]
[IBM Home Computing Interactive]
[ PREVIOUS STORY ] April 3, 1997 [ NEXT STORY ]
[Image]
Officers won't talk to SIU by deadline
Five witnessed fatal shooting of civilian
By Philip Mascoll - Toronto Star Staff Reporter
The lawyer for five Metro police officers who were witnesses to Sunday's
fatal shooting has thumbed his nose at tonight's deadline for his clients
to give their statements to civilian investigators.
Lawyer J.J. Burke said special investigations unit (SIU) director André
Marin set today's 5 p.m. deadline without consulting him or his clients. He
called the move ``morally bankrupt.''
Burke refused to say when the officers will talk to the SIU about Sunday's
fatal shooting of 31-year-old Hugh George Dawson, other than that it will
be ``in due course.
``He (Marin) set a mandatory deadline and we will not comply with that.
``We will comply (with the giving of statements). I have never once said
they will not comply. But to put a deadline on something without even
asking me is morally bankrupt.''
Marin also refused yesterday to release any details of the autopsy on
Dawson ``to protect the integrity of the investigation.
``The post mortem lasted four hours and the cause of death was determined
to be multiple gunshot wounds,'' he said, refusing to say how many bullets
struck Dawson, or where.
Metro police officers were barred from attending the autopsy, he said.
Last night, Marin fired off a letter to Burke demanding that all five
officers meet SIU investigators simultaneously for their individual
interviews.
Burke represents Detectives Peter Gibson and Keith Rogers, and Detective
Constables Phil Chan, Albert Flis and Lorelei McIvor, all drug squad
officers who witnessed the shooting at the intersection of Kennedy and
Danforth Rds. in Scarborough.
Detective Constables Rick Shank and Rajeev Sukurmaran, who fired the shots
that killed the father of two, have yet to talk to the SIU as well. They
have the right to remain silent under the Charter of Rights since they
could be facing criminal charges.
Metro police Chief David Boothby has told reporters police shot Dawson
after he tried to grab an officer's gun.
Ontario Solicitor-General Bob Runciman stressed in the Legislature
yesterday that ``witness officers'' are explicitly required to co-operate
with the SIU under the Police Act.
Yesterday, Metro Police Association vice-president Jack Richie criticized
the SIU for ``wasting time being heavy-handed about officers not
co-operating,'' instead of focusing on other important aspects of the
investigation.
Meanwhile, the Jamaican Canadian Association and the East Indian Defence
Committee joined the Toronto Black Leadership Coalition in condemning the
latest Metro police shooting.
``We are concerned, not just about the over-all pattern of killings, but
the fact that in this particular case the officer involved had shot one of
our young people two years ago,'' spokesperson Deborah Headley said.
Headley was referring to the fatal shooting of Ian Coley on April 20, 1993,
by Shank, then a uniformed patrol officer at 41 Division in Scarborough.
In that case, the SIU cleared Shank of any wrongdoing.
Yesterday, immigration officials said Dawson had been deported four times
from Canada since 1991 - once after immigration officials discovered he'd
been charged twice with possession of cocaine.
He pleaded guilty in one case and was sentenced to time served. The other
charge was withdrawn.
Dawson was jailed for 90 days in 1995 on immigration offences and deported
for the last time on June 5, 1995.
-------------------
With files from Phinjo Gombu and Harold Levy
[Image]
[ PREVIOUS STORY ] [ NEXT STORY ]
Woman searching for Strike at York
trucker who was her splits students
highway savior
[Toronto Star Home Page] [Torstar] [Classified ads] [Contact us]
[News] [Toronto Star Home Page]
Contents copyright © 1996, 1997, The Toronto Star.
User interface, selection and arrangement copyright © 1996, 1997
Torstar Electronic Publishing Ltd.
Do you have questions or feedback? Please click here to contact
us.
jc...@###iconnect.net
>for the last time on June 5, 1995.
While I understand thyat you think the Officers failure to respond in
a manner prescribed by thier dept. may lend itself to the appearence
of impropriorty. I don'y understand why you believe that the publics
right to know or even the families right to know should come before
the officers rights?
Investigations often times take weeks to complete maybe longer. I
personally see nothing wrong with the Officers in question following
what appears to be advice of thier attorneys?
The fact that the Officer has been involved in more than one shooting
incident has no bearing on the present case. He may just work an area
where people are more violent towards Cops.
You describe the victime as a "father of two" in what seems to me an
attempt to gain pity for the man. Then you relate that he plead guilty
to a cocaine charge, and was deported four times. Does not sound like
too good a family man to me.
I doubt there is a big cover up or conspiracy here. Just a case of the
Officers covering thier legal behinds as well thay should.
PJC
Mark Thomen
In <3346bdda...@news.iconnect.net>, jcook@ ###iconnect.net writes:
>On Thu, 03 Apr 97 22:24:45 GMT, ri...@servtech.com wrote:
>While I understand thyat you think the Officers failure to respond in
>a manner prescribed by thier dept. may lend itself to the appearence
>of impropriorty. I don'y understand why you believe that the publics
>right to know or even the families right to know should come before
>the officers rights?
Right. Anyone following the Jon-Benet Ramsey case should remember that
so far, the parents have STILL refused to give the police a statement. Do
you consider that to be horrible?
Mark Thomen
Remove "no-spam" from address to send e-mail.
William Gray
tho...@ibm.net (Mark Thomen) writes:
Yes, I do. And it makes them look suspicious to me. But as I
understand the law, they have the right to remain silent, and I must
respect and defend their assertion of that right.
But I have no opinion on the officers under investigation that started
this thread. Is this not the one about Canadian cops who have been
involved in on-duty shootings that have caused a political uproar? If
so, since I don't know the Canadian system and they and their attorney's
presumably do, I have no clue whether they are doing the smart, ethical,
legal thing to do, and no reason to doubt that they are acting properly
if inconveniently for their political opponents.
Regards,
Bill
Rod McCallum
jc...@iconnect.net wrote...
>
>While I understand thyat you think the Officers failure to respond in
>a manner prescribed by thier dept. may lend itself to the appearence
>of impropriorty. I don'y understand why you believe that the publics
>right to know or even the families right to know should come before
>the officers rights?
As I've said before and I will say it again, with extraordinary powers come
extraordinary obligations. If police hesitate to say what happened, they
should, automatically, be charged with murder.
>Investigations often times take weeks to complete maybe longer. I
>personally see nothing wrong with the Officers in question following
>what appears to be advice of thier attorneys?
I've got an idea, why don't we extend the period of acceptable silence to
*forever*? In the case of the two officers who falsely arrested me in June
of 1991, and had me thrown in jail for seven weeks, and caused me to be
fired for not showing up for work, they still, to this day, have never made
any statement to an investigator. So let's see, that's 1997 - 1991 = 6
years of silence. So why don't we just give all police officers at least
six years to come up with some answers? Otherwise, we seem to be
prejudicing the rights of certain officers to keep their mouths shut,
forever.
>The fact that the Officer has been involved in more than one shooting
>incident has no bearing on the present case. He may just work an area
>where people are more violent towards Cops.
More violent toward cops? You mean areas like Parkdale where someone in
custody breaks a police officer's hand with his face? I agree, such
violence is deplorable.
>I doubt there is a big cover up or conspiracy here. Just a case of the
>Officers covering thier legal behinds as well thay should.
Yeah, right, no cover-up, that explains why the chief immediately came up
with a bullshit story, that there'd been a struggle over a gun. Metro
Toronto fucked up big-time, but don't expect those big brave boys and girls
to admit it. They don't know how to admit that they've made a mistake.
Standard police policy is to circle the wagons and get real creative with
the stories. Each time they fuck up, it's Alice Through the Looking Glass.
Metro Toronto police are bullshit artists, senior officers on that force are
bullshit artists, and the chief himself, David Boothby, is certainly a
bullshit artist, which I know from personal experience in dealing with Dave
and the other guys. Now, I want to ask you, how do expect the public to
have much confidence in a police force that routinely operates on the basis
of lies, fairy tales, secret smear jobs and bullshit? Where's the integrity
and accountability in that sleazy, slimy approach to law enforcement?
Rod McCallum
Toronto
Rod McCallum
gr...@visi.com wrote...
>
>I have no ... no reason to doubt that they are acting properly
>if inconveniently for their political opponents.
Right, shoot someone to death and then keep your mouth shut about what
happened. The question is, if it was your wife lying dead in the car, shot
to death by police, would you want them to say what happened, and explain
how it is that she ended up riddled by police bullets? Would you then say,
"The officers involved are acting properly in refusing to give a statement
to investigators"?
Put in those terms, I think nine out of ten people would want the officers
involved to say what happened, and they would also want the officers' story
to match the story of independent witnesses, and the evidence at the scene,
and the results of the autopsy. But you can't start matching up much of
anything when the cops responsible for a death have clammed up and refused
to give statements.
My own thinking on the subject is that any time the police have caused a
death and are silent, they ought to be charged with murder. To me,
their silence says that they've crossed the line, fucked up or otherwise not
been very good at their jobs. But police officers seem to think that
silence will gloss all that over. I think that their abuse of the right to
silence is why the right to silence should *not* apply to police officers.
The police have too much power, and they routinely abuse the right to
silence. In their case, it becomes obstruction of justice.
I know very well from personal experience how often the police obstruct
justice, and use silence to try to cover up big, big mistakes. And so every
time I hear that they're refusing to cooperate, I think, OK, here we go
again. They fucked up big-time, and now they want to keep their mouths
shut. Why? Because they're cowards. Little boys in big men's bodies. And
in many case, little brainless boys, and girls. Little unethical brainless
boys and girls. Little arrogant Nazi storm-troopers, in uniform.
Sieg heil, Metro cop guys and gals, and don't forget to keep your mouths
shut, about what you know about that A-1 major fuck-up. You wouldn't want
to get your pals on the force in trouble, would you.
Rod McCallum
Toronto
William Gray
ste...@idirect.com (Rod McCallum) writes:
>gr...@visi.com wrote...
>>
>>I have no ... no reason to doubt that they are acting properly
>>if inconveniently for their political opponents.
>Right, shoot someone to death and then keep your mouth shut about what
>happened. The question is, if it was your wife lying dead in the car, shot
>to death by police, would you want them to say what happened, and explain
>how it is that she ended up riddled by police bullets? Would you then say,
>"The officers involved are acting properly in refusing to give a statement
>to investigators"?
I am firmly on both sides of stories like this. When I get evidence of police
misconduct, I scream bloody murder. Maybe that is what happened in Toronto; I
have NOT been following the thread.
I responded to one simple question: Do I think it is bad that Jon Benet's
parents have so far refused to give a statement. And yes, I do. But I think
that is less bad than denying them their rights.
I have detailed more than one killing by US police in which I am of the decided
opinion that they got away with murder, scot free. Other readers in this
newsgroup can easily confirm that. But my outrage in these cases is not that
due process was followed, but that it very clearly was NOT followed. Cases
were covered up by prosecutors instead of being presented forthrightly to grand
juries, for example.
My outrage is not due to a lynch mob mentality like yours, which seeks to deny
police officers due process of law. I have demanded, in no uncertain terms,
that there be ONE standard in law for human conduct and that all of us, police
or citizen alike, be held to the same standard.
So, WRT to cops refusing to speak to investigators who, presumably, would be
happy to turn their statements against them, I would no more compel a police
officer to testify against himself than I would allow you to compel me to
testify against myself. Some abuses may escape punishment that way; that is a
risk any system based on the presumption of innocence accepts.
But there are cases where the physical evidence and evidence from other
witnesses provides more than sufficient evidence to present to a grand jury and
yet this step is not taken. If that is the case in Toronto--and I know nothing
about your legal system--then you have good cause for your rage.
I suggest you direct it constructively.
Bill
Alleycat
WAS: Bang.....bang.....Don't tell. shhhhh.....
_______________________________
tho...@ibm.net (Mark Thomen) wrote:
Right. Anyone following the Jon-Benet Ramsey case should remember
that so far, the parents have STILL refused to give the police a
statement. Do you consider that to be horrible?
Mark Thomen
__________________________
You would think they would be given a certain number of days to make a
statement, or be arrested for the crime they're accused of until such
time as they speak up. Also, I thought they took sperm samples.
Whatever happened to those? -- Alleycat
__________________________
Trish
On Wed, 09 Apr 1997 17:58:25 GMT, op...@mail.netshop.net (Alleycat)
wrote:
Last I heard (please correct me if I am wrong, I am not trying to
follow the case as closely as some) her parents had not be accused of
the murder, as of this time. Lab results indicated that the child was
not molested at the time of the killing. I had heard (speculation?)
about possible prior molestation, but nothing of late.
Since I have no idea how the law is written in matters such as
these, I am very curious just how long they (the parents) can go
without giving any statements to the LE officials. Maybe they have
been reading the group and decided to take kip's advice. ;)
The Big Kahuna
>WAS: Bang.....bang.....Don't tell. shhhhh.....
>_______________________________
>
>tho...@ibm.net (Mark Thomen) wrote:
>
>Right. Anyone following the Jon-Benet Ramsey case should remember
>that so far, the parents have STILL refused to give the police a
>statement. Do you consider that to be horrible?
>
>Mark Thomen
>__________________________
>
>You would think they would be given a certain number of days to make a
>statement, or be arrested for the crime they're accused of until such
>time as they speak up. Also, I thought they took sperm samples.
>Whatever happened to those? -- Alleycat
>__________________________
>
>
>
>
Rather odd the parents refuse to cooperate with the investigation. I
would think one would be anxious to help in any way possible.
B K
Ian Murray
Rod McCallum wrote:
>
> I know very well from personal experience how often the police obstruct
> justice, and use silence to try to cover up big, big mistakes. And so every
> time I hear that they're refusing to cooperate, I think, OK, here we go
> again. They fucked up big-time, and now they want to keep their mouths
> shut.
Exactly. Notice that in the few cases where Metro police shoot someone
who is clearly posing a threat, such as pointing a gun at them,
their co-operation with the SIU is immediate and forthright. But when
they KNOW they're in the wrong, they're not talking.
Ian Murray
Nosy
<In article <334c0a74....@nntp.ix.netcom.com> BigK...@ix.netcom.com (The Big Kahuna) writes:
\< On Wed, 09 Apr 1997 17:58:25 GMT, op...@mail.netshop.net (Alleycat)
< wrote:
SOMEONE wrote:
< >WAS: Bang.....bang.....Don't tell. shhhhh.....
