Time Out
Posts: 415 
Videos: 3
Videos: 3
December 8th, 2007, 05:09 AM
If a person in your community were accused of heinous crimes, such as child porn, pedophila, rape, stalking, etcetera, and the accused person remained at large, would you support calls for a federal investigation by the RCMP? Even if the calls for the investigation were being made by the accused?
Canada is a free and democratic country. We enjoy the rule of law. With the rule of law, we are entitled to several rights and freedoms. We are guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. We are entitled to due process and equal protection before and under the law. We are entitled to privacy and are guaranteed the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. We are entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
I cannot condone ostracizing a person by levelling outrageous allegations against him while refusing him an investigation. I cannot accept using such tactics as a means to deny a person his privacy, his liberty, and his rights as a law abiding citizen. If people want to make allegations, they should be prepared to put their money where their mouth.
If a person is accused of hideous crimes, he deserves an investigation of the allegations made against him.
Would you support an investigation of a person alleged to have committed crimes including rape, child molestation, child pornography, sexual predation, stalking and various other crimes?
Yes or No?
If the accused person is guilty, he deserves to be investigated and arrested!
If the accused is innocent, the person making the allegations deserves to be investigated and arrested!
It's time for an investigation and an arrest! The question is who will be going to prison -- the accuser or the accused?
My money says that it's game over for the accuser!
Demand a federal investigation by the RCMP!!!!!
If a person in your community were accused of heinous crimes, such as child porn, pedophila, rape, stalking, etcetera, and the accused person remained at large, would you support calls for a federal investigation by the RCMP? Even if the calls for the investigation were being made by the accused?
Canada is a free and democratic country. We enjoy the rule of law. With the rule of law, we are entitled to several rights and freedoms. We are guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. We are entitled to due process and equal protection before and under the law. We are entitled to privacy and are guaranteed the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. We are entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
I cannot condone ostracizing a person by levelling outrageous allegations against him while refusing him an investigation. I cannot accept using such tactics as a means to deny a person his privacy, his liberty, and his rights as a law abiding citizen. If people want to make allegations, they should be prepared to put their money where their mouth.
If a person is accused of hideous crimes, he deserves an investigation of the allegations made against him.
Would you support an investigation of a person alleged to have committed crimes including rape, child molestation, child pornography, sexual predation, stalking and various other crimes?
Yes or No?
If the accused person is guilty, he deserves to be investigated and arrested!
If the accused is innocent, the person making the allegations deserves to be investigated and arrested!
It's time for an investigation and an arrest! The question is who will be going to prison -- the accuser or the accused?
My money says that it's game over for the accuser!
Demand a federal investigation by the RCMP!!!!!
Member
Posts: 92 
Location: Ontario
Location: Ontario
December 8th, 2007, 04:34 PM
Quoting warrior_won
why?
If the accused is innocent, the person making the allegations deserves to be investigated and arrested!
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 8,777 
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
December 8th, 2007, 04:38 PM
The mounties are busy tazer training, they have no time for justice, the economy deserves thier attention.
The mounties are busy tazer training, they have no time for justice, the economy deserves thier attention.
Time Out
Posts: 415
Videos: 3
Videos: 3
December 9th, 2007, 07:02 AM
Let's put you in the situation described above. Let's accuse you of child molestation. Only, instead of going to the police, because we know the allegations are false, we are going to spread the rumours through the public. In this way we can severely damage your reputation.
Now let's suppose that we want to ensure that you never clear your name and prove your innocence. We can use these false allegations to muster public support. We can use this to coordinate an organized surveillance campaign. And because we now have people watching every move you make and reporting everything that you do, we can effectively obstruct justice.
We can also take every opportunity to spin every action that the accused makes and use it to support our original allegations while simultaneously building the allegations against the person.
We can also harass and torment the accused until he has no option but to lash out. We can use this to show that the accused is unstable and spin it in a fashion that would show the accused to have a mental illness. Thus making it even more difficult for the person to get justice and to enjoy a normal life.
We would also have to realize that there will be people who will be able to put two and two together and figure out that the accused is innocent. To address those people, we will make it look as though the accused is seeking attention and fame. Thus making it impossible for the accused to get anywhere in his pursuit of justice.
This leads to greater damage to the person's reputation and a diminishing of the person's civil rights. Ultimately, the falsely accused person ends up without privacy, denied the right to justice and a fair and impartial trial, unemployed, poverty-stricken, subject to constant harassment, and reduced to sub-human status. Essentially, the falsely accused person becomes the property of the ass-hole making the false allegations.
Should the person making the false allegations be prosecuted? Damn right! The person making the false allegations should never see the light of day again. In a perfect world, the person making the false allegations would be executed. And that may ultimately prove to be the case. For in the situation I have described, the falsely accused could be forgiven for becoming violent and killing the person making the accusations.
Why?
Don't be so stupid! And don't get near the person you're accusing! You may not live to perpetuate the tale.
Quoting senorita
Because the accusations are made falsely. Not just that, but willfully. The laws call this a violation of human rights and criminal. It is illegal to spread hate propaganda against a person and to use such propaganda as a basis for commiting further crimes against an individual. i.e. Criminal harassment.
why?
Let's put you in the situation described above. Let's accuse you of child molestation. Only, instead of going to the police, because we know the allegations are false, we are going to spread the rumours through the public. In this way we can severely damage your reputation.
Now let's suppose that we want to ensure that you never clear your name and prove your innocence. We can use these false allegations to muster public support. We can use this to coordinate an organized surveillance campaign. And because we now have people watching every move you make and reporting everything that you do, we can effectively obstruct justice.
We can also take every opportunity to spin every action that the accused makes and use it to support our original allegations while simultaneously building the allegations against the person.
We can also harass and torment the accused until he has no option but to lash out. We can use this to show that the accused is unstable and spin it in a fashion that would show the accused to have a mental illness. Thus making it even more difficult for the person to get justice and to enjoy a normal life.
We would also have to realize that there will be people who will be able to put two and two together and figure out that the accused is innocent. To address those people, we will make it look as though the accused is seeking attention and fame. Thus making it impossible for the accused to get anywhere in his pursuit of justice.
This leads to greater damage to the person's reputation and a diminishing of the person's civil rights. Ultimately, the falsely accused person ends up without privacy, denied the right to justice and a fair and impartial trial, unemployed, poverty-stricken, subject to constant harassment, and reduced to sub-human status. Essentially, the falsely accused person becomes the property of the ass-hole making the false allegations.
Should the person making the false allegations be prosecuted? Damn right! The person making the false allegations should never see the light of day again. In a perfect world, the person making the false allegations would be executed. And that may ultimately prove to be the case. For in the situation I have described, the falsely accused could be forgiven for becoming violent and killing the person making the accusations.
Why?
Don't be so stupid! And don't get near the person you're accusing! You may not live to perpetuate the tale.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
December 9th, 2007, 09:38 AM
Investigate the RCMP?
From the first word of the fatal shootings of four RCMP officers in rural Alberta last week, the spotlight was turned on marijuana grow-ops -- the dangers they posed, the tougher laws needed to combat them.
Within hours, politicians, police, pot activists and even the father of killer James Roszko pointed both to marijuana itself and the illegal trade in the drug as major players in the deadly chain of events.
RCMP officials said from the outset that their men were killed in a grow-op raid. William Roszko said his son was never the same after he started smoking "that crazy dope" as a teenager. The Marijuana Party said the shootings underscored the need to legalize pot and wipe out the black market. Police and some politicians argued just the opposite, saying the tragedy proved that any move to legalize weed was madness.
It now appears the focus on grow-ops was misplaced. In fact, RCMP Commissoner Guiliano Zaccardelli said in an interview with the National Post on Monday that he was too quick to make the link to marijuana and had acted on incomplete information.
The B.C. Federation of Police Officers says Const. Rob Creasser did a radio interview last month suggesting it's taking too long for answers into what happened when four officers were gunned down last year in Alberta.
The interview, with a Kamloops radio station, followed the July killings of a pair of Saskatchewan RCMP officers.
Creasser also questioned on air whether there are enough officers on the force, saying municipal departments have more resources.
Don McKenzie, president of the federation, said that after the interview, Creasser was issued an order to stop commenting in public.
"Here's an individual, a police officer, sworn to protect the public, to be honest and tell the truth, being punished for just that," said McKenzie, a police detective in Abbottsford.
"He drew attention to some manpower shortage issues within the RCMP as well as questioned why there hadn't been anything given to front-line police officers in the province regarding the tragedy in Mayerthorpe."
The federation quoted from the superintendent's order which cited a section of the RCMP Act stating: "A member shall not publicly criticize, ridicule, petition, or complain about the administration, operation, objective or policies of the force."
Bartleman 'misled' Air India victims' families, inquiry told
Last Updated: Thursday, December 6, 2007 | 6:14 PM ET
A former official with the federal wiretapping service disputed explosive testimony given earlier by former Ontario lieutenant-governor James Bartleman, telling the Air India inquiry Thursday that he never saw a report suggesting Flight 182 would be targeted that weekend.
When the plane was bombed in June 1985, Bartleman was in charge of the intelligence analysis and security branch of Foreign Affairs. In May, he told the inquiry that in the days before the bombing, he had shown a senior RCMP official a document suggesting a flight would be targeted on the weekend that Air India flight was bombed. He said the RCMP official told him he knew about it.
But Pierre Lecompte, a former official with the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) who intercepted calls in the days before the bombing, told the inquiry in Ottawa on Thursday that the RCMP would have been relying on CSE wiretapping reports and that he had never seen a report with that information.
"Mr. Bartleman misled the families of the victims and the commission," Lecompte said. "It's unfortunate that I am here six months after the [testimony]."
I apologize in advance for offering this cut’n’paste contribution to Canadian Content. I don’t need to employ this form of dialogue to make my arguments, I have what I believe to be a more than adequate familitarity with the English language that gives me the facility to offer cogent remarks without resorting to this form of communications. But sometimes, the enormity of the crap that’s generated out of our government and our RCMP and CSIS requires the impact of witnessing that many many voices are aware of what’s going on in Canada.
Canadians are finally (22 years later when it come to Air India) perhaps coming to terms with the level and degree of corruption ineptitude and malfeasance functioning at the highest levels of Canadian government.
These people lie to us on a regular basis, with impunity and without regard for their disservice to truth and justice.
As we wouldn’t expect to grow a riot of roses on a sandy shore, we shouldn’t expect that justice or truth will rise from the mouths of government and the various and many “security” organs over which these nabobs and morons hold “oversight”….
There’s little point in attempting to bring criminals and terrorists to justice in Canada when the source of information are of the calibre of Canadian government and Canadian Judiciary. We the citizens of this nation are lied to on a regular basis and the liars and the fantasies they promulgate around our legal system our security and our system of justice are accepted as “normal”.
Negligence and furthering hatred, lying to the courts and gross ineptitude in police and government aren’t illegal when it come to Canadian government.
It should be.
Investigate the RCMP?
From the first word of the fatal shootings of four RCMP officers in rural Alberta last week, the spotlight was turned on marijuana grow-ops -- the dangers they posed, the tougher laws needed to combat them.
Within hours, politicians, police, pot activists and even the father of killer James Roszko pointed both to marijuana itself and the illegal trade in the drug as major players in the deadly chain of events.
RCMP officials said from the outset that their men were killed in a grow-op raid. William Roszko said his son was never the same after he started smoking "that crazy dope" as a teenager. The Marijuana Party said the shootings underscored the need to legalize pot and wipe out the black market. Police and some politicians argued just the opposite, saying the tragedy proved that any move to legalize weed was madness.
It now appears the focus on grow-ops was misplaced. In fact, RCMP Commissoner Guiliano Zaccardelli said in an interview with the National Post on Monday that he was too quick to make the link to marijuana and had acted on incomplete information.
The B.C. Federation of Police Officers says Const. Rob Creasser did a radio interview last month suggesting it's taking too long for answers into what happened when four officers were gunned down last year in Alberta.
The interview, with a Kamloops radio station, followed the July killings of a pair of Saskatchewan RCMP officers.
Creasser also questioned on air whether there are enough officers on the force, saying municipal departments have more resources.
Don McKenzie, president of the federation, said that after the interview, Creasser was issued an order to stop commenting in public.
"Here's an individual, a police officer, sworn to protect the public, to be honest and tell the truth, being punished for just that," said McKenzie, a police detective in Abbottsford.
"He drew attention to some manpower shortage issues within the RCMP as well as questioned why there hadn't been anything given to front-line police officers in the province regarding the tragedy in Mayerthorpe."
The federation quoted from the superintendent's order which cited a section of the RCMP Act stating: "A member shall not publicly criticize, ridicule, petition, or complain about the administration, operation, objective or policies of the force."
Bartleman 'misled' Air India victims' families, inquiry told
Last Updated: Thursday, December 6, 2007 | 6:14 PM ET
A former official with the federal wiretapping service disputed explosive testimony given earlier by former Ontario lieutenant-governor James Bartleman, telling the Air India inquiry Thursday that he never saw a report suggesting Flight 182 would be targeted that weekend.
When the plane was bombed in June 1985, Bartleman was in charge of the intelligence analysis and security branch of Foreign Affairs. In May, he told the inquiry that in the days before the bombing, he had shown a senior RCMP official a document suggesting a flight would be targeted on the weekend that Air India flight was bombed. He said the RCMP official told him he knew about it.
