urbanriot
join:2004-10-18
St Catharines, ON
 ·Cogeco Cable
| reply to shaner
Re: Show Us Your Papers
said by shaner  :I see this as another tool to use when they stumble upon a gaggle of goofs who are up to no good. Yea, right... as if law enforcement have never gone overboard implementing laws.
When I grew up, our pedal bikes were the only way we could get around. No bubble wrapping parents to drive us everywhere, no mass transit, just two feet and a heartbeat... and there were many times we'd bike back from our friends places or our girlfriend's after midnight or in the wee hours after falling asleep on the couch.
I think some of you have disconnected yourselves from your childhoods or had lousy, anti-social childhoods. When I was 14 - 16 there were many nights were myself and/or my friends were going some place or coming back from some place after midnight in the summer or on weekends. Just because you have a large group of kids somewhere, it doesn't mean they're up to no good.
(I remember wandering around downtown Valencia when I was younger, and I ran into a group of kids, 15-17 who were in the streets drinking wine, laughing, telling stories. There we so many groups of them, with no cops in sight, no parents, and nobody was acting out or causing any trouble... everyone was happy and conducting themselves well. Eventually, as groups became tired, these teens went home on their own. Are our kids any different? Do all of these stifling rules we have in place that prevent such occasions cause our teens to lash out?)
We're going too far molly-coddling and repressing our children... and our freedoms, with shallow laws that don't attack the real problem. |
|
Mashiki
Balking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON
·Bright House
·Rogers Hi-Speed
1 edit | said by urbanriot :Yea, right... as if law enforcement have never gone overboard implementing laws. Law enforcement(that's cops) don't implement them. They enforce them, you don't like the law. Let me point you at the legislature that implements them, and the courts that interpret them.
If you have a problem with the way they're being enforced you go to the courts, which is your legal right. That's where you can complain.
edit: marh engrish is hot todah! |
|
urbanriot
join:2004-10-18
St Catharines, ON | Yes, and then after complaining you're slapped with your fine and nothing changes. That's why we need to act before the laws are implemented so they're not improperly enforced. |
|
Mashiki
Balking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON
·Bright House
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Then that's a legislative issue, and you get the government you vote for. You're a non-observant citizen, or you refuse to get involved in the legislative process(i.e. writting(not emailing your MP/MPP)), and so on.
Again, not an enforcement issue. Shit flows downhill, not up. Unless it's on a conveyor.  |
|
urbanriot
join:2004-10-18
St Catharines, ON
·Cogeco Cable
| Well, that's naively obstinate, to suggest that 'the system' works as is intended, laws are enforced strictly 'by the book' and authority doesn't commit actions contrary to how they're supposed to conduct themselves. I don't know what you're saying with "not an enforcement issue"; I'm suggesting that these (just as other laws) can be and are often enforced with a loose interpretation to cover other issues that a particular officer of the law might not like, maybe on a personal level, that will hold up in court because it technically falls under the rules.
With the above suggestion by Fantino, a 16 year old could be riding his bike home from work or his girlfriend's at 1am and get busted for being out after midnight. That's absolutely ridiculous.
If the problem is theft, loitering, graffiti, whatever... apprehend them for those crimes. |
|
Mashiki
Balking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON
·Bright House
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Laws are enforced by common sense and at the discretion of the officer. So while a cop 'might' take a kid in if they're out at night, chances are if they're not causing trouble there's a 50/50% they're not. The other option would probably be telling the parents to simply pick up the kid or arranging a ride for them, just to get the problem dealt with.
When I say it's not an enforcement issue it's not. The law is on the books because it's on the books. You don't like the law you're placing blame in the wrong area, it's not enforcement, it's legislation where you place the blame.
It's good to say apprehend someone for 'theft, loitering, graffiti, whatever', the problem is this: If you dig out your handy dandy criminal code, and look at the various crimes. That is "find committing"(Dual Procedure charges) and "not-committing"(Summery Conviction charges), meaning you have to see the person commit the crime to be able to arrest/charge/give an appearance notice for. You'll find that in a lot of cases, that police have their hands tied by the laws they're supposed to enforce. Now this doesn't help, that people don't want to report crimes unless they're handed a wad of cash(aka crimestopers either). Fun stuff right?