< >_______________________________
< >
< >tho...@ibm.net (Mark Thomen) wrote:
< >
< >Right. Anyone following the Jon-Benet Ramsey case should remember
< >that so far, the parents have STILL refused to give the police a
< >statement. Do you consider that to be horrible?
This statement is not accurate. CNN has reported several
times so far that the Ramsey's are willing to give a statement
but only a joint statement, they have refused to be interviewed
separately.
This is not the same as "parents have STILL refused to give the
police a statement".
It is a requirement that strikes me as rather odd, at the very
least.
Alleycat wrote:
>__________________________
< >
< >You would think they would be given a certain number of days to make a
< >statement, or be arrested for the crime they're accused of until such
< >time as they speak up. Also, I thought they took sperm samples.
< >Whatever happened to those? -- Alleycat
>__________________________
No one has been charged in the Ramsey case, to the best of
my knowledge. Samples of hair and other bodily samples have
been taken, allegedly, from many people including neighbors,
relatives, people in Boulder who have some contact socially
with the Ramsey's, etc.
< Rather odd the parents refuse to cooperate with the investigation.
This claim is false. The parents refuse to be interviewed
separately, they have not refused to cooperate.
<I would think one would be anxious to help in any way possible.
Yes.
In such a bizarre case, people may act in unusual ways,
too.
John Chase
In <334be045....@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, p-craig1@uiuc*edu (Trish) writes:
>
> Since I have no idea how the law is written in matters such as
>these, I am very curious just how long they (the parents) can go
>without giving any statements to the LE officials.
In a word: "Forever".
-jc-
Rod McCallum
gr...@visi.com wrote...
>
>My outrage is not due to a lynch mob mentality like yours, which
>seeks to deny police officers due process of law. I have demanded,
>in no uncertain terms, that there be ONE standard in law for human
>conduct and that all of us, police or citizen alike, be held to the
>same standard.
I'm certainly part of no "lynch mob mentality". The issues I've
raised on the Usenet of late have involved:
(1) my inability to lay charges against police, because I've been
repeatedly obstructed by justices of the peace;
(2) my inability to have my complaints against police properly
investigated, because the Metro Toronto Public Complaints
Investigation Bureau is thoroughly corrupt, and so is the Ontario
Police Complaints Commission, and so is the B.C. Police Commission;
(3) my inability to sue police because
(a) the Ontario Legal Aid Plan won't help me, and
(b) when I used my own meagre welfare money to file a lawsuit
against Metro Toronto police, two lawyers from City Hall went into
court and lied about the situation, and
(c) provincial court judges have repeatedly obstructed me.
Now, why all the hang-wringing about the rights of police, when
obviously I have precious few legal rights in the thoroughly corrupt
and slanted Ontario legal system? My career's been destroyed; my
health has been destroyed; what do I have left? Where is my future?
Police officers have exceptional powers, and I would argue that
exceptional powers without corresponding exceptional obligations
(like an obligation to give a statement to investigators) is the
basis for lawless police forces, i.e. police forces which consider
themselves to be above the law. Meaning they arrest you, or
whatever, and then they keep their mouths shut about why they did
what they did. Why? To obstruct justice. So that they won't get in
trouble. Because they are cowards.
Police officers are not ordinary citizens! An ordinary citizen does
not have the right to take me from my home and keep me confined for
two months, for no good reason. If a private citizen did that to me,
it would called kidnapping and unlawful confinement, and most likely
it would warrant a term in a penitentiary.
If you insist that the police have legal rights, then where are my
legal rights? And since the police are the ones with all the power
-- far too much power, in my opinion -- whose rights are more
important, mine or theirs? They have a big union with lots of money
to hire lawyers to represent them. I'm a welfare recipient, thanks
to them, and I have received no assistance whatsoever from the
Ontario Legal Aid Plan, to fight them. Where is my lawyer, to
represent me, against a corporation with an annual budget of $500
million?
In Toronto a cop has 5,000 or so pals on the force to back him or her
up with expenses and so on, if one of them is prosecuted. And if
they're suspended, nine times out of ten they keep on earning their
salary. And nine times out of ten, they are not demoted or fired,
even if there is a lot of evidence of misconduct. Me, I got fired
from my job at IBM even though there was not a blessed microbe of
evidence of wrongdoing. I phoned Metro Toronto police for
assistance; they arrested and jailed me. That's what happened in
June 1991, when they put me out of work. I phoned Metro Toronto
police for assistance. I was the one who got locked up, and fired,
for not showing up for work.
I was certainly willing to talk to the investigator. Who wasn't
willing to talk? The two officers who arrested me. They have yet to
give a statement. But what did those bastards do? They cooked up a
smear job. I was made out to be a kook, someone who'd "boasted to a
CBC reporter about getting away with four murders".
That was the story from the Metro Toronto Police Bullshit Force.
I'm not a one-man "lynch mob". All I am is man who wants his rights
in law, to sue, and have his complaints properly looked into. As
long as I'm not able to exercise my legal rights, I'll continue to
piss on Metro Toronto police, and the crowns, and what those
brainless assholes represent. False arrest, brutality, lies, smear,
innuendo, insults, silence, false investigation, false denial of
bail, malicious prosecution, obstruction of justice and bullshit.
And I think some people have noticed how David Boothby cranked up the
old Metro Toronto police bullshit machine again after this latest
shooting. Ask me if I'm surprised.
Rod McCallum
Toronto
Alleycat
WAS: Re: Bang.....bang.....Don't tell. shhhhh.....
____________________________________________
ri...@servtech.com wrote:
The lawyer for five Metro police officers who were witnesses to
Sunday's fatal shooting has thumbed his nose at tonight's deadline for
his clients to give their statements to civilian investigators.
Lawyer J.J. Burke said special investigations unit (SIU) director
André Marin set today's 5 p.m. deadline without consulting him or his
clients. He called the move ``morally bankrupt.''
Burke refused to say when the officers will talk to the SIU ... <SNIP>
other than that it will be ``in due course.
``He (Marin) set a mandatory deadline and we will not comply with
that. ``We will comply (with the giving of statements). I have never
once said they will not comply. But to put a deadline on something
without even asking me is morally bankrupt.''
<SNIP>
Last night, Marin fired off a letter to Burke demanding that all five
officers meet SIU investigators simultaneously for their individual
interviews.
Detective Constables... <SNIP> have yet to talk to the SIU as well.
They have the right to remain silent under the Charter of Rights since
they could be facing criminal charges.
Ontario Solicitor-General Bob Runciman stressed in the Legislature
yesterday that ``witness officers'' are explicitly required to
co-operate with the SIU under the Police Act.
______________________________
This is interesting. I'm trying to compare the laws in different
countries with regard to the rights to remain silent with regard to
giving statements to the police. I'll start with Canada. Does anyone
know the answers to these questions?.
(1)In Canada, people are allowed the right to remain silent under the
Charter of Rights. Is this right is overpowered for police by the
Police Act? If so, what does the Police Act say?
(2) I'm assuming that (a) the public, (b) the police, and (c)
government officials, all have different rights in with regard to
remaining silent. Is this true? Is there anyone ELSE who has
different rights? If so, who, and how do they differ?
(3) Does anyone know "which" government officials in Canada are
granted immunity, and exactly what "immunity" means in this country?
(4) If a person has the right to remain silent, does this right
last for a lifetime, and does it apply under all
circumstances?
(5) Are these rights the same all across the country?
(Also interested in hearing from people in other countries.
Thanks.) -- Alleycat
__________________________
Trish
Yikes! So even if they did it, they can never be required to answer
questions that are a normal part of the investigation? Sheesh, how
did we get to this?
theodore nemetz
In article <5ijjon$gr6$1...@noc.van.hookup.net> op...@mail.netshop.net (Alleycat) writes:
>Path:
>news.inforamp.net!ott.istar!news.istar.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ais.net!noc.van.
>hookup.net!not-for-mail
>From: op...@mail.netshop.net (Alleycat)
>Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement,can.legal,ont.general,can.politics
>Subject: Re: Rights to Remain Silent -- Forever?
>Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 20:52:55 GMT
>Organization: HookUp Communication Corporation, Vancouver, BC, CANADA
>Lines: 64
>Message-ID: <5ijjon$gr6$1...@noc.van.hookup.net>
>References: <5i1b28$cbr$2...@post.servtech.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: kamloops-110.netshop.net
>X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
>Xref: news.inforamp.net alt.law-enforcement:119066 can.legal:20998
>ont.general:100103 can.politics:180423
>WAS: Re: Bang.....bang.....Don't tell. shhhhh.....
>____________________________________________
>ri...@servtech.com wrote:
(snipped as being not relevant)
>This is interesting. I'm trying to compare the laws in different
>countries with regard to the rights to remain silent with regard to
>giving statements to the police. I'll start with Canada. Does anyone
>know the answers to these questions?.
>(1)In Canada, people are allowed the right to remain silent under the
>Charter of Rights. Is this right is overpowered for police by the
>Police Act? If so, what does the Police Act say?
In Ontario the police act is silent on this point. The protocol that exists
is that officers who are witness' MUST speak to the SIU. Those designated as
possible suspects do not have to talk to the SIU.
>(2) I'm assuming that (a) the public, (b) the police, and (c)
>government officials, all have different rights in with regard to
>remaining silent. Is this true? Is there anyone ELSE who has
>different rights? If so, who, and how do they differ?
Nobody is every obliged to speak to the police. Even a witness can tell a
police officer that he chooses not to speak and that is their choice.
A different test is applicable if the party is required to attend court (or
similar body) and in that case they can be compelled to give evidence.
>(3) Does anyone know "which" government officials in Canada are
>granted immunity, and exactly what "immunity" means in this country?
Immunity is exactly what it says. A promise of no prosecution for specific
crimes in exchange for evidence and/or testimony. It is granted by the crown
attorney.
>(4) If a person has the right to remain silent, does this right
>last for a lifetime, and does it apply under all
>circumstances?
The right to remain silent is the right give to an accused or detained person.
The right exists for so long as the person is an accused or detained person.
When he/she is no longer an accused or detained person the charter protection
is not applicable. The wording of the charter itself makes that claer and the
person continues to have no obligation to speak to the police.
It is not an offence in canada to refuse to co-operate with the police. The
crime is for providing false or misleading information.
>(5) Are these rights the same all across the country?
Criminal law is federal
no name for obvious reasons
> Nobody is every obliged to speak to the police. Even a witness can tell a
> police officer that he chooses not to speak and that is their choice.
>
> A different test is applicable if the party is required to attend court (or
> similar body) and in that case they can be compelled to give evidence.
>
> >last for a lifetime, and does it apply under all
> >circumstances?
>
> The right to remain silent is the right give to an accused or detained person.
> The right exists for so long as the person is an accused or detained person.
> When he/she is no longer an accused or detained person the charter protection
> is not applicable. The wording of the charter itself makes that claer and the
> person continues to have no obligation to speak to the police.
>
> It is not an offence in canada to refuse to co-operate with the police. The
> crime is for providing false or misleading information.
>
One day in the not too distant past, I had managed to unknowingly
accidentally dial 911. I was on the phone after that which I presume is
when the police had called to verify the call. I hang up my other call
and then I hear a knock at my door. I'm standing there in my housecoat
and barefeet and unkempt hair telling the officer that I didn't call
911. He asked if he could come in to have a look around.
At this point I would be interested to know if he should've supplied a
search warrant.
Anyway, having every respect for the 911 service and not wanting any
suspicions, I let him in. He poked around a bit but not everywhere like
I expected he would've wanted to. He asks my name.
At this point, along the lines of this thread, I'm wondering if I
shouldn't've said anything.
I give him my name anyway.
He asks for my birthdate. Now I actually start to challenge him a bit on
the invasion of my privacy. Not only is he in my private residence but
now he wants to know private information about me. He mostly wants to
know if I actually belong in the house. Like I don't with housecoat and
barefeet but that seemed lost on him. After some discussion, I
relinquish this invasion and hand him my drivers license that has my
picture and my address. He simply dutifully writes down the birthdate
and then he decides to leave.
In hindsight I think I should've showed him my license but covering the
birthdate.
Now to some, they might say, 'whats the big deal?'. I say it's my
privacy and freedom and yours. Where does it end? If we all blindly give
in to private information about ourselves like that StatsCan survey that
we have to answer during a 3 hour interrogation under pain of a jail
term then we lose our freedom and privacy.
My question is to verify that could I have in fact just stood there and
not said a thing? What could he have done? What is he able to do? Might
I now be completely destroyed like that Rod McCallum character says
they've done to him just for the sake of asserting my rights as a free
citizen in a supposedly free country.
I must say also that if the government and the law enforcement agencies
want to have the public cheering on their side then they sure as heck
better be willing to make sure that the public doesn't get turned off of
them and start jeering them and not having faith in them. I truly want
to have faith in my law enforcement officers but this kind of stuff just
turns off that faith.
If the officer had seen that there were no bodies tied up in any closets
then he should've just simply left without further ado.
I would also add that I would be willing to pay for the cost of them
showing up at my door due to my mistake, albeit unknowingly. Just not at
the expense of my rights.
Thanks for listening
Mark Thomen
It's called the 5th amendment - ever heard of it?
Chase Emma Lee A
Maybe you had a gun pointed at you from a person standing behind the door.
Maybe the cops shoulda done that when Karla called from the scene of
where Bernardo's victim laid unconcious in heart failure. (jane doe)
Remember her frantic 911 call?
You
should thank him for being thorough...
emma
no name for obvious reasons (som...@somewhere.com) wrote:
: > Nobody is every obliged to speak to the police. Even a witness can tell a
--
******************************************
Common sense is far from common --Voltaire
******************************************
Walter Petelka
ste...@idirect.com (Rod McCallum) wrote:
>:]gr...@visi.com wrote...
>:]>
>:]>I have no ... no reason to doubt that they are acting properly
>:]>if inconveniently for their political opponents.
>:]
>:]Right, shoot someone to death and then keep your mouth shut about what
Police officers would be more inclined to co-operate, and not excersice
their rights, if they weren't called murders and presumed to be guilty
by the likes of doodley loos in the media without any of the facts.
>:]happened. The question is, if it was your wife lying dead in the car, shot
>:]to death by police, would you want them to say what happened, and explain
>:]how it is that she ended up riddled by police bullets? Would you then say,
Just another example of police bashing........
>:]"The officers involved are acting properly in refusing to give a statement
>:]to investigators"?