But Pierre Lecompte, a former official with the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) who intercepted calls in the days before the bombing, told the inquiry in Ottawa on Thursday that the RCMP would have been relying on CSE wiretapping reports and that he had never seen a report with that information.
"Mr. Bartleman misled the families of the victims and the commission," Lecompte said. "It's unfortunate that I am here six months after the [testimony]."
I apologize in advance for offering this cut’n’paste contribution to Canadian Content. I don’t need to employ this form of dialogue to make my arguments, I have what I believe to be a more than adequate familitarity with the English language that gives me the facility to offer cogent remarks without resorting to this form of communications. But sometimes, the enormity of the crap that’s generated out of our government and our RCMP and CSIS requires the impact of witnessing that many many voices are aware of what’s going on in Canada.
Canadians are finally (22 years later when it come to Air India) perhaps coming to terms with the level and degree of corruption ineptitude and malfeasance functioning at the highest levels of Canadian government.
These people lie to us on a regular basis, with impunity and without regard for their disservice to truth and justice.
As we wouldn’t expect to grow a riot of roses on a sandy shore, we shouldn’t expect that justice or truth will rise from the mouths of government and the various and many “security” organs over which these nabobs and morons hold “oversight”….
There’s little point in attempting to bring criminals and terrorists to justice in Canada when the source of information are of the calibre of Canadian government and Canadian Judiciary. We the citizens of this nation are lied to on a regular basis and the liars and the fantasies they promulgate around our legal system our security and our system of justice are accepted as “normal”.
Negligence and furthering hatred, lying to the courts and gross ineptitude in police and government aren’t illegal when it come to Canadian government.
It should be.
Time Out
Posts: 415
Videos: 3
Videos: 3
December 9th, 2007, 10:30 AM
What we need is civilian oversight bodies that do not have a mandate beyond a single investigation. Investigations of police and government agencies should not be conducted by other police and government agencies. Instead their should be a process where civilians are chosen to make the determination... Much like a jury in a criminal or civil case. The civilians chosen can come from fields where expertise in the matter is a prerequisite. For example, lawyers who have never served in government, on the judiciary, or have no association with any political party. Forensics investigators who are not employed by the Crown.
The people doing the investigations need to be chosen from a broad pool of civilians for each investigation. This would help alleviate corruption and intimidation, as these people would know that their role in the matter would end with the conclusion of the matter. It would also help assure that there was no bias on the part of investigators or pressure from employers or colleagues.
An unpopular officer is the one who sends his colleague to jail. So officers investigating a matter of police misconduct is apt to defend the officer than to find fault with him.
The things you describe are very much illegal. It's just that they're investigated by members of their own brotherhood. They get caught. They just very rarely get convicted.
Another problem is that members of the public who are abused by power and authority often give up the fight. This gives the bastards the confidence they need to continue abusing their power and authority. The public really needs to come down hard on those who abuse their power and authority. An example needs to be made, and the people need to rise up and make it clear that they will no longer tolerate these bureaucratic reacharounds.
Another problem is that a lot of people are brainwashed into believing that power and authority are good people. This means that when one or more persons in power or authority screw up, people don't want to paint the whole force with the same brush. Unfortunately, that's exactly what needs to be done. If police are permitted to break the law and maintain their good reputation, they will never change. When an officer or senior official breaks the law and gets caught, the people have to hit the whole force with disapproval. It's only public pressure that can keep them in line. And public pressure only works if it's applied to everyone on the force.
That's just my opinion... However right or wrong it may be.
Quoting MikeyDB
But it is illegal. The problem is that we're stuck with a system where the laws require that the wrong-doers investigate themselves. It's not surprising that they never find fault with themselves. Negligence and furthering hatred, lying to the courts and gross ineptitude in police and government aren’t illegal when it come to Canadian government.
What we need is civilian oversight bodies that do not have a mandate beyond a single investigation. Investigations of police and government agencies should not be conducted by other police and government agencies. Instead their should be a process where civilians are chosen to make the determination... Much like a jury in a criminal or civil case. The civilians chosen can come from fields where expertise in the matter is a prerequisite. For example, lawyers who have never served in government, on the judiciary, or have no association with any political party. Forensics investigators who are not employed by the Crown.
The people doing the investigations need to be chosen from a broad pool of civilians for each investigation. This would help alleviate corruption and intimidation, as these people would know that their role in the matter would end with the conclusion of the matter. It would also help assure that there was no bias on the part of investigators or pressure from employers or colleagues.
