Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.....

Who was in the wrong?

  • Cop

    Votes: 23 20.7%

  • Dude who got shot

    Votes: 33 29.7%

  • I like turtles

    Votes: 55 49.5%
  • Total voters
    111
Rob MacLennan said:
Call it what you will but our court system operates on 'innocent until proven guilty.'
Click to expand...

If the system is truly balanced why can't "innocent until proven guilty" and "guilty until proven innocent" be equally true? Defendants hire lawyers to oppose what prosecutors "believe" If they didn't believe it they wouldn't be in court.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is right up there with "driving is a privilege"
 
Slick_Steveo said:
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.
Click to expand...


Attempt, if you can, a thought that is not highly specific to a situation in which you have superior information and provides some workable form of policy.
 
Dirty Frank said:
still waiting on the the innocent till proven bit
Click to expand...

Then you'll be waiting forever, because you fail to understand what is implicit in the system itself.

BNKN said:
If the system is truly balanced why can't "innocent until proven guilty" and "guilty until proven innocent" be equally true? Defendants hire lawyers to oppose what prosecutors "believe" If they didn't believe it they wouldn't be in court.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is right up there with "driving is a privilege"
Click to expand...

If the sky is blue and the sea is blue, then why can't the sea be the sky? Because it isn't. The law isn't balanced.

It tends towards erring on the side of the accused. At the end of the presentation of The Crown's case you can immediately ask for the charges to be dismissed, for example, if it is demonstrable that The Crown has failed to meet its burden of proof. You need present no defence. In some cases the mere performing of an act is, of itself, cause for a finding of guilt but even then, The Crown must prove that the act was performed by the accused.
 
BNKN said:
Anybody who has ever been wrongfully accused and run the judicial gauntlet will have a clear understanding of guilty until proven innocent. The rest is just legal mumbo jumbo in defence of the system.
Click to expand...



If the sky is blue and the sea is blue, then why can't the sea be the sky? Because it isn't. The law isn't balanced.

It tends towards erring on the side of the accused. At the end of the presentation of The Crown's case you can immediately ask for the charges to be dismissed, for example, if it is demonstrable that The Crown has failed to meet its burden of proof. You need present no defence. In some cases the mere performing of an act is, of itself, cause for a finding of guilt but even then, The Crown must prove that the act was performed by the accused.[/QUOTE]


Blue sky and sea wasn't the kind of mumbo jumbo I was talking about but I guess it'll do.
 
BNKN said:
Blue sky and sea wasn't the kind of mumbo jumbo I was talking about but I guess it'll do.
Click to expand...

Actually it was, as you were pursuing a complete logical non sequitur. Assuming one thing to be true does not also make the obverse to be so. If all things named Fido are dogs, that does not mean that all dogs are named Fido. This is the assumption that you were making.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Actually it was, as you were pursuing a complete logical non sequitur. Assuming one thing to be true does not also make the obverse to be so. If all things named Fido are dogs, that does not mean that all dogs are named Fido. This is the assumption that you were making.
Click to expand...

Not even close. You can continue with the disambiguation but I find it more useful to confront reality head on. Ultimately, that's where the action is. Like I said, if you've ever been wrongly accused and run the judicial gauntlet you'll have a clear understanding of "guilty until proven innocent".

Until we have near zero false convictions "innocent until proven guilty" is just so much blew Fido speak.
 
BNKN said:
Until we have near zero false convictions "innocent until proven guilty" is just so much blew Fido speak.
Click to expand...

If you're looking for scientific levels of proof, then we'd have tons of criminals on the streets when they belong in jail.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" or "in the balance of evidence" is where the error slips in, but one is still presumed innocent and conviction still requires proof of guilt.
 
What is everyone's opinion regarding reverse onus laws and civil forfeiture laws?
 
fastar1 said:
If you're looking for scientific levels of proof, then we'd have tons of criminals on the streets when they belong in jail.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" or "in the balance of evidence" is where the error slips in, but one is still presumed innocent and conviction still requires proof of guilt.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that the justice system can be perfect or anything along those lines, I'm just calling it what it is in realistic rubber meets the road terms. That it's framed as "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is understandable, you can't put it any other way in a fair and just society and hope to get away with it.
 
BNKN said:
I'm not arguing that the justice system can be perfect or anything along those lines, I'm just calling it what it is in realistic rubber meets the road terms. That it's framed as "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is understandable, you can't put it any other way in a fair and just society and hope to get away with it.
Click to expand...

Ontario police can take your belongings/assets and not even charge you with anything. They supposedly made it for the Hells Angels / organized crime syndicates but they're also using it for HTA 172. How's that for guilty before proven innocent?
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Actually it was, as you were pursuing a complete logical non sequitur. Assuming one thing to be true does not also make the obverse to be so. If all things named Fido are dogs, that does not mean that all dogs are named Fido. This is the assumption that you were making.
Click to expand...

wow somebody finally found a use for their liberal arts degree
 
BNKN said:
Not even close. You can continue with the disambiguation but I find it more useful to confront reality head on. Ultimately, that's where the action is. Like I said, if you've ever been wrongly accused and run the judicial gauntlet you'll have a clear understanding of "guilty until proven innocent".

Until we have near zero false convictions "innocent until proven guilty" is just so much blew Fido speak.
Click to expand...

Another failure in logic. I'm going with Icbones on this one.

Dirty Frank said:
wow somebody finally found a use for their liberal arts degree
Click to expand...

Why must someone who knows a word or two be a Liberal Arts major? Engineering Technology, for your information. Crack a book, once in a while.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Another failure in logic. I'm going with Icbones on this one.
Click to expand...

Ya, you go ahead and do that my friend. Either you don't understand what I'm on about or you're just toeing the party line. Neither works for me because I have a fat head.
 
Shaman said:
Ontario police can take your belongings/assets and not even charge you with anything. They supposedly made it for the Hells Angels / organized crime syndicates but they're also using it for HTA 172. How's that for guilty before proven innocent?
Click to expand...

I agree. It only took seven years for the civil remedies act to morph from confiscating the profits of organized crime to the civil forfeiture laws we now have in Ontario. Today you do not even need a conviction to seize property believed to have been the location of, or acquired by the proceeds of crime, just a charge is sufficient.
 
Dirty Frank said:
now that's funny I didn't think you were a woman
Click to expand...

Lolololz
A woman named Rob, this made me lolz 2x

Sent from my Phone, dont judge the grammar
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom