i'm not changing topics, just being thorough. you initially spoke about 10a, 10b, and sec 8 rights violations, hence my reply. since you have chosen not to address the comment about your manipulation of the quotes from my last post, i see you have no explanation for why you chose to do that.
but now that you are focusing solely on the 10b claim, let's look at that. the source you directly cite and quote depicts a pretty clear sequence of events. allow me to suggest an equally plausible version of what happened versus your assumptions.
he arrived at the office. they informed him that he was being charged for possession of a firearm. at this point, they would have advised him of his right to counsel. so he took this opportunity and called his lawyer. his lawyer told him to be smart and shut up, and that he would find out what was actually happening, and confirm the charge. the police arrested him, and took him to the station. his lawyer meanwhile tried to find out what was happening, and where he was being held. hence, the phrase:
"At the police station, Sansone talked to a lawyer who said only that he was being charged with possession of a firearm"
if this was the very first time that the suspect spoke to his lawyer, when would his lawyer have had time to confirm his charge? was he conference calling, perhaps? or is it more likely that there was an initial call, followed by a second discussion? methinks the latter. unfortunately for the suspect, his lawyer had no additional information to pass on, other than the charge against him was as the officers initially said.
imho, this exact sequence of events probably happens every single day, and meshes with the details of the story as reported by the news article. given that you were flat out wrong about 10a, and have no greater support for your versions of 10b and sec 8 than i do, i go back to my original statement and suggest that we stick with the known details. suggesting that i have reading comprehension issues, btw, is weak.
Yep. your versions are still fantastical. But I expect that becuase you have really no idea what happens in these situations. I am pretty tired of repeating myself to someone who obviously have no clue, but I will leave some general comments about why this whole situation is ridiculous. You won't agree of course, because you don't take human rights seriously.
The reason why i left out that sentence is because it was a distraction, and a red herring for 10a compliance, which it is not.
The Charter jurisprudence available in this country shows that the Charter of rights and freedoms is a lot more than just the words on the page. The rights granted are substantive, not simply procedural. This results in highly broad definitions of the words search, detention, etc.
There is a reason why 10a and 10b are together. Its because they are part and parcel of the same right. 10a is only meaningful with 10b and vice versa. Right to counsel without proper disclosure of the information that put him there is useless, and essentially cripples the substantive benefit of 10b. A lack of information given to the individual in this case bascially made his right to counsel useless. Wow your lawyer told you your charge with no other information.. Grats? I know that if someoen called me and said hey i was charged with possession of a firearm, I would ask questions, like.. was he actually caught with a gun? did they find a gun in his car? and if the guy says I don't know anything, that pretty much means calling me was a waste of time. Alternatively, a right to know what is going on really doesn't mean anything if you can't talk to someone who can actually do anything with that information. There is a wealth of jurisprudence that indicate the level of disclosure required in 10a. in the circumstances, I dont' think that he was given adequate 10a.
Lastly, our Charter of rights and freedoms only has a remedy for the "guilty". The only remedies under the Charter is to exclude otherwise relevant evidence that otherwise would point to guilt except for the manner to which it was obtained (or to stay a charge). It has no remedy for innocent people, none.
For me, I can look at the situation and see that its a huge fail by all parties involved. The fact that something is a technical violation of the Charter or not is moot because he was never charged. However, I see the start and I see the finish and I can tell you that there is a guy who essentially was not treated with the dignity or respect that I would want to be treated in that situation.
The Charter is not, nor was it meant to be a complete list of our rights. There are many other rights that indivduals have which are not necessarily enshrined in the Charter, but are never the less important to a democractic society. The way this person was treated is not in accordance with anything that I consider to be civilized, and really, I don't care who failed, or on what particular point. To me, this kind of behaviour should not be tolerated by the general population, and innocent people especially, should be outraged that someone was subject to such treatment without any recourse (other than some validation in the press.. whoop dee doo.)
That certainly wouldn't make me feel better about someone poking at my ***.
