Which means that an innocent guy has to go to a soup kitchen, to survive, until he's vindicated? That's not how our "presumed innocent" justice system operates, nor is it how it should.
Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.....
- Thread starter Paul
- Start date
Which means that an innocent guy has to go to a soup kitchen, to survive, until he's vindicated? That's not how our "presumed innocent" justice system operates, nor is it how it should.
So, if I get accused (with video back up), stealing tools from my workplace, unless I was protected by a powerful union, I would be immediately fired...no pay ..straight to the soup kitchen for me...
IF I wanted to fight it it, would cost me an arm and a leg for a lawyer, with a 50/50 chance of winning my job back and retroactive pay.
The officer in Barrie already has a leg up over the common person.
IF I wanted to fight it it, would cost me an arm and a leg for a lawyer, with a 50/50 chance of winning my job back and retroactive pay.
The officer in Barrie already has a leg up over the common person.
Not a leg up on the average unionized worker and, if you were fired over something you hadn't done, then you would stand to get multiples of whatever you lost by way of compensation.
Due process.
The cop can't be fired immediately for beating the guy as that hasn't been decided yet by the courts. However, a simple review by a direct supervisor should be enough to get him fired for lying on the job. I know I would be immediately canned for filing a false report to protect my *** after I made a mistake (as I should be).
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
sir this is Canada presumed innocent does not apply here
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
you gotta wounder how many recently unemployed folks can afford adequate representation to actually receive compensation
not many I would think
I hope that you're being facetious.
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
the burden of proof in Canada is on the accused
regardless of what the charter of rights says read the above again
you are presumed guilty until you can prove otherwise
in the USA the burden of proof is on the state which is innocent until proven guilty very different then in Canada
Last edited:
Then you weren't being facetious. I'm sorry but you are very, very wrong. I can't possible explain to you how incredibly, monumentally wrong you are.
I can't say anything about the States because i have no experience there. However, I have had some personal experiences with the Canadian judicial system. Rob...what he is saying may not be the letter of the law in Canada, but my experiences tell me its true.
I have never felt so degraded and insulted when I stood on the stand and testified at my 16 yr old son's bail hearing. He had not been convicted of a crime, yet the prosecution and the judge acted like he had already been tried and convicted.
I have never felt so degraded and insulted when I stood on the stand and testified at my 16 yr old son's bail hearing. He had not been convicted of a crime, yet the prosecution and the judge acted like he had already been tried and convicted.
A bail hearing is a much different animal than a trial and a lot more is allowed at a bail hearing in the interest of the public's safety.
True though, unfortunately, bail is granted in many cases in which it shouldn't be. Third firearms charge? Sure, kick him loose. WHAT?! He shot someone?!! Nooooooooo.
I don't get what you are saying, you come off strong defending a police officer who was caught on video beating the crap outta some kid and falsifying charges against him. You talk about due process and the way our justice system operates, but yet turn around and say that bail shouldn't be granted in some cases.
Btw, I posted $5,000 cash bond for my son, and paid over $10,000 for a lawyer, his bail conditions were that of almost amounting to house arrest, and nine months later he was cleared of any charges.
He was guilty until proven otherwise
So where am I inconsistent? I'm saying that due process must be followed. Part of that process is a bail hearing and release isn't guaranteed, pending trial. If someone has shown himself to be a danger to society, due to previous acts resulting in conviction or acts while already awaiting trial, then IMHO bail should be denied.
You paid $5000.00 bond. How much was the actual bail? What crime was he accused of? Bail is to guarantee appearance.
9 counts of break and enter...based on what 2 other kids said to police when they were caught and questioned..... My son wasn't with them. The bail was set so high because he told police that he wasn't living with me and had been staying at a friends house. I guess they thought he was going to skip. He had no other prior convictions or arrests.
What I'm saying, we had to prove his innocence...which I know he was. Between me , his brother and his grandmother we could account for his whereabouts on at least 7 of the occasions that they said he was doing the crimes.
What I'm saying, we had to prove his innocence...which I know he was. Between me , his brother and his grandmother we could account for his whereabouts on at least 7 of the occasions that they said he was doing the crimes.
In other words, The Crown couldn't prove their case. You remain accused, until you're convicted.
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
I'm slow perhaps you can explain
some life experience would give you more clarity and insight on this...
Depends on whether you consider 'life experience' to mean living and learning, or screwing up.
Call it what you will but our court system operates on 'innocent until proven guilty.'
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
still waiting on the the innocent till proven bit
