Failing to stop

The right to remain silent is a phrase that comes from U.S. television. Here, you should be aware of the possible consequences of giving a statement. You can ask the officer about the purpose for the statement, and whether or not you are compelled to give one at the time.
here in canada it's called "principles of fundamental justice" From section 7 of the canadian charter of rights

case:
In R. v. Hebert the court held that the right to silence was a principle of fundamental justice. Statements of the accused cannot be achieved through police trickery and silence cannot be used to make any inference of guilt.

the so called 'right to remain silent' is guaranteed for a second time by section 11(c) of the charter (this part is specific to "Proceedings in criminal and penal matters")


it should be noted that one difference from the us is when you invoke your right to remain silent, here in canada the police don't have to stop questioning you.
R. v. Singh
the dude invoked his right to remain silent 18 times and cops kept going, and eventually got a confession.
the court said, the cops didn't deny his right to silence by ignoring it.
 
Last edited:
The right to remain silent is a phrase that comes from U.S. television. Here, you should be aware of the possible consequences of giving a statement. You can ask the officer about the purpose for the statement, and whether or not you are compelled to give one at the time. For me, if I'm at the doorstep asking questions, I'm more interested in cautioning the owner against either driving like a hooligan, or allowing someone else to use the motorcycle to drive like one.

here in canada it's called "principles of fundamental justice" From section 7 of the canadian charter of rights

case:
In R. v. Hebert the court held that the right to silence was a principle of fundamental justice. Statements of the accused cannot be achieved through police trickery and silence cannot be used to make any inference of guilt.

the so called 'right to remain silent' is guaranteed for a second time by section 11(c) of the charter (this part is specific to "Proceedings in criminal and penal matters")


it should be noted that one difference from the us is when you invoke your right to remain silent, here in canada the police don't have to stop questioning you.
R. v. Singh
the dude invoked his right to remain silent 18 times and cops kept going, and eventually got a confession.
the court said, the cops didn't deny his right to silence by ignoring it.


So basically, we do have the right to remain silent then. Its just that we'll probably be harassed to no end from the police for answers... Did I get this right??
 
Seems if you just follow the rules in life in general all the above is irrelevant, we do have lawyers in Canada....like anyone reading is going to retain all this stuff...carry on gang



Harvey
 
Seems if you just follow the rules in life in general all the above is irrelevant, we do have lawyers in Canada....like anyone reading is going to retain all this stuff...carry on gang



Harvey

so naive.
 
So basically, we do have the right to remain silent then. Its just that we'll probably be harassed to no end from the police for answers... Did I get this right??
basically yes.
if a cop approaches you on the street you don't have to answer any questions.
if you become a suspect for something, you don't have to answer any questions.
the cop doesn't have to walk away though. The cop doesn't have to stop asking questions.

there does become a point where the cop will have to arrest you, or let you go, because section 9 of the charter says "Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned."
how much time a "friendly unofficial string of questions" can last, i don't know.


once you're arrested, you don't have to answer any question.
after you're arrested, any question you do answer, is inadmissible as evidence, until you are read your rights.
after you have been read your rights anything you choose to say is evidence.
from this point on, you don't have to say a word, except for "not guilty"


-there are exceptions to this, like a state of emergency, or open war.
 
Last edited:
So basically, we do have the right to remain silent then. Its just that we'll probably be harassed to no end from the police for answers... Did I get this right??

Yes, and the cops really don't like it when people know that. If the cops come asking questions, you have to identify who you are, and if they ask for a sample for blood-alcohol testing, you have to give them that sample. Beyond that, you do not have to talk to them, you do not have to answer anything, and you can certainly ask whether you are being arrested for anything and whether you are being detained.
 
basically yes.
if a cop approaches you on the street you don't have to answer any questions.
if you become a suspect for something, you don't have to answer any questions.
the cop doesn't have to walk away though. The cop doesn't have to stop asking questions.

there does become a point where the cop will have to arrest you, or let you go, because section 9 of the charter says "Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned."
how much time a "friendly unofficial string of questions" can last, i don't know.


once you're arrested, you don't have to answer any question.
after you're arrested, any question you do answer, is inadmissible as evidence, until you are read your rights.
after you have been read your rights anything you choose to say is evidence.
from this point on, you don't have to say a word, except for "not guilty"


-there are exceptions to this, like a state of emergency, or open war.

Almost. You have a duty to identify to police. That duty does not require you to present government issued ID, unless it is to prove that you are authorized for a specific purpose (operating a vehicle, possessing a firearm, etc.).
 
basically yes.
if a cop approaches you on the street you don't have to answer any questions.
if you become a suspect for something, you don't have to answer any questions.
the cop doesn't have to walk away though. The cop doesn't have to stop asking questions.

there does become a point where the cop will have to arrest you, or let you go, because section 9 of the charter says "Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned."
how much time a "friendly unofficial string of questions" can last, i don't know.


once you're arrested, you don't have to answer any question.
after you're arrested, any question you do answer, is inadmissible as evidence, until you are read your rights.
after you have been read your rights anything you choose to say is evidence.
from this point on, you don't have to say a word, except for "not guilty"


-there are exceptions to this, like a state of emergency, or open war.


I hadn't realized that was the case in Canada.
 
Didn't read the entire thread, but how can one be charged if your plate is identified while you are being chased but get away? How Can a cop come to your house a couple hours later and charge YOU?? I don't see how it will stand up in court. I could say I am selling the bike and let someone test ride it...didn't take down his information...etc..there are infinate possibilities. Stolen out of the shed while I was out running errands etc..

Just like any officer that gets in an accident while driving drunk will ALWAYS leave the scene. They go home and claim they were not drunk while driving the vehicle, but had drinks as soon as they got home cause they were nervous...then go back to the scene.. and they will get off a drunk driving charge..kind of the same thing. No proof they were drunk while driving.
 
Didn't read the entire thread, but how can one be charged if your plate is identified while you are being chased but get away? How Can a cop come to your house a couple hours later and charge YOU?? I don't see how it will stand up in court. I could say I am selling the bike and let someone test ride it...didn't take down his information...etc..there are infinate possibilities. Stolen out of the shed while I was out running errands etc..

Just like any officer that gets in an accident while driving drunk will ALWAYS leave the scene. They go home and claim they were not drunk while driving the vehicle, but had drinks as soon as they got home cause they were nervous...then go back to the scene.. and they will get off a drunk driving charge..kind of the same thing. No proof they were drunk while driving.


correct google this rcmp Mountie Monty Robinson left crash scene then drank alcohol as Orion Hutchinson lay dying


Delta police have recommended charges of impaired and dangerous driving causing death against an RCMP officer in a 2008 crash.
Orion Hutchinson, 21, died after his motorcycle collided with a Jeep in Tsawwassen in October.
RCMP Cpl. Benjamin Monty Robinson identified himself to police and witnesses at the scene as the driver.
He took his two children and walked home without checking on the dying Hutchinson.Robinson already had a high profile for his role as the officer in charge on Oct. 14, 2007, when four Mounties Tasered and tackled Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver airport. Dziekanski died on the airport floor.
 
Last edited:
This thread is making me wanna make my bike a track only bike... add being a minority to 172, and you have a recipe for a "Rodney King" scenario.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk
 
Not acting like Rodney King would get you half way home.
 
Yea with that assinine law sure hope don't come across a cop in a bad mood that day..............and they are usually on a power arrogant mood to start with... carry on
 
Did Rodney King pull over for the cops? Are you saying you shouldn't do that?

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk

I think he was profiled. And then, gosh darn it, he lived up to the profile. It's not right.
 
Back
Top Bottom