Yep. Welcome to law enforcement in Canada. |
|
Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
1 edit | said by Mashiki :... meaning you have to see the person commit the crime to be able to arrest/charge/give an appearance notice for. You'll find that in a lot of cases, that police have their hands tied by the laws they're supposed to enforce. No, the police don't have to see the crime being committed, or almost no one would ever be arrested -- but they do [normally] need a reasonable evidentiary basis for believing that the person might have committed it.
Funny, I heard something very much like that before from you in defense of another bad law, the racing and stunt driving law.
Cutting out the BS and getting to its essence, the argument is: this is a great law because it removes that pesky requirement called "evidence", which comes up in connection with that even more pesky constitutional requirement called "due process". It's really inconvenient to the police to be saddled with having to come up with something called "proof" of a crime, and so much easier when they can just act on their own prejudicial beliefs. Thus,
Kid: I haven't done anything. Why am I being arrested?
Officer: Because kids like you are nothing but trouble.
Sorry, but there's no other possible interpretation of the intent of a law that enables this.
--
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" -- a corollary of Murphy's Law
"A dog is like a child who never grows old ... always there to love and be loved" -- Aaron Katcher
|
|
Mashiki
Balking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON
·Bright House
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| said by Wolfie00 :No, the police don't have to see the crime being committed, or almost no one would ever be arrested -- but they do [normally] need a reasonable evidentiary basis for believing that the person might have committed it. You're actually misreading what I said in terms of the original statement, but feel free to google "find committing" you'll understand what I mean then. This is one of the few times I don't feel like spending an afternoon explaining it. You don't understand the finer points of the law and how it applies to being able to apply those laws under the criminal code.
The rest of your comment is meandering fluff that doesn't make any sense. The evidence is: "The kid is out after curfew." The "bop" is "why are they out" the "ro" is "reasonable", "the or" is "variable". That's the law. |
|
shaner
Premium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB
| reply to urbanriot
said by urbanriot :said by shaner :I see this as another tool to use when they stumble upon a gaggle of goofs who are up to no good. Yea, right... as if law enforcement have never gone overboard implementing laws. When I grew up, our pedal bikes were the only way we could get around. No bubble wrapping parents to drive us everywhere, no mass transit, just two feet and a heartbeat... and there were many times we'd bike back from our friends places or our girlfriend's after midnight or in the wee hours after falling asleep on the couch. I did the same stuff as a teen. I also remember being out late at night and getting in over my head in situations I had no business being involved in.
You grew up in a small town. I spent my teen years between small towns (Milton, Orangeville) and the big city (Toronto). The cops in Milton and Orangeville were far more lenient in their relationships with us teens than the Toronto cops were. Small town cops would show up at our bush parties, just to make sure things were under control. They didn't check ID or dump our beer out. This law, which has been on the books for a very long time, doesn't automatically replace that kind of discretion that cops have always exercised.
I think some of you have disconnected yourselves from your childhoods or had lousy, anti-social childhoods. When I was 14 - 16 there were many nights were myself and/or my friends were going some place or coming back from some place after midnight in the summer or on weekends. Just because you have a large group of kids somewhere, it doesn't mean they're up to no good.
You're right. But the cops know what kids are likely to be up to no good. Those kids just hanging out after a late shift at McDonalds aren't going to be taken in. But, those kids who are known to cause trouble likely will be.
There we so many groups of them, with no cops in sight, no parents, and nobody was acting out or causing any trouble... everyone was happy and conducting themselves well.
Then those kids won't have a problem. The cops know who they are and usually know what they're up to.
--
I'm a man, but I can change. If I have to. I guess.