An unpopular officer is the one who sends his colleague to jail. So officers investigating a matter of police misconduct is apt to defend the officer than to find fault with him.
The things you describe are very much illegal. It's just that they're investigated by members of their own brotherhood. They get caught. They just very rarely get convicted.
Another problem is that members of the public who are abused by power and authority often give up the fight. This gives the bastards the confidence they need to continue abusing their power and authority. The public really needs to come down hard on those who abuse their power and authority. An example needs to be made, and the people need to rise up and make it clear that they will no longer tolerate these bureaucratic reacharounds.
Another problem is that a lot of people are brainwashed into believing that power and authority are good people. This means that when one or more persons in power or authority screw up, people don't want to paint the whole force with the same brush. Unfortunately, that's exactly what needs to be done. If police are permitted to break the law and maintain their good reputation, they will never change. When an officer or senior official breaks the law and gets caught, the people have to hit the whole force with disapproval. It's only public pressure that can keep them in line. And public pressure only works if it's applied to everyone on the force.
That's just my opinion... However right or wrong it may be.
Grossly Underrated
Posts: 4,815
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
December 9th, 2007, 11:21 AM
If you're accused and the police take the accusation seriously (which they are supposed to in every case but we all know they can't) they will investigate. Initial investigation is something you don't even know about because they do their magic online and in the office. If there's reasonable cause to look into it farther, they will.
If your accuser is slandering your name, you have the right to go to civil court. Only when there is a Court-ordered gag can the police act. If the accuser is one of those annoying attention-seekers who's always calling the cops about something, dummying them in Court is the best action because what you'll want to do will earn you 25 years to life.
You really have to have some hard and serious evidence to get one level of cop to investigate another level. The law truly is an ass*ole (I really wish I knew who said that originally) and you-lie-and-I'll-swear-to-it is accepted practice. Maybe after you've been incarcerated for ten years or had your life so completely destroyed that you're doing time for something else - or some high profile lawyer tosses things about - somebody will notice
Woof!
If you're accused and the police take the accusation seriously (which they are supposed to in every case but we all know they can't) they will investigate. Initial investigation is something you don't even know about because they do their magic online and in the office. If there's reasonable cause to look into it farther, they will.
If your accuser is slandering your name, you have the right to go to civil court. Only when there is a Court-ordered gag can the police act. If the accuser is one of those annoying attention-seekers who's always calling the cops about something, dummying them in Court is the best action because what you'll want to do will earn you 25 years to life.
You really have to have some hard and serious evidence to get one level of cop to investigate another level. The law truly is an ass*ole (I really wish I knew who said that originally) and you-lie-and-I'll-swear-to-it is accepted practice. Maybe after you've been incarcerated for ten years or had your life so completely destroyed that you're doing time for something else - or some high profile lawyer tosses things about - somebody will notice
Woof!
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
December 9th, 2007, 11:44 AM
Let's entertain your hypothesis. Who decides (under what authority) when an abuse of authority by a previously accepted social regimen of laws and law-givers has become illegitimate? Do the "voters" decide who should be respected and who should be accorded the right to exercise the powers of the state?
When the ineptitude and corruption of the state becomes as obvious as it has in the United States, isn't the Constitution and the Bill of Rights supposed-to or was intended-to serve as mechanism whereby the people determine this legitimacy? And if insufficient numbers of people exercise their "rights" through established 'legitimate' constructs of law and principle because they are thwarted by the illegitimate government, what is their alternative?
Quoting Niflmir
Greetings Niflmir
To me, any authority is illegitimate until it proves otherwise.
Let's entertain your hypothesis. Who decides (under what authority) when an abuse of authority by a previously accepted social regimen of laws and law-givers has become illegitimate? Do the "voters" decide who should be respected and who should be accorded the right to exercise the powers of the state?
When the ineptitude and corruption of the state becomes as obvious as it has in the United States, isn't the Constitution and the Bill of Rights supposed-to or was intended-to serve as mechanism whereby the people determine this legitimacy? And if insufficient numbers of people exercise their "rights" through established 'legitimate' constructs of law and principle because they are thwarted by the illegitimate government, what is their alternative?
Time Out
Posts: 415
Videos: 3
Videos: 3
December 9th, 2007, 12:19 PM
If your only option is to take matters into your own hands, then that's your only option. You can only do so much by the book. When doing things by the book doesn't work, you have two choices: 1) Do nothing and continue to be victimized; or 2) Do something and hope that justice prevails.