>:]
>:]Put in those terms, I think nine out of ten people would want the officers
>:]involved to say what happened, and they would also want the officers' story
If this was true you would have seem a public outcry but 9 our of 10
people still believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."
>:]to match the story of independent witnesses, and the evidence at the scene,
>:]and the results of the autopsy. But you can't start matching up much of
>:]anything when the cops responsible for a death have clammed up and refused
>:]to give statements.
The officers will give their side of the story in a forum that protects
their rights.
>:]
>:]My own thinking on the subject is that any time the police have caused a
>:]death and are silent, they ought to be charged with murder. To me,
>:]their silence says that they've crossed the line, fucked up or otherwise not
Would you apply the same to the accussed in the Just Deserts murder, the
Baylis murder, etc.?
>:]been very good at their jobs. But police officers seem to think that
>:]silence will gloss all that over. I think that their abuse of the right to
>:]silence is why the right to silence should *not* apply to police officers.
Your thinking is coloured by predujice.
>:]The police have too much power, and they routinely abuse the right to
>:]silence. In their case, it becomes obstruction of justice.
>:]
>:]I know very well from personal experience how often the police obstruct
>:]justice, and use silence to try to cover up big, big mistakes. And so every
Again proof and facts which you have refused to share with us.
>:]time I hear that they're refusing to cooperate, I think, OK, here we go
>:]again. They fucked up big-time, and now they want to keep their mouths
>:]shut. Why? Because they're cowards. Little boys in big men's bodies. And
Could be applied in the charges you have posted.
>:]in many case, little brainless boys, and girls. Little unethical brainless
>:]boys and girls. Little arrogant Nazi storm-troopers, in uniform.
>:]
>:]Sieg heil, Metro cop guys and gals, and don't forget to keep your mouths
>:]shut, about what you know about that A-1 major fuck-up. You wouldn't want
>:]to get your pals on the force in trouble, would you.
Nothing less than most people would expect from you.
Walter Petelka,Internet Idirect, Toronto, Ont.
I have opinions on everything and they are mine but
I only get passionate about sex not issues.
Marc Thibault
3e...@qlink.queensu.ca (Chase Emma Lee A) writes:
> Maybe you had a gun pointed at you from a person standing behind the door.
This is how it happens. Maybe this, maybe that... you can't
justify egregious violation of people's rights on the basis of
improbable events, however scary they may be.
The old "if only one life is saved.." turnip fails to account
for the fact that democracy has its costs, including the risk that
bad things will happen that a live-in policeman might have
stopped. If we are unprepared to pay the costs, we're better to
get it over with in one fell swoop, hire us a dictator and stop
wasting time and money on elections. Privacy, like education is
_essential_ to a functioning democracy. It's not negotiable.
We are already burdened with Sesame Street brats become whining
adults who won't be happy until the most trivial aspects of our
lives are the subject of regulation. Canadian law is beginning to
read like the Koran. The only thing that saves us is that we still
make it hard for the government to keep us under observation.
If the cop says "May I come in and look around?" the answer is
"No, thank you, but why don't you drop by for coffee in an hour or
so, when we're dressed?" It doesn't hurt to get to know your
neighborhood thug, but you should do it on your own terms.
Trish
Yes thank you. I guess my thoughts were running more along the lines
of.....kill the kid, and refuse to speak. No problem as long as LE
can't get enough physical evidence to prove the case. Is that
correct? Well, never mind. Of course it is. We have someone still
free and happy hear from the same circumastances. Doesn't mean I have
to like it though right?
Stephen Jenuth
In <5ijjon$gr6$1...@noc.van.hookup.net> op...@mail.netshop.net (Alleycat) writes:
>WAS: Re: Bang.....bang.....Don't tell. shhhhh.....
>____________________________________________
>ri...@servtech.com wrote:
>The lawyer for five Metro police officers who were witnesses to
>Sunday's fatal shooting has thumbed his nose at tonight's deadline for
>his clients to give their statements to civilian investigators.
I would think that they have the right to remain silent to protect
them against criminal prosecution.
But they don't have the right to be a police officer. I think they
should be fired, just like any other employee.
If I gave an employee a bunch of money, it disappeared, and the
employee said I don't want to talk about it, he or she is gone.
--
Best regards,
Stephen Jenuth (sje...@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca)
-------
"We are going to be governed whether we like it or not... We must
therefore concern ourselves with politics... to mitigate as far as
possible the damage done by the madness of our rulers." P.E. Trudeau
Anne Hildrum
Alleycat <op...@mail.netshop.net> wrote in article
<5ijjon$gr6$1...@noc.van.hookup.net>...
> WAS: Re: Bang.....bang.....Don't tell. shhhhh.....
> ____________________________________________
>
> ri...@servtech.com wrote:
>
> The lawyer for five Metro police officers who were witnesses to
> Sunday's fatal shooting has thumbed his nose at tonight's deadline for
> his clients to give their statements to civilian investigators.
>
> Lawyer J.J. Burke said special investigations unit (SIU) director
> André Marin set today's 5 p.m. deadline without consulting him or his
> clients. He called the move ``morally bankrupt.''
>
> Burke refused to say when the officers will talk to the SIU ... <SNIP>
> other than that it will be ``in due course.
>
> ``He (Marin) set a mandatory deadline and we will not comply with
> that. ``We will comply (with the giving of statements). I have never
> once said they will not comply. But to put a deadline on something
> without even asking me is morally bankrupt.''
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Last night, Marin fired off a letter to Burke demanding that all five
> officers meet SIU investigators simultaneously for their individual
> interviews.
>
> Detective Constables... <SNIP> have yet to talk to the SIU as well.
> They have the right to remain silent under the Charter of Rights since
> they could be facing criminal charges.
>
> Ontario Solicitor-General Bob Runciman stressed in the Legislature
> yesterday that ``witness officers'' are explicitly required to
> co-operate with the SIU under the Police Act.
>
> ______________________________
>
> This is interesting. I'm trying to compare the laws in different
> countries with regard to the rights to remain silent with regard to
> giving statements to the police. I'll start with Canada. Does anyone
> know the answers to these questions?.
>
> (1)In Canada, people are allowed the right to remain silent under the
> Charter of Rights. Is this right is overpowered for police by the
> Police Act? If so, what does the Police Act say?
>
> (2) I'm assuming that (a) the public, (b) the police, and (c)
> government officials, all have different rights in with regard to
> remaining silent. Is this true? Is there anyone ELSE who has
> different rights? If so, who, and how do they differ?
>
> (3) Does anyone know "which" government officials in Canada are
> granted immunity, and exactly what "immunity" means in this country?
>
> (4) If a person has the right to remain silent, does this right
> last for a lifetime, and does it apply under all
> circumstances?
>
> (5) Are these rights the same all across the country?
>
> (Also interested in hearing from people in other countries.
> Thanks.) -- Alleycat
> __________________________
Canada I know nothing about, and I guess it doesn't surprise you. :)
In Norway a suspect has the right to remain silent and say
absolutely nothing. A witness to a crime has an obligation to
speak. If they don't want to talk to the police, the police will
take them to coutrt where they have to. The bycers in Norway
to this all the time.
The only people I know of who can't be taken to court here
Is the Royal family, all 4 of them.
People do have the right to remain silent , like doctors
about thing concerning their patients, and lawyers concerning
their clients. they don't only have the right, they have the
obligation. The only case where people who generally have
the obligation not to say, have to is concerning child abuse.
The child welfare has the right to get information from almost
anybody.
Anne
>
>
no name for obvious reasons
Chase Emma Lee A wrote:
>
> Maybe you had a gun pointed at you from a person standing behind the door.
> Maybe the cops shoulda done that when Karla called from the scene of
> where Bernardo's victim laid unconcious in heart failure. (jane doe)
> Remember her frantic 911 call?
>
> You
> should thank him for being thorough...
>
> emma
>
I let him in. I sympathized with his need to be sure. I did thank him. I
did apologize for the inconvenience. He didn't check the entire house so
he wasn't thorough. He should not have invaded my privacy which is my
right to have.
The Big Kahuna
The parents refusal to be interviewed has delayed the case & possibly
with held valuable information. To me that makes it a refusal to
cooperate. If it was my kid, I wouldn't be playinmg games with holding
possible important information.
I think it's highly suspect the parents are playing games over being
interviewed.
The Big Kahuna
no name for obvious reasons
>
Thank you. I agree. That's the gist of what I was after.
no name for obvious reasons
Kevin Murphy wrote:
>
> Good grief. He was trying to establish that you did belong there and
> that you weren't under duress. We don't carry search warrants to 9-1-1
> hangups. There is nothing wrong with giving a name and DOB and
> providing some ID.
>
> Now if he started asking if you were on a grassy knoll in Dallas in
> 1963, call a lawyer.
Your use of the word 'we' suggests that you're a police officer. So of
course you would say that there is nothing wrong with giving up ones
rights. (See my loss of faith) Thank you for the answer about 911 calls
though. If he was really worried about whether or not I was under duress
then he would've searched the entire house which he didn't do.
In the future, I might feel inclined to show him my drivers license
while covering any personal info which would show my picture and my name
and address to prove that I belonged there. But what if I was a guest or
something and not in my house? I can see him being real suspicious if I
was dressed in black or something and was acting suspiciously but I was
in my housecoat for heavens sake.
Kevin Murphy
On Fri, 11 Apr 97 08:59:05 EDT, ma...@tanda.on.ca (Marc Thibault)
wrote:
> If the cop says "May I come in and look around?" the answer is
> "No, thank you, but why don't you drop by for coffee in an hour or
> so, when we're dressed?" It doesn't hurt to get to know your
> neighborhood thug, but you should do it on your own terms.
>
>
If you're going to address me as your "neighborhood thug", don't
bother.
Warning! Quoted posts may have been snipped because of
brevity and sympathy for their author.
Larry Butts/Kip/Brady was never a cop.
kpwa...@cris.com
>> where Bernardo's victim laid unconcious in heart failure. (jane doe)
>> Remember her frantic 911 call?
>>
>> You
>> should thank him for being thorough...
>>
>> emma
>>
>
>
>I let him in. I sympathized with his need to be sure. I did thank him. I
>did apologize for the inconvenience. He didn't check the entire house so
>he wasn't thorough. He should not have invaded my privacy which is my
>right to have.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
You really think we have a right to privacy anymore? Only if you fight
like hell for it,because everyone is waiting to take it away. Everyone
in Government that is.
KIP
Kevin Murphy
Good grief. He was trying to establish that you did belong there and
that you weren't under duress. We don't carry search warrants to 9-1-1
hangups. There is nothing wrong with giving a name and DOB and
providing some ID.
Now if he started asking if you were on a grassy knoll in Dallas in
1963, call a lawyer.
Bill MacArthur
sje...@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca (Stephen Jenuth) wrote:
>I would think that they have the right to remain silent to protect
>them against criminal prosecution.
>
Canadians do not have the right to remain silent. If they testify, they
are required to answer and tell the truth. IMO this is a much better
system than in the US where the 5th Amendment allows guilty people to
hide. After all, if you have nothing to hide why shouldn't you testify?
And if you have done something wrong, why should you be able to hide from
the consequences?
Walter Petelka
Ian Murray <ia...@sentex.net> wrote:
>:]Rod McCallum wrote:
>:]>
>:]> I know very well from personal experience how often the police obstruct
>:]> justice, and use silence to try to cover up big, big mistakes. And so every
>:]> time I hear that they're refusing to cooperate, I think, OK, here we go
>:]> again. They fucked up big-time, and now they want to keep their mouths
>:]> shut.
>:]
>:]Exactly. Notice that in the few cases where Metro police shoot someone
>:]who is clearly posing a threat, such as pointing a gun at them,
>:]their co-operation with the SIU is immediate and forthright. But when
Maybe you can post the details on those "few cases."
>:]they KNOW they're in the wrong, they're not talking.
Another oracle.....you can tell what other people are thinking.
Walter Petelka,Toronto, Ont.
<I have opinions on everything and they are mine alone
but I only get passionate about sex not issues.:-)>
Walter Petelka
ste...@idirect.com (Rod McCallum) wrote:
>:]gr...@visi.com wrote...
>:]>
>:]>My outrage is not due to a lynch mob mentality like yours, which
>:]>seeks to deny police officers due process of law. I have demanded,
>:]>in no uncertain terms, that there be ONE standard in law for human
>:]>conduct and that all of us, police or citizen alike, be held to the
>:]>same standard.
>:]
>:]I'm certainly part of no "lynch mob mentality". The issues I've
>:]raised on the Usenet of late have involved:
>:]
>:](1) my inability to lay charges against police, because I've been
>:]repeatedly obstructed by justices of the peace;
AND YOU HAVE CONTINUALLY REFUSES TO COMPLY WITH REQUESTS TO POST SALIENT
DETAILS SO YOUR CASE COULD BE VERIFIED AND SUPPORT GIVEN TO YOU. Instead
you continue with your unsubstantiated charges and rantings against
police.
redundancy snipped.........................
Big Jim
Because it is the Government's responsibility to PROVE the person is
guilty. The state must have EVIDENCE. Otherwise, all they would have to
do is force you to testify.
no name for obvious reasons
Mark Thomen wrote:
>
> In <334EE3...@somewhere.com>, no name for obvious reasons <som...@somewhere.com> writes:
> >
> >I let him in. I sympathized with his need to be sure. I did thank him. I
> >did apologize for the inconvenience. He didn't check the entire house so
> >he wasn't thorough. He should not have invaded my privacy which is my
> >right to have.
>
> and then get upset when he takes you up on it...
>
> Mark Thomen
It would seem you didn't read my post. I let him in in good faith.
Asking me private information questions is unnecessary and an invasion
of privacy. I was willing to forgo the privacy of the house for the sake
of the 911 call but not my private information.
The Big Kahuna
On Sat, 12 Apr 97 11:03:24 EDT, ma...@tanda.on.ca (Marc Thibault)
wrote:
>tho...@ibm.net (Mark Thomen) writes:
>
>> of them. Are you suggesting we simply take the answers at the door
>> as the truth and not ensure the safety of occupants?
>
>
> Anecdotal crap aside - yes. A 911 hangup is not an excuse to
> assume anyone who answers the door is a criminal. Assuring the
> safety of the occupants, or any other citizen for that matter, is
> not in your job description. If the man tells you to take a hike
> you do it.