The opinions in this post are wholly my own and in no way reflect the opinions of, or are influenced by, Bell Canada or its affiliate companies. |
|
urbanriot
join:2004-10-18
St Catharines, ON
·Cogeco Cable
| said by shaner : There we so many groups of them, with no cops in sight, no parents, and nobody was acting out or causing any trouble... everyone was happy and conducting themselves well. Then those kids won't have a problem. The cops know who they are and usually know what they're up to. No, that's where the problem lies. You and Mashiki are assuming the cops won't literally enforce the law as it's intended (which seems contrary to Mashiki's other suggestions that the law is enforced to the letter) and I'm assuming the cops will literally apply the law whenever they see fit, as they do with other laws, and punish those who may be innocent. But that's the problem with this law... if you're out past midnight you're immediately guilty!
said by Mashiki :When I say it's not an enforcement issue it's not. The law is on the books because it's on the books. You don't like the law you're placing blame in the wrong area, it's not enforcement, it's legislation where you place the blame. You keep going on about an issue that I'm not bringing up. Considering this isn't even a law now, how can I "blame" enforcement? I'm suggesting we nip this in the bud before it can wreak havoc. We're practically agreeing! Where we might differ in opinion is your rosy "they do no wrong" outlook on law enforcement, and my expectation that enforcement will end up punishing innocent kids. |
|
Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
1 edit | reply to Mashiki
said by Mashiki :... feel free to google "find committing" you'll understand what I mean then ... You don't understand the finer points of the law ... said by »books.google.com/books?id=RjQ7H9···resnum=8 :
Police may arrest if they "find committing" or have "reasonable grounds" to believe that an arrestable offence has occurred...
Police have the benefit of being able to arrest without witnessing the offense, provided reasonable grounds exists. The following evidence constitutes reasonable grounds:
- confession to any person (police or citizen)
- at least one credible eyewitness, or
- circumstantial evidence that exceeds mere suspicion
...even if reasonable grounds exist to make an arrest, the requirements of sec. 149(1) Provincial Offences Act (POA) must also be fulfilled to justify making the arrest. Justification of the arrest includes evidence that the offender:
- will repeat the offence
- is a danger to the public, or
- will fail to appear in court
And as for this...
said by Mashiki :The rest of your comment is meandering fluff that doesn't make any sense. The evidence is: "The kid is out after curfew." The "bop" is "why are they out" the "ro" is "reasonable", "the or" is "variable". That's the law. Talk about meandering ... I know "that's the law". We're discussing why it's a bad law!! 
--
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" -- a corollary of Murphy's Law
"A dog is like a child who never grows old ... always there to love and be loved" -- Aaron Katcher
|
|
Mashiki
Balking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON
·Bright House
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to urbanriot
I'm looking at it from both PoV's, don't mistake me on that. That some will enforce it without any question(you do have cops like that), and others who won't give a damn, and still others who will be middle of the road. The law is the law, that's it. And governments get pissy over the police not enforcing the law, that's what they're paid for. Remember that it's a s/c crime(summery conviction offence(less than 6mo). SC charges at the most are very weak. And in most cases like this I doubt they'd get anywhere.
It is on the books now(C.F.S.A. RSO 1990). It simply hasn't been proactively enforced. I remember when it came out, and the hoopla back then. Don't worry, I believe enforcement does wrong, the difference is when they do it I expect that the punishment to be stiffer when they(can and do) get caught. Since they're held to a higher standard. |
|
Mashiki
Balking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON
·Bright House
·Rogers Hi-Speed
1 edit | reply to Wolfie00
said by Wolfie00 :Police may arrest if they "find committing" or have "reasonable grounds" to believe that an arrestable offence has occurred... I really don't want to quote the entire thing. But I'll bold the important part. Now, lets go with s/c, hyd, and ind offences and you'll see where the fun part begins.
edit: The problem is you can't arrest for all arrestable offences. That's the whole RICEPPPP bit, and it's just a pita. Easier for warnings, appearance notices, and all the rest in most cases. There's very few cases where you're actually arresting someone for a lot of crimes anymore which is actually kind of funny. |
|
shaner
Premium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB
| reply to urbanriot
Let me ask you this; when we were teens, were we ever arrested for loitering, underage drinking, or public nuisance even though we freely admit to breaking all those laws? No, we weren't. Because we expect our police to use a reasonable application of the law. Most will, some won't in this case. But, this law has already been on the books for 19 years and it hasn't been abused by the police.