That's what I did. I exhausted my legal options and then investigated on my own. This resulted in the person I was investigating making an allegation with the police.
Lo and behold, the police decided that that person's complaint was legitimate and decided to investigate. The police contacted me and began to read me the riot act. I told them that I was the victim not the person making the complaint. They weren't interested in anything that I had to say.
I complained about their conduct afterwards and I got the following explanation:
"You weren't believed because you were the accused."
Doesn't that make you shake your head? I was the accuser! When the police wouldn't do anything, I directly accused the suspect. And the police have the audacity to say that I can't be believed because I was the accused? The police need to pull their heads out of their corrupt asses!
Ya know, I could have sympathized with their position if I had had a criminal history of some sort... You know, something that would give them reason to think that I might be lying. I didn't have any criminal history. I didn't have any history of making false or erroneous accusations. I was a person who just out of the blue called the police and said, "Hey, I'm being stalked!"
They had no reason to dismiss my complaint without an investigation. They had no reason whatsoever!
And to make matters even worse, the police even had the audacity to fabricate information to make it appear as though I had been the accused. These cops are either braindead f*cking stupid or corrupt as hell. Either way, they're going to pay through the nose for this!
Quoting lone wolf
If they dismiss your complaints, they aren't investigating. If the complaints are persistent and there is no basis for them to refuse to investigate, then something's not right.
If you're accused and the police take the accusation seriously (which they are supposed to in every case but we all know they can't) they will investigate. Initial investigation is something you don't even know about because they do their magic online and in the office. If there's reasonable cause to look into it farther, they will.
If your only option is to take matters into your own hands, then that's your only option. You can only do so much by the book. When doing things by the book doesn't work, you have two choices: 1) Do nothing and continue to be victimized; or 2) Do something and hope that justice prevails.
That's what I did. I exhausted my legal options and then investigated on my own. This resulted in the person I was investigating making an allegation with the police.
Lo and behold, the police decided that that person's complaint was legitimate and decided to investigate. The police contacted me and began to read me the riot act. I told them that I was the victim not the person making the complaint. They weren't interested in anything that I had to say.
I complained about their conduct afterwards and I got the following explanation:
"You weren't believed because you were the accused."
Doesn't that make you shake your head? I was the accuser! When the police wouldn't do anything, I directly accused the suspect. And the police have the audacity to say that I can't be believed because I was the accused? The police need to pull their heads out of their corrupt asses!
Ya know, I could have sympathized with their position if I had had a criminal history of some sort... You know, something that would give them reason to think that I might be lying. I didn't have any criminal history. I didn't have any history of making false or erroneous accusations. I was a person who just out of the blue called the police and said, "Hey, I'm being stalked!"
They had no reason to dismiss my complaint without an investigation. They had no reason whatsoever!
And to make matters even worse, the police even had the audacity to fabricate information to make it appear as though I had been the accused. These cops are either braindead f*cking stupid or corrupt as hell. Either way, they're going to pay through the nose for this!
Quote:
Not true! If the person is slandering you to such an extent that you fear for your safety, it becomes a criminal matter. We do have stalking laws that are specifically geared toward this kind of thing. The only requirement, I believe, is that the harassment be persistent and that the target of the harassment has reasonable grounds to fear for his safety.
If your accuser is slandering your name, you have the right to go to civil court. Only when there is a Court-ordered gag can the police act.
Quote:
I could understand the police ignoring a person who is constantly calling the police about something... But someone who generally doesn't call the police about anything... Well, such a person must have a problem if they're calling the police.
If the accuser is one of those annoying attention-seekers who's always calling the cops about something,
Quote:
No Judge wants to set bad precedent. I believe the scale of this particular crime would give me justification. To rule against me, would be to signal to the nation that these types of crimes are okay. And I wouldn't want to be the Judge to set that precedent.
dummying then in Court is the best action because what you'll want to do will earn you 25 years to life.
Grossly Underrated
Posts: 4,815
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
December 9th, 2007, 01:08 PM
By all means, you go right ahead and tell cops what they're supposed to do. I mean, you pay their salaries and all. I bet you see a world of improvement in their level of co-operation. (purple = sarcasm)
If you're not grovelling where appropriate, giving them all the respect they feel they're due, and feeding them the ol' "yes-sir-no-sir-three-bags-full-sir" routine, they will do as little as they can to help. You have to remember: Nobody likes to be wrong.
Woof!