>
> If you have reasonable grounds to believe something is wrong, you
> have procedures that let you act on it, but misdials, kids playing
> with the phone and equipment failures don't provide reasonable
> grounds.
>
> Your job is to gather evidence and apprehend the criminals after a
> crime is committed. Any other intimations are pure propaganda
> unsupported by law, or your union contract.
>
>
If I never go to a 911 hang up again, fine with me. I hate going to
911 hang ups because stupid people can't use the phone.
However, as police officers we do have an obligation to respond &
investigate. failure to respond & investigate would likely result in
severe discipline for the officer involved. Part of the investigative
process is to determine if a crime has in fact taken place. You never
know exactly what you have till you investigate.
The cops I work with don't enjoy going to these calls & going into
peoples homes. I would welcome any additional court issued guidelines
for these types of calls.
The Big Kahuna
hgreen9
> If you have reasonable grounds to believe something is wrong, you
> have procedures that let you act on it, but misdials, kids playing
> with the phone and equipment failures don't provide reasonable
> grounds.
>
> Your job is to gather evidence and apprehend the criminals after a
> crime is committed. Any other intimations are pure propaganda
> unsupported by law, or your union contract.
BZZZZZZT. Wrong! I hope you are not giving this as legal advise to
those in the US.
HMG
hgreen9
no name for obvious reasons wrote:
>
> Ian Murray wrote:
> >
> > Mark Thomen wrote:
> > >
> > > In <334EE3...@somewhere.com>, no name for obvious reasons <som...@somewhere.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > >I let him in. I sympathized with his need to be sure. I did thank
(snip)
> wrong then 'thank you, sorry to bother you, have a nice day' is in
> order. I don't think he should be asking private questions. Yes my
> personal privacy was invaded. As I've said in another post, I was
> willing to forgo the privacy of the house for the sake of the 911 call
> but my personal privacy.
How is knowing your name and DOB "invading your personal privacy"? You
don't know much about the 911 system do you? He already had the name of
the person living in the house before he got there. The 911 screen
showed it the second the 911 call was connected. Do you really think
your name and birth date are that private. You are on the Internet,
anyone on this NG could find out who and where your are in just a short
time if they wanted to. Putting a fake address in the header doesn't
really stop anyone. Now if you are using an anonymous posting service,
it becomes a little harder. I hope you don't have to deal with the
public in your job. What if everyone you delt with refused to identify
themselves and allow you to "invade their personal privacy".
HMG
no name for obvious reasons
hgreen9 wrote:
>
> > wrong then 'thank you, sorry to bother you, have a nice day' is in
> > order. I don't think he should be asking private questions. Yes my
> > personal privacy was invaded. As I've said in another post, I was
> > willing to forgo the privacy of the house for the sake of the 911 call
> > but my personal privacy.
>
> How is knowing your name and DOB "invading your personal privacy"?
Simply that it's none of his business and it's my personal information.
I think that the police should respect the same policies that companies
have to when it comes to peoples private information. A job interviewer
isn't able to ask the interviewee 'so when were you born?' or how about
'so where were you born?'. So it should go with the police.
> You don't know much about the 911 system do you? He already had the name of
> the person living in the house before he got there. The 911 screen
> showed it the second the 911 call was connected.
I'm well aware of that. What if I'm not the person subscribing to the
phone? When he asked for my phone number I gave it to him knowing full
well that the dispatch screen would've had it already plus the address.
> Do you really think your name and birth date are that private.
I'm well aware that that information is out there in all sorts of places
but if I can slow its continued spread then I will try to.
> You are on the Internet, anyone on this NG could find out who and where your are in > just a short time if they wanted to. Putting a fake address in the header doesn't
> really stop anyone. Now if you are using an anonymous posting service, it becomes > a little harder.
Then so be it...let them spend the 'short time'. At least someone had to
work for it.
> I hope you don't have to deal with the public in your job. What if everyone you > delt with refused to identify themselves and allow you to "invade their personal > privacy".
>
> HMG
If I'm working for a company then the company could have a policy that
says 'no information - no service'. But this is hardly relevant to a
state controlled agency that happen to be professionals at catching and
charging criminals. When we the good people of this country are
confronted by the law whether it be through mistaken 911 calls or
whatever, it's the police that we're confronted with.
Ian Murray
Mark Thomen wrote:
>
> In <334EE3...@somewhere.com>, no name for obvious reasons <som...@somewhere.com> writes:
> >
> >did apologize for the inconvenience. He didn't check the entire house so
> >he wasn't thorough. He should not have invaded my privacy which is my
> >right to have.
>
> Then you SHOULDN'T HAVE INVITED HIM IN! Sheesh, you invite the guy in,
> and then get upset when he takes you up on it...
>
> Mark Thomen
>
Though I am usually on the other side of these discussions, I must
say, I agree with Mark on this issue. In another post, he referred to
the number of times he went to 9-1-1 hangup calls and found beat up
wives and children of spouses who answered the door and said everything
was fine. Surely, you would want police to have the ability to
investigate these hangup type calls, beyond just taking the person
at the door's word that everything is fine?
"No name", you seem confused about your position on this issue. On the
one hand, you are critical of the police officer because he didn't
search your house more thoroughly. On the other, you think he has no
right to ask you questions, and you feel your privacy is being invaded.
Ian Murray
no name for obvious reasons
William Gray wrote:
>
> As usual, I am squarely on both sides of this one. I can understnad the
> original poster's feelings that she was "hassled" and that her privacy
> was compromised. Also, I agree that the sanctity of her home was
> violated.
>
> But...
>
> In Washington, DC, there was a gang rape of three women. At least two
> men broke in and began raping one of three women who lived in the
> apratment. Her two roommates hid and later got a chance to call cops.
>
> Cops came, knocked on door, no one answered, cops went away. Women
> later got another chance to call cops. Cops came, knocked on door, no
> one answered, cops went away--but the women either thought they had been
> rescued or were somehow detected. Bad guys spent something like 14
> hours raping and sodomizing the three women.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the cops should've done more. Two
calls and they just walk away? Wow! Break in...do something.
>
> The women later sued and alleged that the cops were negligent. Court
> held that even if cops were negligent, cops have no duty to protect
> individual citizen, only general duty to community as a whole. Case is
> widely cited as one reason why citizens must have right to keep and bear
> arms for self defense since no one else is legally responsible for
> defending them. But that is beside point.
>
> Point is, what if woman in housecoat was lying because Rat Bastard in
> other room has knife to daughter's throat? What if woman in housecoat
> is accomplice to Rat Bastard in another part of house. Like Thomen
> said, lots of people will try to brazen it out. Most Rat Bastards are
> male, but not all.
Which is why in a previous post of mine, I think the cops should search
everywhere in the house to be 100% satisfied that all is well...which
having let them come in or if they have some legal power to come in I
would've assumed they'd do.
>
> So how would original poster feel if Rat Bastard was in closet with 6YO
> daughter and knife and cop did NOT want to look around?
If I was an accomplice then no problem. If not then I would make darn
sure that I get the point across to them that they should search
everywhere. And as a citizen at large I would want the cop to search
everywhere for the safety of that child or whoever.
>
> Like I said, I'm on both sides of it. How do I know someone misdialed
> 911? Cop comes to my door, I know I didn't call (know I had not even
> used phone, maybe), claims 911 call, wants to come in to investigate, I
> tell him Go Pound Sand. Maybe kid upstairs fat fingered phone call.
> Maybe cat knocked phone off receiver and hit speed dial number.
>
> And maybe Big Brother just found an easy way past 4th Amendment?
> Idunno. Like to think I'd be reasonable. Odds against that, most days.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill
Not being familiar with what the 4th Amendment is, I would suggest that
non-tamperable logs be used by the dispatcher as proof for us good guys
that a 911 call was made and thus the ability for the cop to search
without a warrant.
no name for obvious reasons
Kevin Murphy wrote:
>
> On 13 Apr 1997 00:39:04 GMT, gr...@visi.com (William Gray) wrote:
>
> >Like I said, I'm on both sides of it. How do I know someone misdialed
> >911? Cop comes to my door, I know I didn't call (know I had not even
> >used phone, maybe), claims 911 call, wants to come in to investigate, I
> >tell him Go Pound Sand. Maybe kid upstairs fat fingered phone call.
> >Maybe cat knocked phone off receiver and hit speed dial number.
> >
> >And maybe Big Brother just found an easy way past 4th Amendment?
> >Idunno. Like to think I'd be reasonable. Odds against that, most days.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Bill
>
> knife or gun wound, after dialing 9-1-1 and the suspect answers the
> door?
>
> Officer:"Excuse me, sir. We had a 9-1-1 call from here? Is everything
> ok?"
>
> Intruder:"SUre, officer. Everything's fine here."
>
> Officer:"May I come in and take a quick look around? Only be a
> minute."
>
> Intruder:"Sorry, only if you have a search warrant"
>
> Officer:"Well, sir, I don't have grounds for a warrant. Can I, at
> least, see your license? To verify your identity."
>
> Intruder:"You don't have any right to violate my privacy. Go pound
> sand."
>
> Officer:"Well, you're right, sir. Sorry to bother you."
>
> Officer leaves and intruder returns to his handiwork.
>
> Also Bill, you keep bringing up this ONE case from DC. I don't care
> what the court said. An officer has the absolute obligation to do all
> he can to ensure a citizen's safety.
>
> Warning! Quoted posts may have been snipped because of
> brevity and sympathy for their author.
>
> Larry Butts/Kip/Brady was never a cop.
I agree. The cop should come in regardless of what someone at the door
says to search the premises. I don't agree with the identity part. As
long as there's proof of the fact that the call was made to protect
against police abuse of this.
no name for obvious reasons
William Gray wrote:
>
> Bill MacArthur <billmac.s...@uwindsor.ca> writes:
>
> >sje...@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca (Stephen Jenuth) wrote:
>
> >>I would think that they have the right to remain silent to protect
> >>them against criminal prosecution.
> >>
> >Canadians do not have the right to remain silent. If they testify, they
> >are required to answer and tell the truth. IMO this is a much better
> >system than in the US where the 5th Amendment allows guilty people to
> >hide. After all, if you have nothing to hide why shouldn't you testify?
> >And if you have done something wrong, why should you be able to hide from
> >the consequences?
I think you might be getting some terminology mixed up. Remaining silent
seems to me to be talking with the police which I think we have the
right to. Testifying seems to me to be if you ultimately find yourself
in court where you're supposedly supposed to tell the truth on the stand
if you are put there etc. Is it true that Canadians don't have some kind
of self-incrimination protection thing?
>
> And if the cops can force you to testify, what stops them from doing
> that to close a troublesome case that has become a political hot potato?
> There is ALWAYS some lowlife you can figure needs jailing, and if you
> can't convict the right bad guy, why not settle for the bad guy you can
> intimidate or torture?
>
> After all, no one expected the Spanish Inquisition--but they had one.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill
no name for obvious reasons
> >> as the truth and not ensure the safety of occupants?
> >
> >
> > Anecdotal crap aside - yes. A 911 hangup is not an excuse to
> > assume anyone who answers the door is a criminal. Assuring the
> > safety of the occupants, or any other citizen for that matter, is
> > not in your job description. If the man tells you to take a hike
> > you do it.
> >
> > have procedures that let you act on it, but misdials, kids playing
> > with the phone and equipment failures don't provide reasonable
> > grounds.
> >
> > Your job is to gather evidence and apprehend the criminals after a
> > crime is committed. Any other intimations are pure propaganda
> > unsupported by law, or your union contract.
> >
> >
> 911 hang ups because stupid people can't use the phone.
>
> However, as police officers we do have an obligation to respond &
> investigate. failure to respond & investigate would likely result in
> severe discipline for the officer involved. Part of the investigative
> process is to determine if a crime has in fact taken place. You never
> know exactly what you have till you investigate.
>
> The cops I work with don't enjoy going to these calls & going into
> peoples homes. I would welcome any additional court issued guidelines
> for these types of calls.
>
> The Big Kahuna
Here's some nice honesty. Thanks for the input Kahuna.
Although I don't quite regard myself as stupid, accidents do happen
which is what happened in my case. I was fumbling with the phone and it
seems that unbeknowst to me, a speed dial button had been programmed to
911 and it had somehow been pressed during the fumbling. I then used the
phone immediately after that and so the police couldn't call me back to
verify the validity of the call. Your regular run-of-the-mill comedy of
errors.
My opinion would be that the officer has the legal right to enter the
premises after clearly stating that they're responding to a 911 call. In
the event that there is a crime happening or has happened then during
processing the accused has the right to see the log of the 911 call from
the dispatcher to verify that the officer had the right to enter. I'm
assuming here that the log is not tamperable. If there is no log then
the accused is free to go with 24 hours grace time and then the police
have to use normal means to pick the person up again.
If there is nothing happening in the premises then the officer has to
simply leave saying 'thank you, sorry to bother you, have a nice day'.
We are afterall supposedly free to be anywhere we wish to be in this
country without being kept track of by the police.
There are probably a whole bunch of what-ifs here but that is a start to
my opinion.
no name for obvious reasons
Mark Thomen wrote:
>
> In <E8J1w...@news.uwindsor.ca>, Bill MacArthur <billmac.s...@uwindsor.ca> writes:
> >sje...@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca (Stephen Jenuth) wrote:
> >
> >>I would think that they have the right to remain silent to protect
> >>them against criminal prosecution.
> >>
> >Canadians do not have the right to remain silent. If they testify, they
> >are required to answer and tell the truth. IMO this is a much better
> >system than in the US where the 5th Amendment allows guilty people to
> >hide. After all, if you have nothing to hide why shouldn't you testify?
> >And if you have done something wrong, why should you be able to hide from
> >the consequences?
>
> in the U.S. we do NOT require you to testify. Do guilty hide behind it? Probably.
> But no case is brought by a prosecutor on the basis that the suspect is going to
> confess on the stand. There has to be enough evidence outside of that to
> prove the crime.
>
> Does it make the job tougher on the state? Yes, it does. And I for one find
> that comforting. Everyone hates the concepts of the 4th and 5th - until they
> need them for themselves.
>
> And the taunt that if you have nothing to hide, why not testify is one of the
> most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard. Because I don't HAVE to, THAT'S why!
>
> Mark Thomen
>
> Remove "no-spam" from address to send e-mail.