As much as I don't like Fantino, and I had run ins with him in London, I have to believe this announcement of the enforcement of this existing law is more of a warning shot to parents to lwt them knoe they will be held somewhat responsible for their little hooligans running around.
--
I'm a man, but I can change. If I have to. I guess.
The opinions in this post are wholly my own and in no way reflect the opinions of, or are influenced by, Bell Canada or its affiliate companies. |
|
urbanriot
join:2004-10-18
St Catharines, ON
·Cogeco Cable
| Yea, good point.
said by Mashiki :The law is the law, that's it. And governments get pissy over the police not enforcing the law, that's what they're paid for. That's what I get for giving that article a fridge look. Immediately after I read the title the hairs on the back of my neck went up and I was mistakenly under the impression Fantino was suggesting that this become law, not that it was already law! Ugh.
When I was 16 I was a dishwasher at a restaurant so I could save up to buy a car, and the kitchen didn't close until 12:30AM on a good night... it's hard to believe that it was illegal to be biking home from work. |
|
Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
| reply to Mashiki
said by Mashiki :said by Wolfie00 :Police may arrest if they "find committing" or have "reasonable grounds" to believe that an arrestable offence has occurred... I really don't want to quote the entire thing. But I'll bold the important part. Now, lets go with s/c, hyd, and ind offences and you'll see where the fun part begins. edit: The problem is you can't arrest for all arrestable offences. That's the whole RICEPPPP bit, and it's just a pita. Easier for warnings, appearance notices, and all the rest in most cases. There's very few cases where you're actually arresting someone for a lot of crimes anymore which is actually kind of funny. Sorry, that doesn't really tell me anything. I was asked to Google "find committing" and what it turned up not only supports exactly what I said earlier, but actually strengthens it -- by showing that there is a general intent in law to require strong evidence for an arrest in order to prevent frivolous or prejudicially motivated arrests (by "prejudicial" I don't mean in a racist sense, but in the sense of "you look like the type"). Accusing me of being "ignorant of law" doesn't really advance your case, especially when further research seems to bear out exactly what I've been saying.
Again, I don't dispute that this "curfew" law is on the books. The argument is about why it shouldn't be.
I would further suggest that the mere fact that SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Fantino has embraced it with such unbridled enthusiasm -- given his track record -- is proof enough that it shouldn't exist. OK, I'm being a little facetious here, but the guy is a major overzealous asshat.
--
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" -- a corollary of Murphy's Law
"A dog is like a child who never grows old ... always there to love and be loved" -- Aaron Katcher
|
|
dirtyjeffer
Merry Christmas
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to urbanriot
said by urbanriot :When I was 16 I was a dishwasher at a restaurant so I could save up to buy a car, and the kitchen didn't close until 12:30AM on a good night... it's hard to believe that it was illegal to be biking home from work. same here...however, i don't think that is possible anymore...with graduated licences, you can't drive past dusk until you have your G2 (i think)...it isn't a "easy" as it was when we were younger...most 16 year olds will only have a G1 at most.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability. |
|
urbanriot
join:2004-10-18
St Catharines, ON | In a best case scenario, after taking an official driving course, you can have your license eight months into being 16. So it is possible for a 16 year old to be apprehended without a warrant, while driving their car home from work. |
|
dirtyjeffer
Merry Christmas
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| sounds about right (the time lines, as i said i don't know the details of the graduated licenses, although i know they are looking at making it longer)...that said, if some responsible 16 year old is driving himself home at night after work, i don't think there would be an issue...as shaner (and others have said), the law has been on the books for almost 20 years...it hasn't been an issue since 1990, why the fuss now?
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability. |
|
urbanriot
join:2004-10-18
St Catharines, ON | Because they're actively going to enforce it now, whereas they clearly were not before. |
|