By all means, you go right ahead and tell cops what they're supposed to do. I mean, you pay their salaries and all. I bet you see a world of improvement in their level of co-operation. (purple = sarcasm)
If you're not grovelling where appropriate, giving them all the respect they feel they're due, and feeding them the ol' "yes-sir-no-sir-three-bags-full-sir" routine, they will do as little as they can to help. You have to remember: Nobody likes to be wrong.
Woof!
Member
Posts: 92
Location: Ontario
Location: Ontario
December 9th, 2007, 02:09 PM
But in the end, its almost like choosing the lesser of two evils..
Quoting warrior_won
I didnt know you had such an awful personal experience in regards to the topic...I'm sorry to hear that.
Lo and behold, the police decided that that person's complaint was legitimate and decided to investigate. The police contacted me and began to read me the riot act. I told them that I was the victim not the person making the complaint. They weren't interested in anything that I had to say.
I complained about their conduct afterwards and I got the following explanation:
"You weren't believed because you were the accused."
I complained about their conduct afterwards and I got the following explanation:
"You weren't believed because you were the accused."
But in the end, its almost like choosing the lesser of two evils..
Time Out
Posts: 415
Videos: 3
Videos: 3
December 9th, 2007, 02:11 PM
If I'm the victim of crime, and that crime escalated because they refused to do anything to stop it, despite having FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT THE CRIME WAS TAKING PLACE, they can bloody well get used to hearing me screaming at them and demanding action.
The police will put an end to this. Otherwise I will put an end to their careers and finicial futures... Possibly even their freedom, as they adjust to a life behind bars.
Don't underestimate the will of the pissed off and fed up victim. Don't misinterpret the laws as they specifically apply to victims. The laws expect you to do things by the book, but they give you latitude in extreme situations.
And, yes, I am now in a position to TELL THE POLICE WHAT TO DO... And they are NOW IN A POSITION WHERE THEY ARE BLOODY WELL GOING TO DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD!
And if my stalker is reading this (is it you, Lone Wolf?) it's game over!
Quoting lone wolf
I don't want to tell the cops what they're supposed to do. They know what they're supposed to do. And when they don't do what they're supposed to do, and I pay the price for their negligence and/or corruption, you can be damn sure that I'm not going to let the matter rest. By all means, you go right ahead and tell cops what they're supposed to do. I mean, you pay their salaries and all. I bet you see a world of improvement in their level of co-operation. (purple = sarcasm)
If you're not grovelling where appropriate, giving them all the respect they feel they're due, and feeding them the ol' "yes-sir-no-sir-three-bags-full-sir" routine, they will do as little as they can to help. You have to remember: Nobody likes to be wrong.
Woof!
If you're not grovelling where appropriate, giving them all the respect they feel they're due, and feeding them the ol' "yes-sir-no-sir-three-bags-full-sir" routine, they will do as little as they can to help. You have to remember: Nobody likes to be wrong.
Woof!
If I'm the victim of crime, and that crime escalated because they refused to do anything to stop it, despite having FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT THE CRIME WAS TAKING PLACE, they can bloody well get used to hearing me screaming at them and demanding action.
The police will put an end to this. Otherwise I will put an end to their careers and finicial futures... Possibly even their freedom, as they adjust to a life behind bars.
Don't underestimate the will of the pissed off and fed up victim. Don't misinterpret the laws as they specifically apply to victims. The laws expect you to do things by the book, but they give you latitude in extreme situations.
And, yes, I am now in a position to TELL THE POLICE WHAT TO DO... And they are NOW IN A POSITION WHERE THEY ARE BLOODY WELL GOING TO DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD!
And if my stalker is reading this (is it you, Lone Wolf?) it's game over!
Time Out
Posts: 415
Videos: 3
Videos: 3
December 9th, 2007, 02:16 PM
Go away, lady. Really, go away!!!!
Quoting senorita
The lesser of two evils? Right! There's the bitch who is breaking the law... And the victim who is doing nothing but defending himself. The lesser evil being what? Protecting and encouraging the criminal?
I didnt know you had such an awful personal experience in regards to the topic...I'm sorry to hear that.
But in the end, its almost like choosing the lesser of two evils..
But in the end, its almost like choosing the lesser of two evils..
Go away, lady. Really, go away!!!!
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 8,777
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
December 9th, 2007, 02:16 PM
Good luck warrior one.
Good luck warrior one.
Grossly Underrated
Posts: 4,815
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
December 9th, 2007, 02:55 PM
Woof!
Quoting warrior_won
Best o'luck to ya....
I don't want to tell the cops what they're supposed to do. They know what they're supposed to do. And when they don't do what they're supposed to do, and I pay the price for their negligence and/or corruption, you can be damn sure that I'm not going to let the matter rest.