Indeed!
no name for obvious reasons
Mark Thomen wrote:
>
> In <334FC9...@somewhere.com>, no name for obvious reasons <som...@somewhere.com> writes:
> >Mark Thomen wrote:
> >>
> >> In <334EE3...@somewhere.com>, no name for obvious reasons <som...@somewhere.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >I let him in. I sympathized with his need to be sure. I did thank him. I
> >> >did apologize for the inconvenience. He didn't check the entire house so
> >> >he wasn't thorough. He should not have invaded my privacy which is my
> >> >right to have.
> >>
> >> Then you SHOULDN'T HAVE INVITED HIM IN! Sheesh, you invite the guy in,
> >> and then get upset when he takes you up on it...
> >>
> >> Mark Thomen
> >
> >
> >Asking me private information questions is unnecessary and an invasion
> >of the 911 call but not my private information.
>
> I'm afraid I have forgotten your description of the "private questions" he
> asked, but I assume it included name, rank, horsepower, etc. Refresh my
> memory again about the "private questions" that you thought were out of
> line...
>
> Mark Thomen
>
> Remove "no-spam" from address to send e-mail.
The degree or minuteness of the question doesn't matter. It's simply
that any kind of personal question should not be asked and failing that
then people should not be required to answer.
William Gray
Bill MacArthur <billmac.s...@uwindsor.ca> writes:
>sje...@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca (Stephen Jenuth) wrote:
>>I would think that they have the right to remain silent to protect
>>them against criminal prosecution.
>>
>Canadians do not have the right to remain silent. If they testify, they
>are required to answer and tell the truth. IMO this is a much better
>system than in the US where the 5th Amendment allows guilty people to
>hide. After all, if you have nothing to hide why shouldn't you testify?
>And if you have done something wrong, why should you be able to hide from
>the consequences?
And if the cops can force you to testify, what stops them from doing
Mark Thomen
In <334FC7...@somewhere.com>, no name for obvious reasons <som...@somewhere.com> writes:
>Mark Thomen wrote:
>>
>> >Your use of the word 'we' suggests that you're a police officer. So of
>> >rights.
The choice to give up your rights is yours, and yours alone.
>> >(See my loss of faith) Thank you for the answer about 911 calls
>> >though. If he was really worried about whether or not I was under duress
>> >then he would've searched the entire house which he didn't do.
>> >In the future, I might feel inclined to show him my drivers license
>> >while covering any personal info which would show my picture and my name
>> >and address to prove that I belonged there. But what if I was a guest or
>> >something and not in my house? I can see him being real suspicious if I
>> >was dressed in black or something and was acting suspiciously but I was
>> >in my housecoat for heavens sake.
>>
>> I can't tell you how many times I've gone to 911-hangups to have a man
>> answer the door in a robe, shorts, underwear, etc. "Everything OK here?"
>> "Yup". "Is there anyone else here?" "Yup." "Are they OK?" "Yup".
>> "Mind if we check?" (hesitation) "Nope".
>>
>> And how many times after this intellectual dialog I've found the wife,
>> girlfriend, boyfriend, or child in the back room with the snot beat out
>> of them. Are you suggesting we simply take the answers at the door
>> as the truth and not ensure the safety of occupants?
>
>I never suggested anything of the sort. I would hope that in this
>country, cops wouldn't show up at ones door for no reason.
You missed the point; I've talked with folks in their robe at the door
while their wife was lying bleeding in the room with broken ribs. Wearing
a robe does not impart any particular "believability" to your right to be there.
> 911 was
>somehow dialed. The cops came in good faith. As a show of good faith I
>allowed him in to make sure that all was well. He didn't check the whole
>house but instead asks me private questions. That's where I drew the
>line in this case. There were no bodies. I was not being held at
>gunpoint. Thank you, sorry to bother you, have a nice day. That was all
>that was needed.
>And if 911 somehow gets dialed again accidentally, I would likely let
>the next cop in. I would certainly be wary of my rights though.
No problem with that.
Mark Thomen
In <334FC9...@somewhere.com>, no name for obvious reasons <som...@somewhere.com> writes:
>Mark Thomen wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I let him in. I sympathized with his need to be sure. I did thank him. I
>> >did apologize for the inconvenience. He didn't check the entire house so
>> >he wasn't thorough. He should not have invaded my privacy which is my
>> >right to have.
>>
>> Then you SHOULDN'T HAVE INVITED HIM IN! Sheesh, you invite the guy in,
>> and then get upset when he takes you up on it...
>>
>> Mark Thomen
>
>
>It would seem you didn't read my post. I let him in in good faith.
>Asking me private information questions is unnecessary and an invasion
>of privacy. I was willing to forgo the privacy of the house for the sake
>of the 911 call but not my private information.
I'm afraid I have forgotten your description of the "private questions" he
asked, but I assume it included name, rank, horsepower, etc. Refresh my
memory again about the "private questions" that you thought were out of
line...
Kevin Murphy
>Your use of the word 'we' suggests that you're a police officer. So of
>course you would say that there is nothing wrong with giving up ones
>rights. (See my loss of faith) Thank you for the answer about 911 calls
>though. If he was really worried about whether or not I was under duress
>then he would've searched the entire house which he didn't do.
>In the future, I might feel inclined to show him my drivers license
>while covering any personal info which would show my picture and my name
>and address to prove that I belonged there. But what if I was a guest or
>something and not in my house? I can see him being real suspicious if I
>was dressed in black or something and was acting suspiciously but I was
>in my housecoat for heavens sake.
Apparently, he searched it enough to satisfy himself that nothing was
amiss. I'm also assuming that your DL info showed the correct name and
address. I'm not sure why yo keep bringing up the "guest" scenario. I
probably would remain in there until your story is confirmed.
Apparently, this was not necessary.
Kevin Murphy
On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:39:57 -0700, no name for obvious reasons
<som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>I'll step away from my experience and offer my opinions.
>911 is inherently a cry for help. Like the old axiom 'never cry wolf'. I
>think we have to allow the police the opportunity to check the house for
>any kind of emergency whether it be fire, human whatever. Invading ones
>personal information privacy should not be included and for that I'll
>agree with the rest of your post.
You keep raising the possibility that the one who answers the door
could be a guest. How do we establish that if we don't look at a
license or get DOB information? I may even ask if your married, have
children, etc. if necessary to satisfy any suspicions.
Kevin Murphy
Kevin Murphy
>Simply that it's none of his business and it's my personal information.
>I think that the police should respect the same policies that companies
>have to when it comes to peoples private information. A job interviewer
>isn't able to ask the interviewee 'so when were you born?' or how about
>'so where were you born?'. So it should go with the police.
>
A job interviewer is barred from this because of age discrimination.
The police use DOBs to identify you. If your name is John Brown, a lot
more is needed to sort you out from the other John Browns out there.
Kevin Murphy
>I let him in. I sympathized with his need to be sure. I did thank him. I
>did apologize for the inconvenience. He didn't check the entire house so
>he wasn't thorough. He should not have invaded my privacy which is my
>right to have.
On one hand, you criticize him for not checking the whole house and
then criticize him for checking what he did.
Can you make up your mind?
Bill MacArthur
"Anne Hildrum" <an...@sn.no> wrote:
>
>
>Alleycat <op...@mail.netshop.net> wrote in article
><5ijjon$gr6$1...@noc.van.hookup.net>...
>> (1)In Canada, people are allowed the right to remain silent under the
>> Charter of Rights. Is this right is overpowered for police by the
>> Police Act? If so, what does the Police Act say?
>>
It's not the same as the US. Canadians have the right to consult a
lawyer but must answer questions when testifying. We can't plead the
5th.
>> (2) I'm assuming that (a) the public, (b) the police, and (c)
>> government officials, all have different rights in with regard to
>> remaining silent. Is this true? Is there anyone ELSE who has
>> different rights? If so, who, and how do they differ?
>>
I believe all citizens have the same rights. That is a fundamental for
modern democracies.
>> (3) Does anyone know "which" government officials in Canada are
>> granted immunity, and exactly what "immunity" means in this country?
>>
Cabinet officials can refuse to testify on issues that relate to national
security. Furthermore, they cannot discuss cabinet meetings.
>> (4) If a person has the right to remain silent, does this right
>> last for a lifetime, and does it apply under all
>> circumstances?
>>
They don't have this right to remain silent.
>> (5) Are these rights the same all across the country?
>>
Quebec operates under Civil Law but people have the same rights except if
the government of Quebec uses the non-withstanding clause.
>In Norway a suspect has the right to remain silent and say
>absolutely nothing. A witness to a crime has an obligation to
>speak. If they don't want to talk to the police, the police will
>take them to coutrt where they have to. The bycers in Norway
>to this all the time.
>
By right to remain silent, do you mean on the witness stand. What form
does this silence take.
>The only people I know of who can't be taken to court here
>Is the Royal family, all 4 of them.
>
>People do have the right to remain silent , like doctors
>about thing concerning their patients, and lawyers concerning
>their clients. they don't only have the right, they have the
>obligation. The only case where people who generally have
>the obligation not to say, have to is concerning child abuse.
>The child welfare has the right to get information from almost
>anybody.
>
Our professionals are obliged to report possible child abuse to the
police. AFAIK this is the only case where confidentiality can be
violated.
no name for obvious reasons
Kevin Murphy wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 16:10:33 -0700, no name for obvious reasons
> <som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
> >Simply that it's none of his business and it's my personal information.
> >I think that the police should respect the same policies that companies
> >have to when it comes to peoples private information. A job interviewer
> >isn't able to ask the interviewee 'so when were you born?' or how about
> >'so where were you born?'. So it should go with the police.
> >
>
> A job interviewer is barred from this because of age discrimination.
> The police use DOBs to identify you. If your name is John Brown, a lot
> more is needed to sort you out from the other John Browns out there.
>
> brevity and sympathy for their author.
>
> Larry Butts/Kip/Brady was never a cop.
I repeat though...we are supposedly free to be wherever we wish to be in
this country and not to be tracked and known to be somewhere by the
police. So identification I guess is none of their business too.
no name for obvious reasons
Kevin Murphy wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:39:57 -0700, no name for obvious reasons
> <som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
> >I'll step away from my experience and offer my opinions.
> >911 is inherently a cry for help. Like the old axiom 'never cry wolf'. I
> >think we have to allow the police the opportunity to check the house for
> >any kind of emergency whether it be fire, human whatever. Invading ones
> >personal information privacy should not be included and for that I'll
> >agree with the rest of your post.
>
> You keep raising the possibility that the one who answers the door
> could be a guest. How do we establish that if we don't look at a
> license or get DOB information? I may even ask if your married, have
> children, etc. if necessary to satisfy any suspicions.
>
> brevity and sympathy for their author.
>
> Larry Butts/Kip/Brady was never a cop.
I continue to conclude more and more that I don't have to answer the
questions that the police ask me. That's why I asked in a more straight
forward post about what the police can and can't do and what we the
people can and can't do in the case of a 911 call.
no name for obvious reasons
Kevin Murphy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 18:32:19 -0700, no name for obvious reasons
> <som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
> >Your use of the word 'we' suggests that you're a police officer. So of
> >course you would say that there is nothing wrong with giving up ones
> >rights. (See my loss of faith) Thank you for the answer about 911 calls
> >though. If he was really worried about whether or not I was under duress
> >then he would've searched the entire house which he didn't do.
> >In the future, I might feel inclined to show him my drivers license
> >while covering any personal info which would show my picture and my name
> >and address to prove that I belonged there. But what if I was a guest or
> >something and not in my house? I can see him being real suspicious if I
> >was dressed in black or something and was acting suspiciously but I was
> >in my housecoat for heavens sake.
>
> Apparently, he searched it enough to satisfy himself that nothing was
> amiss. I'm also assuming that your DL info showed the correct name and
> address. I'm not sure why yo keep bringing up the "guest" scenario. I
> probably would remain in there until your story is confirmed.
> Apparently, this was not necessary.
>
> Warning! Quoted posts may have been snipped because of
> brevity and sympathy for their author.
>
> Larry Butts/Kip/Brady was never a cop.
Fine then see you later and have a nice day is all he needed to do once
satisfied that nothing was amiss.
The guest scenario is in case I'm not in my residence and I accidentally
call 911.
What story? If I remain silent then there is no story. Will you just sit
there and wait for someone to come by and ask them? Or do some other
investigation to be sure I belong there?
William Gray
tho...@ibm.net (Mark Thomen) writes:
>In <334EE6...@somewhere.com>, no name for obvious reasons <som...@somewhere.com> writes:
>>Kevin Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>> Good grief. He was trying to establish that you did belong there and
>>> that you weren't under duress. We don't carry search warrants to 9-1-1
>>> hangups. There is nothing wrong with giving a name and DOB and
>>> providing some ID.
>>>
>>> Now if he started asking if you were on a grassy knoll in Dallas in
>>> 1963, call a lawyer.
>>
>>Your use of the word 'we' suggests that you're a police officer. So of
>>course you would say that there is nothing wrong with giving up ones
>>rights. (See my loss of faith) Thank you for the answer about 911 calls
>>though. If he was really worried about whether or not I was under duress
>>then he would've searched the entire house which he didn't do.
>>In the future, I might feel inclined to show him my drivers license
>>while covering any personal info which would show my picture and my name
>>and address to prove that I belonged there. But what if I was a guest or
>>something and not in my house? I can see him being real suspicious if I
>>was dressed in black or something and was acting suspiciously but I was
>>in my housecoat for heavens sake.
>I can't tell you how many times I've gone to 911-hangups to have a man
>answer the door in a robe, shorts, underwear, etc. "Everything OK here?"
>"Yup". "Is there anyone else here?" "Yup." "Are they OK?" "Yup".
>"Mind if we check?" (hesitation) "Nope".
>And how many times after this intellectual dialog I've found the wife,
>girlfriend, boyfriend, or child in the back room with the snot beat out
>of them. Are you suggesting we simply take the answers at the door
>as the truth and not ensure the safety of occupants?
>Mark Thomen
As usual, I am squarely on both sides of this one. I can understnad the
original poster's feelings that she was "hassled" and that her privacy
was compromised. Also, I agree that the sanctity of her home was
violated.
But...
In Washington, DC, there was a gang rape of three women. At least two
men broke in and began raping one of three women who lived in the
apratment. Her two roommates hid and later got a chance to call cops.
Cops came, knocked on door, no one answered, cops went away. Women
later got another chance to call cops. Cops came, knocked on door, no
one answered, cops went away--but the women either thought they had been
rescued or were somehow detected. Bad guys spent something like 14
hours raping and sodomizing the three women.
The women later sued and alleged that the cops were negligent. Court
held that even if cops were negligent, cops have no duty to protect
individual citizen, only general duty to community as a whole. Case is
widely cited as one reason why citizens must have right to keep and bear
arms for self defense since no one else is legally responsible for
defending them. But that is beside point.
Point is, what if woman in housecoat was lying because Rat Bastard in
other room has knife to daughter's throat? What if woman in housecoat
is accomplice to Rat Bastard in another part of house. Like Thomen
said, lots of people will try to brazen it out. Most Rat Bastards are
male, but not all.
So how would original poster feel if Rat Bastard was in closet with 6YO
daughter and knife and cop did NOT want to look around?
Like I said, I'm on both sides of it. How do I know someone misdialed
William Gray
hgreen9 <hgr...@mail.idt.net> writes:
>Marc Thibault wrote:
>>
>> tho...@ibm.net (Mark Thomen) writes:
>>
>(snip)
>> If you have reasonable grounds to believe something is wrong, you
>> have procedures that let you act on it, but misdials, kids playing
>> with the phone and equipment failures don't provide reasonable
>> grounds.
>>
>> Your job is to gather evidence and apprehend the criminals after a
>> crime is committed. Any other intimations are pure propaganda
>> unsupported by law, or your union contract.
>BZZZZZZT. Wrong! I hope you are not giving this as legal advise to
>those in the US.
>HMG
I disagree. I thought Mark stated the matter concisely and accurately.
If you disagree, please 'splain what you think was in error.
Regards,
Bill
Mark Thomen
In <E8J1w...@news.uwindsor.ca>, Bill MacArthur <billmac.s...@uwindsor.ca> writes:
>sje...@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca (Stephen Jenuth) wrote:
>
>>I would think that they have the right to remain silent to protect
>>them against criminal prosecution.
>>
>Canadians do not have the right to remain silent. If they testify, they
>are required to answer and tell the truth. IMO this is a much better
>system than in the US where the 5th Amendment allows guilty people to
>hide. After all, if you have nothing to hide why shouldn't you testify?
>And if you have done something wrong, why should you be able to hide from
>the consequences?
I assume you're from Canada, and therefore I can understand this belief. However
in the U.S. we do NOT require you to testify. Do guilty hide behind it? Probably.
But no case is brought by a prosecutor on the basis that the suspect is going to
confess on the stand. There has to be enough evidence outside of that to
prove the crime.
Does it make the job tougher on the state? Yes, it does. And I for one find
that comforting. Everyone hates the concepts of the 4th and 5th - until they
need them for themselves.
And the taunt that if you have nothing to hide, why not testify is one of the
most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard. Because I don't HAVE to, THAT'S why!
Mark Thomen
Mark Thomen
In <DoZ25D...@tanda.on.ca>, ma...@tanda.on.ca (Marc Thibault) writes:
>tho...@ibm.net (Mark Thomen) writes:
>
>> of them. Are you suggesting we simply take the answers at the door
>> as the truth and not ensure the safety of occupants?
>
>
> assume anyone who answers the door is a criminal. Assuring the
> safety of the occupants, or any other citizen for that matter, is
> not in your job description. If the man tells you to take a hike
> you do it.
That's not in my job description? I'll remember that if I ever get
dispatched to your house...
>
> If you have reasonable grounds to believe something is wrong, you
> have procedures that let you act on it, but misdials, kids playing
> with the phone and equipment failures don't provide reasonable
> grounds.
A call to 911, which is an emergency line, has a reasonable expectation on
our part to indicate that an emergency may exist. Response to the address
is on that presumption. Sufficient investigation is justified to determine that
either an emergency exists, or that it doesn't. Exactly how do you get off
claiming otherwise?
>
> Your job is to gather evidence and apprehend the criminals after a
> crime is committed. Any other intimations are pure propaganda
> unsupported by law, or your union contract.
Excuse me, my job is to PREVENT crime whenever possible, not just
come in and do the paperwork after the fact. BIOYA...
Brian Donohue
If a cop responds to a 911 hang up and meets with someone unwilling to
answer basic questions causing the officer to become suspicious, that
cop would be negligent if he doesn't make a cursory search of the
premises. The resident should be asked for their consent first, but if
permission is denied common sense dictates that in such unusual
circumstances the professional law enforcement officer has an obligation
to make sure no one inside is in need of immediate help. One person's
right to privacy should not preclude a reasonably perceived threat to
another person's right to life. This is a concept that any adult should
understand. What is so confusing about it? - Brian
no name for obvious reasons
scha...@wat.hookup.net.this.hopefully.stops.spam wrote:
>
> In <33507E...@somewhere.com>, no name for obvious reasons <som...@somewhere.com> writes:
> > ...
> >Which is why in a previous post of mine, I think the cops should search
> >everywhere in the house to be 100% satisfied that all is well...which
> >having let them come in or if they have some legal power to come in I
> >would've assumed they'd do.
>
> convinced by your behavior that everything was alright. Going through the
> whole house in such a situation might be a waste of time.
>
I agree. If you remember I did let him in to satisfy himself that
nothing was wrong and indeed he didn't search the entire place due to
becoming satisfied part way through the search. Like I've been saying
all along...I've had no problem with him coming in...just the questions.
> > ...
> >If I was an accomplice then no problem. If not then I would make darn
> >sure that I get the point across to them that they should search
> >everywhere. And as a citizen at large I would want the cop to search
> >everywhere for the safety of that child or whoever.
>
> Don't you think that an experienced cop can pick up some clues from the way
> you are acting?
>
Absolutely. What do I know? I'm one of the 'good guys'. I don't know
what all the nasties of this world do.
> > ...
> >Not being familiar with what the 4th Amendment is, I would suggest that
> >non-tamperable logs be used by the dispatcher as proof for us good guys
> >that a 911 call was made and thus the ability for the cop to search
> >without a warrant.
>
> The logs can be misleading. A few years back I got a call from the 911
> dispatch who claimed firmly that they got a call from our number. Problem
> was: nobody in the house was near the phone at that time, so it most
> likely was a faul at some Bell switch.
>
> Hartmann Schaffer
Hmm. Interesting. So much for that idea. What we need is some kind of
foolproof method of assuring we the good guys that our civil rights
aren't being trampled...that really truly someone or something somehow
called the number from the premises.
no name for obvious reasons
> > come in and do the paperwork after the fact. BIOYA...
>
> lawyer before making rash statements like that. If your job is to
> prevent crime... and you fail... and the victim decides to take
> you to court... ?
>
> I'm not saying that you don't believe that your job is to prevent
> crime, or that it isn't what gets you out of bed in the morning,
> but when push comes to shove it's not something us ordinary
> unarmed citizens can count on - or wish to count on. Also, there
> are a few innocents in graveyards who wouldn't be there if some of
> you hadn't been preventing so hard, though not as many as have
> been put there by politicians who pass preventative laws against
> innocent behaviour on the grounds that it might lead to crime.
>
> All told, I'll vote for less preventing and more apprehending.
Bingo again.
no name for obvious reasons
Mark Thomen wrote:
>
> In <5ip9v8$l9p$1...@darla.visi.com>, gr...@visi.com (William Gray) writes:
> >Like I said, I'm on both sides of it. How do I know someone misdialed
> >911? Cop comes to my door, I know I didn't call (know I had not even
> >used phone, maybe), claims 911 call, wants to come in to investigate, I
> >tell him Go Pound Sand. Maybe kid upstairs fat fingered phone call.
> >Maybe cat knocked phone off receiver and hit speed dial number.
>
> 911 hangup. They've generally been surprised, it's almost always turned
> out to be a kid playing with the phone. I've given a couple of lectures
> to kids (not the type to scare them, just to teach them), and in one
> case it did appear to be a cat.
>
> Most people appreciate the fact I come in and check; they like the
> fact they know if THEY weren't there I'd be checking on whoever was
> in THEIR house.
>
As do I. I was surprised and I let him in to assure himself that all was
well. I just don't believe the questions are necessary.
> >
> >And maybe Big Brother just found an easy way past 4th Amendment?
> >Idunno. Like to think I'd be reasonable. Odds against that, most days.
>
> Believe me (and I suspect most LEOs on here will agree) - we've got
> much more important things to do than try to violate constitutional rights
> on a simple 911 hangup...
>
> Mark Thomen
>
> Remove "no-spam" from address to send e-mail.
Good to hear.
hgreen9
Marc Thibault wrote:
>
> hgreen9 <hgr...@mail.idt.net> writes:
>
> > > Your job is to gather evidence and apprehend the criminals after a
> > > crime is committed. Any other intimations are pure propaganda
> > > unsupported by law, or your union contract.
> >
> > those in the US.
>
> to prove me wrong.
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 2.13
4a. Duties of Peace Officers
1. Preserve the peace
2. Prevent or suppress crime
3. Execute all lawful process issued to him by any magistrate or court.
4. Give notice to a magistrate of all offenses committed in his
jurisdiction.
5. Arrest without warrant every offender where authorized by law.
I'm not in a union.
How do you like your crow cooked?
HMG
no name for obvious reasons
Mark Thomen wrote:
>
> In <33501A...@somewhere.com>, no name for obvious reasons <som...@somewhere.com> writes:
> >Here's some nice honesty. Thanks for the input Kahuna.
> >Although I don't quite regard myself as stupid, accidents do happen
> >which is what happened in my case. I was fumbling with the phone and it
> >seems that unbeknowst to me, a speed dial button had been programmed to
> >911 and it had somehow been pressed during the fumbling. I then used the
> >phone immediately after that and so the police couldn't call me back to
> >verify the validity of the call. Your regular run-of-the-mill comedy of
> >errors.
>
>
And please believe me, I do sympathize. It's those darn speed dial
buttons.
> >My opinion would be that the officer has the legal right to enter the
> >premises after clearly stating that they're responding to a 911 call. In
> >the event that there is a crime happening or has happened then during
> >processing the accused has the right to see the log of the 911 call from
> >the dispatcher to verify that the officer had the right to enter.
>
> I'm sure if you ever wanted to see it you could get it.
>
Good.
> > I'm
> >assuming here that the log is not tamperable. If there is no log then
> >the accused is free to go with 24 hours grace time and then the police
> >have to use normal means to pick the person up again.
>
> How did the word "accused" work itself into this? Were you accused
> of anything?
>
I was extending the story to the possibility that a crime was in fact
happening in the house and that a 911 call had not in fact been made but
the cop stated that there had been.
I was not accused of anything in my situation.
> >If there is nothing happening in the premises then the officer has to
> >simply leave saying 'thank you, sorry to bother you, have a nice day'.
> >We are afterall supposedly free to be anywhere we wish to be in this
> >country without being kept track of by the police.
>
> And how would you have felt if the officer did just that but the person
> who was in your home was really a burglar? And when you came home
> you found you were missing a lot of valuables and that the police had
> been there and TALKED to the guy but didn't CATCH him?
>
Indeed. That's the toughie. The cop could write down a detailed
description of the guy, wait outside for the guy to come out with the
loot and then catch him if he had sufficient cause to believe that the
guy was a bad guy.
> >There are probably a whole bunch of what-ifs here but that is a start to
> >my opinion.
>
> You seem to be of the opinion that you're not required to answer questions
> in your home, even if it is in the course of the investigation of a potential
> crime. Unfortunately, you are mistaken.
>
> Mark Thomen
>
> Remove "no-spam" from address to send e-mail.
I am of the opinion and belief that I'm not required to answer any
questions, yes. I'm not entirely sure I'm mistaken from what I can
gather from all of this most interesting discussion.
Louis Johnson
tp.ix.netcom.com>
Distribution:
could be the ramseys heard about the morin case in canada where
the shitcops (one word) uncovered the ghastly truth about morin,
that he actually played clarinet in a band (weird weird) and thus
such strange avocation made him a suspect in the case.
it was morin's NAIVE honest cooperation with the investigators which
gave them this and all kinds of other SHOCKING evidence regarding
motive and character..... making him the ONLY suspect......
oh, DNA evidence which wasnt even perfected at the time eventuall
decisively CLEARED him....
BE VERY VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY TO WHO IN A SHITCOP INVESTIGATION.
THEY ARE ******* NOOOOOOTTTTTTT ****** INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH, THEY
ARE INTERESTED IN LAYING BLAME AND RACKING UP CONVICTIONS.
p.s. this is from observation, not experience!!!
The Big Kahuna (BigK...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: On 9 Apr 97 17:41:47, ata...@nmsu.edu (Nosy) wrote:
: ><In article <334c0a74....@nntp.ix.netcom.com> BigK...@ix.netcom.com (The Big Kahuna) writes:
: >\< On Wed, 09 Apr 1997 17:58:25 GMT, op...@mail.netshop.net (Alleycat)
: > < wrote:
: >
: >SOMEONE wrote:
: > < >WAS: Bang.....bang.....Don't tell. shhhhh.....
: > < >_______________________________
: > < >
: > < >tho...@ibm.net (Mark Thomen) wrote:
: > < >
: > < >Right. Anyone following the Jon-Benet Ramsey case should remember
: > < >that so far, the parents have STILL refused to give the police a
: > < >statement. Do you consider that to be horrible?
: >
: > This statement is not accurate. CNN has reported several
: > times so far that the Ramsey's are willing to give a statement
: > but only a joint statement, they have refused to be interviewed
: > separately.
: >
: > This is not the same as "parents have STILL refused to give the
: > police a statement".
: >
: > It is a requirement that strikes me as rather odd, at the very
: > least.
: >
: >Alleycat wrote:
: > >__________________________
: >< >
: >< >You would think they would be given a certain number of days to make a
: >< >statement, or be arrested for the crime they're accused of until such
: >< >time as they speak up. Also, I thought they took sperm samples.
: >< >Whatever happened to those? -- Alleycat
: > >__________________________
: >
: > No one has been charged in the Ramsey case, to the best of
: > my knowledge. Samples of hair and other bodily samples have
: > been taken, allegedly, from many people including neighbors,
: > relatives, people in Boulder who have some contact socially
: > with the Ramsey's, etc.
: >
: >< Rather odd the parents refuse to cooperate with the investigation.
: >
: > This claim is false. The parents refuse to be interviewed
: > separately, they have not refused to cooperate.
: >
: ><I would think one would be anxious to help in any way possible.
: >
: > Yes.
: >
: > In such a bizarre case, people may act in unusual ways,
: > too.