You wouldn't be the first millionaire miscarriage of justice has created.
If I'm the victim of crime, and that crime escalated because they refused to do anything to stop it, despite having FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT THE CRIME WAS TAKING PLACE, they can bloody well get used to hearing me screaming at them and demanding action.
Lose the "IF". Those two little letters carve holes big enough that any first year law student can break your ship.
The police will put an end to this. Otherwise I will put an end to their careers and finicial futures... Possibly even their freedom, as they adjust to a life behind bars.
Threats will get you nowhere. They have resources and manpower enough to starve you into submission.
Don't underestimate the will of the pissed off and fed up victim. Don't misinterpret the laws as they specifically apply to victims. The laws expect you to do things by the book, but they give you latitude in extreme situations.
I considered a dynamite vest at one time. Ontario taught me to understand how someone, beaten down by unconscionable bureaucracy, can consider taking at least one out with him.
And, yes, I am now in a position to TELL THE POLICE WHAT TO DO... And they are NOW IN A POSITION WHERE THEY ARE BLOODY WELL GOING TO DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD!
No matter how strong a position looks, the Law hears the Badge. Remember - respectfully submissive. When you beat then, you can sell your story.
And if my stalker is reading this (is it you, Lone Wolf?) it's game over!
Are you cute?
You wouldn't be the first millionaire miscarriage of justice has created.
If I'm the victim of crime, and that crime escalated because they refused to do anything to stop it, despite having FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT THE CRIME WAS TAKING PLACE, they can bloody well get used to hearing me screaming at them and demanding action.
Lose the "IF". Those two little letters carve holes big enough that any first year law student can break your ship.
The police will put an end to this. Otherwise I will put an end to their careers and finicial futures... Possibly even their freedom, as they adjust to a life behind bars.
Threats will get you nowhere. They have resources and manpower enough to starve you into submission.
Don't underestimate the will of the pissed off and fed up victim. Don't misinterpret the laws as they specifically apply to victims. The laws expect you to do things by the book, but they give you latitude in extreme situations.
I considered a dynamite vest at one time. Ontario taught me to understand how someone, beaten down by unconscionable bureaucracy, can consider taking at least one out with him.
And, yes, I am now in a position to TELL THE POLICE WHAT TO DO... And they are NOW IN A POSITION WHERE THEY ARE BLOODY WELL GOING TO DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD!
No matter how strong a position looks, the Law hears the Badge. Remember - respectfully submissive. When you beat then, you can sell your story.
And if my stalker is reading this (is it you, Lone Wolf?) it's game over!
Are you cute?
Woof!
Time Out
Posts: 415
Videos: 3
Videos: 3
December 9th, 2007, 03:57 PM
I'm tired of the song and the dance. It's time to bust up the disco and smash the jukebox.
Oh, and I've witnessed Judges totally disregard the testimony of a cop. In one example that I witnessed in Traffic Court, the Judge asked the cop, "Did you do that?" The cop said, "Yes, but..." And the Judge would hear no more from the cop. She then focused her attention on the Prosecutor and asked her if she agreed that the cop had contravened a Section of the Act. The Prosecutor said, "Yes, your Honour, you are correct." And the Judge dismissed the charge. She wasn't interested in explanations. The cop did something wrong and that's all there was to it.
Quote:
That's what they've been doing. That's why I'm fed up and pissed off. The truth, is that I probably wouldn't have even gone this far if there hadn't been the escalation. But you know how things go. If you lay down and let them dance all over your face... They're not going to stop the music.
Threats will get you nowhere. They have resources and manpower enough to starve you into submission.
I'm tired of the song and the dance. It's time to bust up the disco and smash the jukebox.
Quote:
I don't want to sell my story. When I beat them, I want to take off to a deserted island and spend the rest of my life in absolute solitude. No matter how strong a position looks, the Law hears the Badge. Remember - respectfully submissive. When you beat then, you can sell your story.
Oh, and I've witnessed Judges totally disregard the testimony of a cop. In one example that I witnessed in Traffic Court, the Judge asked the cop, "Did you do that?" The cop said, "Yes, but..." And the Judge would hear no more from the cop. She then focused her attention on the Prosecutor and asked her if she agreed that the cop had contravened a Section of the Act. The Prosecutor said, "Yes, your Honour, you are correct." And the Judge dismissed the charge. She wasn't interested in explanations. The cop did something wrong and that's all there was to it.
Quote:
No! At least, I really don't want to be.
Are you cute? 