: The parents refusal to be interviewed has delayed the case & possibly
: with held valuable information. To me that makes it a refusal to
: cooperate. If it was my kid, I wouldn't be playinmg games with holding
: possible important information.
: I think it's highly suspect the parents are playing games over being
: interviewed.
: The Big Kahuna
--
>feel free to add your flame response in the space provided:
_
|_|
Marc Thibault
> process is to determine if a crime has in fact taken place. You never
> know exactly what you have till you investigate.
"Part of the investigative process" ... That doesn't start until
there is some indication that a crime _has_ been committed. The
first step is to make sure there was in fact a crime (not all that
common a step - given the number of innocent people being gunned
down by nervous cops these days.)
A 911 hangup can mean one hell of a lot of things - including a few
phone company screw-ups. Read comp.risks for lots of tales of the
ways 911 can be accidentally dialed, often without the person
doing it knowing that 911 has been dialed. It isn't anything
approximating "probable cause", so there is no investigation and
no investigative process.
"You never know what you have until you investigate" is not a
justification to begin "investigating". When "investigating" is
indistinguishable from "fishing", it is right and proper for the
state to have not the foggiest notion of what you have. It's none
of its business, and should remain so.
Every so often a crime will happen that might have been stopped by
a snoopy policeman. That's the price of freedom. I'm not prepared
to trade a set of thugs who can be caught and imprisoned for a set
of thugs who answer to no one.
I'm at a loss to understand why so many Canadians have begun to
ask for the tethers of a police state.
no name for obvious reasons
I, for one, have no confusion over this. I couldn't agree more that the
cop should search the premises to make sure no one else is in trouble
even if the person at the door says there is no problem.
In my case, I did let the cop in. He did search some areas of the house.
He seemed satisfied that nothing was wrong. It was then that he started
asking questions which I felt were none of his business. No danger -
leave. Thanks very much, sorry to bother you, have a nice day. No
questions asked.
If the cop feels that there is some suspicion surrounding the person
then he can start asking questions. Of course the person has the right
not to say anything. In my case, I was wearing a housecoat and had bare
feet. Suspicious?? I can't possibly imagine how.
Marc Thibault
Marc Thibault
no name for obvious reasons
scha...@wat.hookup.net.this.hopefully.stops.spam wrote:
>
> In <335087...@somewhere.com>, no name for obvious reasons <som...@somewhere.com> writes:
> > ...
> >I continue to conclude more and more that I don't have to answer the
> >questions that the police ask me. That's why I asked in a more straight
> >forward post about what the police can and can't do and what we the
> >people can and can't do in the case of a 911 call.
>
> nothing is wrong, everybody is safe etc. Convincing himself that he speaks
> to the legal resident of the dwelling and not some intruder should be part
> of it.
>
> Hartmann Schaffer
You said in your last post that the cop could probably sense that the
person he's talking to is up to no good.
I continue to stumble and wonder whether that much information is a good
thing in balance of the right to privacy. I bring up my guest idea
again. What if I'm a guest and not the legal resident of the dwelling?
What then?
no name for obvious reasons
Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
> In <335080...@somewhere.com>, no name for obvious reasons <som...@somewhere.com> writes:
> >Kevin Murphy wrote:
>
> >I agree. The cop should come in regardless of what someone at the door
> >says to search the premises. I don't agree with the identity part. As
> >long as there's proof of the fact that the call was made to protect
> >against police abuse of this.
>
> To search the premises. No. To look for signs of violence, dead
> bodies, puddles of blood and the like maybe. A 911 call can not
> authorize any other type of search or authorize any other type of
> investigation.
>
That sounds like a good restriction. What if he comes across a
hydroponic growing operation or something though? Tough luck to the
occupants is my guess.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Keith Medcalf (416) 410-5791 http://www.dessus.com/
> IBM OS/2, LAN Server, DB2/2, TCP/IP, DOS, Windows, Windows NT
> IBM System Management Software Specialist IBM BESTeam Member
> IBM OS/2 Warp Server Software Specialist
> Finger or email kmedca...@dessus.com for my PGP Public Key
> (spammer foiler: remove underscore from address before sending)
no name for obvious reasons
Bingo! Absolutely. I know I'm not one of those wanting to be tethered.
no name for obvious reasons
> >>
> >> Cops came, knocked on door, no one answered, cops went away. Women
> >> later got another chance to call cops. Cops came, knocked on door, no
> >> one answered, cops went away--but the women either thought they had been
> >> rescued or were somehow detected. Bad guys spent something like 14
> >> hours raping and sodomizing the three women.
>
> >calls and they just walk away? Wow! Break in...do something.
>
> Cops gotta obey law. They study when they can and cannot enter by
> force. Nothing is perfect.
>
> But you were complaining because cop wanted to make sure you were not
> victim in similar case. Unless he comes in and looks around, how can he
> know you do not have roommate in another room with knife at throat?
>
I did not complain. I let him in. My complaint is with the questions
after.
> >> The women later sued and alleged that the cops were negligent. Court
> >> held that even if cops were negligent, cops have no duty to protect
> >> individual citizen, only general duty to community as a whole. Case is
> >> widely cited as one reason why citizens must have right to keep and bear
> >> arms for self defense since no one else is legally responsible for
> >> defending them. But that is beside point.
> >>
> >> Point is, what if woman in housecoat was lying because Rat Bastard in
> >> other room has knife to daughter's throat? What if woman in housecoat
> >> is accomplice to Rat Bastard in another part of house. Like Thomen
> >> said, lots of people will try to brazen it out. Most Rat Bastards are
> >> male, but not all.
>
> >Which is why in a previous post of mine, I think the cops should search
> >everywhere in the house to be 100% satisfied that all is well...which
> >having let them come in or if they have some legal power to come in I
> >would've assumed they'd do.
>
> Not binary (yes/no) situation. Cops rely on many factors to decide how
> much suspicion is warranted. Your cop had reason to verify your
> identity, but reasons did not, to him, warrant more intrusive search.
>
> Still can't tell if you're pissed they came in at all or pissed that
> they didn't tear the sheetrock off the walls looking for hidden
> intruders.
>
Reason to verify a person wearing a housecoat and having bare feet in my
case? I don't think so.
The only thing that could approach my being pissed at anything is the
questions asked after he was satisfied all was well.
> >> So how would original poster feel if Rat Bastard was in closet with 6YO
> >> daughter and knife and cop did NOT want to look around?
>
> >If I was an accomplice then no problem. If not then I would make darn
> >sure that I get the point across to them that they should search
> >everywhere. And as a citizen at large I would want the cop to search
> >everywhere for the safety of that child or whoever.
>
> Then why are you complaining about cop's questions when he showed up?
>
Because of my right to privacy of my personal information. I'm willing
to let him search for anybody in danger but not intrude on the right to
privacy.
> >> Like I said, I'm on both sides of it. How do I know someone misdialed
> >> 911? Cop comes to my door, I know I didn't call (know I had not even
> >> used phone, maybe), claims 911 call, wants to come in to investigate, I
> >> tell him Go Pound Sand. Maybe kid upstairs fat fingered phone call.
> >> Maybe cat knocked phone off receiver and hit speed dial number.
> >>
> >> And maybe Big Brother just found an easy way past 4th Amendment?
> >> Idunno. Like to think I'd be reasonable. Odds against that, most days.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Bill
>
> >Not being familiar with what the 4th Amendment is, I would suggest that
> >non-tamperable logs be used by the dispatcher as proof for us good guys
> >that a 911 call was made and thus the ability for the cop to search
> >without a warrant.
>
> 4th Amendment protects you from searches and seizures w/o warrant from
> judge (generally, exceptions exist in multitudes).
>
> There is no log people can make that people can't fake. But I did not
> mean that I think tampering is commonplace; to contrary, I know of no
> credible claims that such logs have ever been tampered with.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill
That's good to know.
scha...@wat.hookup.net.this.hopefully.stops.spam
In <33507E...@somewhere.com>, no name for obvious reasons <som...@somewhere.com> writes:
> ...
>Which is why in a previous post of mine, I think the cops should search
>everywhere in the house to be 100% satisfied that all is well...which
>having let them come in or if they have some legal power to come in I
>would've assumed they'd do.
I think you should give the cop some credit there. He probably was
convinced by your behavior that everything was alright. Going through the
whole house in such a situation might be a waste of time.
> ...
>If I was an accomplice then no problem. If not then I would make darn
>sure that I get the point across to them that they should search
>everywhere. And as a citizen at large I would want the cop to search
>everywhere for the safety of that child or whoever.
Don't you think that an experienced cop can pick up some clues from the way
you are acting?
> ...
>Not being familiar with what the 4th Amendment is, I would suggest that
>non-tamperable logs be used by the dispatcher as proof for us good guys
>that a 911 call was made and thus the ability for the cop to search
>without a warrant.
The logs can be misleading. A few years back I got a call from the 911
Keith Medcalf
In <335080...@somewhere.com>, no name for obvious reasons <som...@somewhere.com> writes:
>Kevin Murphy wrote:
>I agree. The cop should come in regardless of what someone at the door
>says to search the premises. I don't agree with the identity part. As
>long as there's proof of the fact that the call was made to protect
>against police abuse of this.
To search the premises. No. To look for signs of violence, dead
bodies, puddles of blood and the like maybe. A 911 call can not
authorize any other type of search or authorize any other type of
investigation.
-------------------------------------------------------------
yo...@sympatico.ca
On Sun, 13 Apr 97 21:58:59 EDT, ma...@tanda.on.ca (Marc Thibault)
wrote:
> The
> first step is to make sure there was in fact a crime (not all that
> common a step - given the number of innocent people being gunned
> down by nervous cops these days.)
For some reason, I've never ever had any problems with police. Not
ever.
I just wonder, just on the off chance if the following has anything to
do with it:
If I'm pulled over in my car, I say "Yes, Sir", I cooperate fully,
hand over my licence and answer all questions, immediately, fully and
accurately.
I don't involve myself in crime in any way. I am a fully law abiding
citizen who does not and has never given the police cause to be
concerned about me in any way.
I just wonder if that's why I have no problems with the police.
If everyone behaved this way, how many "innocent people (would be)
gunned down by nervous cops" ? [to use your phrase].
Dave B.
*********
Do not respond to yo...@sympatico.ca
Rather, insert "shire" between york and @ and then respond.
Mark Thomen
>911? Cop comes to my door, I know I didn't call (know I had not even
>used phone, maybe), claims 911 call, wants to come in to investigate, I
>tell him Go Pound Sand. Maybe kid upstairs fat fingered phone call.
>Maybe cat knocked phone off receiver and hit speed dial number.
FWIW, I have never had anyone turn me down when I responded to a
911 hangup. They've generally been surprised, it's almost always turned
out to be a kid playing with the phone. I've given a couple of lectures
to kids (not the type to scare them, just to teach them), and in one
case it did appear to be a cat.
Most people appreciate the fact I come in and check; they like the
fact they know if THEY weren't there I'd be checking on whoever was
in THEIR house.
>
>And maybe Big Brother just found an easy way past 4th Amendment?
>Idunno. Like to think I'd be reasonable. Odds against that, most days.
Believe me (and I suspect most LEOs on here will agree) - we've got
much more important things to do than try to violate constitutional rights
on a simple 911 hangup...
Marc Thibault
Brian Donohue <bdon...@whc.net> writes:
> premises. The resident should be asked for their consent first, but if
> permission is denied common sense dictates that in such unusual
> circumstances the professional law enforcement officer has an obligation
> to make sure no one inside is in need of immediate help. One person's
What you are saying is that resisting a warrantless search
justifies a warrantless search. If that's the case, why bother
with warrants at all? Why not go back to the middle ages and just
let the police go anywhere they want anytime they want?
We interpose courts and judges in this process for the simple
reason that we can't trust individual policemen to make these
kinds of judgements. Nor should we. Police judgement is often
profoundly flawed and more often transparently self-serving. From
the guy who was helping himself to confiscated guns to the pair
who decided that shooting someone was preferable to letting him
commit suicide, cops give us daily evidence that they aren't that
far removed from the people we set them on. This isn't a problem
as long as we place strong impediments in the way when they turn
their attention to good citizens.
Walter Petelka
sje...@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca (Stephen Jenuth) wrote:
>:]In <5ijjon$gr6$1...@noc.van.hookup.net> op...@mail.netshop.net (Alleycat) writes:
>:]>WAS: Re: Bang.....bang.....Don't tell. shhhhh.....
>:]>____________________________________________
>:]
>:]>ri...@servtech.com wrote:
>:]
>:]>The lawyer for five Metro police officers who were witnesses to
>:]>Sunday's fatal shooting has thumbed his nose at tonight's deadline for
>:]>his clients to give their statements to civilian investigators.
>:]
>:]I would think that they have the right to remain silent to protect
>:]them against criminal prosecution.
>:]
>:]But they don't have the right to be a police officer. I think they
>:]should be fired, just like any other employee.
>:]
>:]If I gave an employee a bunch of money, it disappeared, and the
>:]employee said I don't want to talk about it, he or she is gone.
Try it with a union employee or an employee who understands their
rights.
I don't you would win in an arbitration or wrongful dismissal case.
Walter Petelka,Toronto, Ont.
<I have opinions on everything and they are mine alone
but I only get passionate about sex not issues.:-)>
Anne Hildrum
Bill MacArthur <billmac...@uwindsor.ca> wrote in article
<E8K60...@news.uwindsor.ca>...
> "Anne Hildrum" <an...@sn.no> wrote:
> >
>
>snip<
> >In Norway a suspect has the right to remain silent and say
> >absolutely nothing. A witness to a crime has an obligation to
> >speak. If they don't want to talk to the police, the police will
> >take them to coutrt where they have to. The bycers in Norway
> >to this all the time.
> >
> By right to remain silent, do you mean on the witness stand. What form
> does this silence take.
A suspect doesn't have to talk to the police at all, except of
course give their name DOB, adress and place of work.
They don't have to say anything in court either than just the same
thing.
So I guess with silence I mean just keep their mouth shut.
> >People do have the right to remain silent , like doctors
> >about thing concerning their patients, and lawyers concerning
> >their clients. they don't only have the right, they have the
> >obligation. The only case where people who generally have
> >the obligation not to say, have to is concerning child abuse.
> >The child welfare has the right to get information from almost
> >anybody.
> >
> Our professionals are obliged to report possible child abuse to the
> police. AFAIK this is the only case where confidentiality can be
> violated.
That is basically the same here. It does happen that child welfare
gets report of childabuse, and then they have the right to get
information from schools, doctors etc regarding that child.
Anne
>
>
scha...@wat.hookup.net.this.hopefully.stops.spam
Marc Thibault
yo...@sympatico.ca writes:
> If I'm pulled over in my car, I say "Yes, Sir", I cooperate fully,
> hand over my licence and answer all questions, immediately, fully and
> accurately.
Responding to a cop with proper respect, fear and humility so that
he won't treat you like a criminal? Is this the kind of Canada we
want to live in?
Marc Thibault
tho...@ibm.net (Mark Thomen) writes:
> Most people appreciate the fact I come in and check; they like the
> fact they know if THEY weren't there I'd be checking on whoever was
> in THEIR house.
That may be the scariest thing Mark has said so far. That "most
people" are happy about having their rights trampled on to get a
small margin of safety in an improbable situation can only be
counted as a severe blow to democracy.
The sad thing is that Mark and other well-intentioned people like
him think that they are doing some good.
William Gray
tho...@ibm.net (Mark Thomen) writes:
>In <33501A...@somewhere.com>, no name for obvious reasons <som...@somewhere.com> writes:
[snip]
>>If there is nothing happening in the premises then the officer has to
>>simply leave saying 'thank you, sorry to bother you, have a nice day'.
>>We are afterall supposedly free to be anywhere we wish to be in this
>>country without being kept track of by the police.
>And how would you have felt if the officer did just that but the person
>who was in your home was really a burglar? And when you came home
>you found you were missing a lot of valuables and that the police had
>been there and TALKED to the guy but didn't CATCH him?
If I recall correctly, cops were dispatched to Jeffrey Dahmer's
apartment by neighbors complaining either of the smell or the noise.
Dahmer answered the door and spoke to the cops. I do not recall if
they came inside or not. But Dahmer had his latest victim in his
bedroom, dead, at that very moment.
I've been wondering how a 911 hangup could play in this. What if the
victim had made it to the phone, managed to dial 911, then Dahmer hung
the phone up and finished his sick business? Kinda makes me wonder
where the line should be drawn.
BTW, I am not criticizing the Wisconsin cops who let Dahmer get away
with that one. I don't know enough about the circumstances to have any
feel for whether they blew it or not.
Regards,
Bill
Marc Thibault
hgreen9 <hgr...@mail.idt.net> writes:
> 2. Prevent or suppress crime
I find myself impressed and informed by a single posting - a rare
and wonderful thing. What's even more interesting is that the
Texas police don't have a union. Perhaps these two things are
related - as is my personal observation that Texas is a pretty
good place to live.
I stand corrected. (Boiled, then sauteed in an orange sauce with a
little Courvoisier.)
William Gray
tho...@ibm.net (Mark Thomen) writes:
>In <5ipaag$lhe$1...@darla.visi.com>, gr...@visi.com (William Gray) writes:
>>hgreen9 <hgr...@mail.idt.net> writes:
>>
>>>Marc Thibault wrote:
>>>>
>>>> tho...@ibm.net (Mark Thomen) writes:
>>>>
>>>(snip)
>>
>>>> If you have reasonable grounds to believe something is wrong, you
>>>> have procedures that let you act on it, but misdials, kids playing
>>>> with the phone and equipment failures don't provide reasonable
>>>> grounds.
>>>>
>>>> Your job is to gather evidence and apprehend the criminals after a
>>>> crime is committed. Any other intimations are pure propaganda
>>>> unsupported by law, or your union contract.
>>
>>>BZZZZZZT. Wrong! I hope you are not giving this as legal advise to
>>>those in the US.
>>
>>>HMG
>>
>>I disagree. I thought Mark stated the matter concisely and accurately.
>>
>>If you disagree, please 'splain what you think was in error.
>Mark, or Marc? The difference is important... :)
>Mark Thomen
Hmm. Good point. If I read the attributions correctly, nothing you
wrote survived the editing, despite the inclusion of your name above.
I was basically trying to say that I thought the following was correct:
Your job is to gather evidence and apprehend the criminals after a
crime is committed. Any other intimations are pure propaganda
unsupported by law, or your union contract.
I think MarC said it.
Regards,
Bill
William Gray
hgreen9 <hgr...@mail.idt.net> writes:
>William Gray wrote:
>>
>> hgreen9 <hgr...@mail.idt.net> writes:
>>
>> >Marc Thibault wrote:
>> >>
>> >> tho...@ibm.net (Mark Thomen) writes:
>> >>
>(snip)
>>
>> I disagree. I thought Mark stated the matter concisely and accurately.
>>
>> If you disagree, please 'splain what you think was in error.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bill
>The statement that is incorrect is to what LEO are supposed to do. Our
>job description, so to speak. The Texas Code of criminal procedures
>defines what peace officers are supposed to do and it isn't just writing
>reports after a crime has been committed and then looking for the
>perps. Can't say for other states.
>HMG
Hmm. I'm confused and too much has been edited for brevity. I no
longer remember who said what or what I agreed with.
Guess I better get my meds checked. <g>
I know cops are supposed to "keep the peace" and that implies a
certain degree of proactive work. But I don't think I want a lot of
armed Mother Theresas running around being nanny for everyone.
I guess y'all will have to decide for yourselves who gets stuck with me
agreeing with him. ;-)
Regards,
Bill
William Gray
ma...@tanda.on.ca (Marc Thibault) writes:
>tho...@ibm.net (Mark Thomen) writes:
Thomen and run about .500 on issue agreement. But I do not recall him
saying anything that makes me think he tramples on rights in this
respect. Specifically, he didn't say he forces entry, and specifically,
he did say most citizens welcome the response and concern.
I believe that warrantless entry w/o consent on the basis of 911 or
other phone calls is a thorny problem that can be ripe for abuse. As a
gun owner and reloader, for example, I have grave concerns about what
the "plain view" doctrine could result in if certain hoplophobic cretins
in Congress regain the majority. All it would take to get felony
convictions on many thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens would be
a faked 911 call and a plain view arrest for violation of some stupid
"arsenal license" requirement that is based on havine a 3 lb. of powder
instead of a 1 lb. can.
No, thank you.
OTOH, people bitch when they call the cops and the cops don't come, and
they bitch if they call the cops and the cops do not discover the
hidden intruder, and they bitch if they call the cops unintentionally
by being clumsy with a speed dial button. But in each case, they have
called the cops, and in many cases, there is a victim who canNOT come to
the door.
I do not see this as an easy issue to resolve and I do not think Thomen
or Murphy or the other cops who have tried to discuss it are conniving
rascals out to erect a police state. That does not mean I agree with
all their positions or conclusions, but neither does it mean I regard
them with the same necessary contempt one must show a fed, for example.
Regards,
Bill
William Gray
no name for obvious reasons <som...@somewhere.com> writes:
>William Gray wrote:
>>
>> Cops came, knocked on door, no one answered, cops went away. Women
>> later got another chance to call cops. Cops came, knocked on door, no
>> one answered, cops went away--but the women either thought they had been
>> rescued or were somehow detected. Bad guys spent something like 14
>> hours raping and sodomizing the three women.
>It seems pretty obvious to me that the cops should've done more. Two
>calls and they just walk away? Wow! Break in...do something.
Cops gotta obey law. They study when they can and cannot enter by
force. Nothing is perfect.
But you were complaining because cop wanted to make sure you were not
victim in similar case. Unless he comes in and looks around, how can he
know you do not have roommate in another room with knife at throat?
>> The women later sued and alleged that the cops were negligent. Court
>> held that even if cops were negligent, cops have no duty to protect
>> individual citizen, only general duty to community as a whole. Case is
>> widely cited as one reason why citizens must have right to keep and bear
>> arms for self defense since no one else is legally responsible for
>> defending them. But that is beside point.
>>
>> Point is, what if woman in housecoat was lying because Rat Bastard in
>> other room has knife to daughter's throat? What if woman in housecoat
>> is accomplice to Rat Bastard in another part of house. Like Thomen
>> said, lots of people will try to brazen it out. Most Rat Bastards are
>> male, but not all.
>Which is why in a previous post of mine, I think the cops should search
>everywhere in the house to be 100% satisfied that all is well...which
>having let them come in or if they have some legal power to come in I
>would've assumed they'd do.
Not binary (yes/no) situation. Cops rely on many factors to decide how
much suspicion is warranted. Your cop had reason to verify your
identity, but reasons did not, to him, warrant more intrusive search.
Still can't tell if you're pissed they came in at all or pissed that
they didn't tear the sheetrock off the walls looking for hidden
intruders.
>> So how would original poster feel if Rat Bastard was in closet with 6YO
>> daughter and knife and cop did NOT want to look around?
>If I was an accomplice then no problem. If not then I would make darn
>sure that I get the point across to them that they should search
>everywhere. And as a citizen at large I would want the cop to search
>everywhere for the safety of that child or whoever.
Then why are you complaining about cop's questions when he showed up?
>> Like I said, I'm on both sides of it. How do I know someone misdialed
>> 911? Cop comes to my door, I know I didn't call (know I had not even
>> used phone, maybe), claims 911 call, wants to come in to investigate, I
>> tell him Go Pound Sand. Maybe kid upstairs fat fingered phone call.
>> Maybe cat knocked phone off receiver and hit speed dial number.
>>
>> And maybe Big Brother just found an easy way past 4th Amendment?
>> Idunno. Like to think I'd be reasonable. Odds against that, most days.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bill
>Not being familiar with what the 4th Amendment is, I would suggest that
>non-tamperable logs be used by the dispatcher as proof for us good guys
>that a 911 call was made and thus the ability for the cop to search
>without a warrant.
4th Amendment protects you from searches and seizures w/o warrant from
Mark Thomen
>
>>Marc Thibault wrote:
>>>
>>> tho...@ibm.net (Mark Thomen) writes:
>>>
>>(snip)
>
>>> have procedures that let you act on it, but misdials, kids playing
>>> with the phone and equipment failures don't provide reasonable
>>> grounds.
>>>
>>> Your job is to gather evidence and apprehend the criminals after a
>>> crime is committed. Any other intimations are pure propaganda
>>> unsupported by law, or your union contract.
>
>>BZZZZZZT. Wrong! I hope you are not giving this as legal advise to
>>those in the US.
>
>>HMG
>
>
>If you disagree, please 'splain what you think was in error.
Mark, or Marc? The difference is important... :)
Mark Thomen
Remove "no-spam" from address to send e-mail.
Mark Thomen
In <33501A...@somewhere.com>, no name for obvious reasons <som...@somewhere.com> writes:
>Here's some nice honesty. Thanks for the input Kahuna.
>Although I don't quite regard myself as stupid, accidents do happen
>which is what happened in my case. I was fumbling with the phone and it
>seems that unbeknowst to me, a speed dial button had been programmed to
>911 and it had somehow been pressed during the fumbling. I then used the
>phone immediately after that and so the police couldn't call me back to
>verify the validity of the call. Your regular run-of-the-mill comedy of
>errors.
Yes, and one that I personally respond to frequently.
>My opinion would be that the officer has the legal right to enter the
>premises after clearly stating that they're responding to a 911 call. In
>the event that there is a crime happening or has happened then during
>processing the accused has the right to see the log of the 911 call from
>the dispatcher to verify that the officer had the right to enter.
I'm sure if you ever wanted to see it you could get it.
> I'm
>assuming here that the log is not tamperable. If there is no log then
>the accused is free to go with 24 hours grace time and then the police
>have to use normal means to pick the person up again.
How did the word "accused" work itself into this? Were you accused
of anything?
>If there is nothing happening in the premises then the officer has to
>simply leave saying 'thank you, sorry to bother you, have a nice day'.
>We are afterall supposedly free to be anywhere we wish to be in this
>country without being kept track of by the police.
And how would you have felt if the officer did just that but the person
who was in your home was really a burglar? And when you came home
you found you were missing a lot of valuables and that the police had
been there and TALKED to the guy but didn't CATCH him?
>There are probably a whole bunch of what-ifs here but that is a start to
>my opinion.
You seem to be of the opinion that you're not required to answer questions
in your home, even if it is in the course of the investigation of a potential
crime. Unfortunately, you are mistaken.
J.D. Baldwin
In article <5itfn5$g...@news.interlog.com>, Morton M. Goldmacher
<alc...@interlog.com> wrote:
>My personal approach is to fully co-operate with the police if they
>are investigating a matter in which another person is a suspect. If I
>am suspected of having committed some sort of wrong, they can talk to
>my lawyer.
>
>Morton M. Goldmacher
>Barrister and Solicitor
Well, make up your mind. Is it your lawyer, your barrister or your
solicitor?
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Donohue
Marc Thibault wrote:
> What you are saying is that resisting a warrantless search
> justifies a warrantless search.
>
> We interpose courts and judges in this process for the simple
> reason that we can't trust individual policemen to make these
> kinds of judgements. Nor should we. Police judgement is often
> profoundly flawed and more often transparently self-serving.
I did not say that refusing permission to search justifies a
warrentless search. The totality of all the circumstances involved have
to be considered. Unless society bears the expense of having judges ride
along with every cop on duty it requires that people with good judgement
be employed as police officers. Because police officers are not perfect,
there will always be instances where mistakes are made. After all,
they're not far removed from the people they work for. There has been a
relatively small number of instances where police judgement was found to
be profoundly flawed or self-serving. - Brian
Lancelot
On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 23:58:55 -0700, no name for obvious reasons
<som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
>Kevin Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 18:19:06 -0700, no name for obvious reasons
>> <som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I let him in. I sympathized with his need to be sure. I did thank him. I
>> >did apologize for the inconvenience. He didn't check the entire house so
>> >he wasn't thorough. He should not have invaded my privacy which is my
>> >right to have.
>>
>> On one hand, you criticize him for not checking the whole house and
>> then criticize him for checking what he did.
>>
>> Can you make up your mind?
>>
>> Warning! Quoted posts may have been snipped because of
>> brevity and sympathy for their author.
>>
>> Larry Butts/Kip/Brady was never a cop.
>
>
>Perhaps my wording wasn't clear. I was surprised that he didn't search
>the whole house. I did not criticize him for what he did...after all, I
>let him in. As I've said, I was willing to forgo the privacy of my home
>to him because of the 911 call. I was not willing to relinquish the
>privacy to my personal information.
I think I got this figured out. You want him to inspect every nook and cranny of
your house to verify that nothing is going on and then to just assume you are
who you say you are?