Reform poster-boy Rahim Jaffer walks

[Socrates the Greek]

Damn.... Look as I might, I can't see where I am defending by saying he was in possession. Having done the addiction route myself once, I would tend to argue addiction as a defence.

how about "user" as a defence, (of a criminal illegal substance), what is that "in possession" so, he is not using cocaine, he is delivering it for some one else or to someone else, come on, would that be a strong defence?, proven possession, is equal to the hand in the cookie jar.............Only one law, every one obeying that law, COCAINE kills lives, and it has a criminal connection. A politician involved in the use of such narcotics should be treated the same as anyone else.

 

[CDNBear]

how about "user" as a defence, (of a criminal illegal substance), what is that "in possession" so, he is not using cocaine, he is delivering it for some one else or to someone else, come on, would that be a strong defence?, proven possession, is equal to the hand in the cookie jar.............Only one law, every one obeying that law, COCAINE kills lives, and it has a criminal connection. A politician involved in the use of such narcotics should be treated the same as anyone else.

Agreed.

 

[lone wolf]

Please don't interpret facts not in evidence. User is no defense. Addiction implies dependence - which is why I won't support him being an addict.

You're right... A politician, ex politician, car salesman, soldier, sailor, begger, thief - no matter what his/her stripe is no better than anyone else.

 

[Tonington]

Well, the details are out....

The police denied Jaffer access to his lawyer, and strip searched him without reasonable cause to do so.

My emphasis. That is for a court to decide. Besides which, that wouldn't disqualify the very reasonable seizure of cocaine in the first place.

Therefore there was no reasonable expectation that he would be convicted....the police screwed up royally...NO political interference.

CBC News - Canada - Details revealed in Jaffer plea deal

I think the proper place for this is the court. I don't know if the SCoC has looked at incidents where the police refused a request by a lawyer to speak to their client, after the client has already accessed counsel. In this case, Jaffer called two, and then spoke to legal aid. So that satisfies at least the part of our justice system that says access to legal counsel is a requirement.

It's also a requirement for law enforcement to conduct tests. They were in the process, and I think they would be justifiable in this case with finishing the test.

Anyways, the arguments about this are a matter for courts. That's why we have them. The judge told Jaffer he got a break, so I don't think it's as cut and dry as the Crown made it look.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Do some research sock. Stop interpreting facts not in evidence. A politician, ex politician, care salesman - no matter what his/her stripe is no better than anyone else. Wasn't that made clear enough to you through five threads of your block-headedness?

LW, what is your problem man......you are defending by bending the meaning of a word because you are more interested in blaming the liberals for Jaffer’s stupid way of life, and throw insecurity trips on me. You are playing that game alone LW.. bait to get in the mudslinging, I pass on the bait......keep it looks good on you…..

 

[lone wolf]

LW, what is your problem man......you are defending by bending the meaning of a word because you are more interested in blaming the liberals for Jaffer’s stupid way of life, and throw insecurity trips on me. You are playing that game alone LW.. bait to get in the mudslinging, I pass on the bait......keep it looks good on you…..

For shyte's sake Soc, where in hell do you see me blaming a Liberal because some dork doesn't know enough to behave himself?

What word am I bending so badly that it's causing you such great concern?
Possession = had it on him
User = has the habit
Addiction = dependent on the stuff

I possess a Toyota. That doesn't make me a dealer....


BTW.... You might want to read the re-upped post. It took a couple of edits to friendly it up.

 

[JLM]

LW, what is your problem man......you are defending by bending the meaning of a word because you are more interested in blaming the liberals for Jaffer’s stupid way of life, and throw insecurity trips on me. You are playing that game alone LW.. bait to get in the mudslinging, I pass on the bait......keep it looks good on you…..

Socrates- When you realize that Conservatives are roughly equal to Liberals you will have fewer problems.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

For shyte's sake Soc, where in hell do you see me blaming a Liberal because some dork doesn't know enough to behave himself?

What word am I bending so badly that it's causing you such great concern?
Possession = had it on him
User = has the habit
Addiction = dependent on the stuff

I possess a Toyota. That doesn't make me a dealer....


BTW.... You might want to read the re-upped post. It took a couple of edits to friendly it up.

habit is an addiction for many, why is it difficult for you to accept that fact, if it worked deferent for you, is that mean everyone has the same involvement with the substance? and instead you want to minimise his violation, if he is a user he could be a casual user and he could be a regular user, a regular user is addicted specifically to cocaine.

The reason this got political is because if it works for him to bash the NDP leader as pot head why is this guy who claimed he was good for the people and proved he was laying, better then Jack L.

 

[lone wolf]

habit is an addiction for many, why is it difficult for you to accept that fact, if it worked deferent for you, is that mean everyone has the same involvement with the substance? and instead you want to minimise his violation, if he is a user he could be a casual user and he could be a regular user, a regular user is addicted specifically to cocaine.

The reason this got political is because if it works for him to bash the NDP leader as pot head why is this guy who claimed he was good for the people and proved he was laying, better then Jack L.

Habits don't make one sick upon quitting.

How have I minimised any violation and why would I want to? That is your own misunderstanding/interpretation/manipulation/addition to what I have said.

 

[Tonington]

I think this is a load of crap. I've been reading through the SC decisions on this matter, and so far nothing is coming up which would compel the police to stop a test already in progress, after the right to retain and instruct counsel was already satisfied.

It seems to me, that once counsel has been obtained, and Jaffer is aware of his rights, the rights of law enforcement, and the consequences of his actions if he should refuse to give a sample, then the two hour evidenciary presumption of the crown has precedent over another lawyer telling Jaffer the same thing.

If the police do not have this right, then a savvy criminal could call every lawyer in the phone book, and speak individually to each one until a time when the blood alcohol is below the threshold.

I've also not found anything that supports dropping charges on cocaine possession after an unwarranted search (which again is still a matter of legal debate).

Try for yourself here, you can enter search terms and the cases will pop up by relevance.

 

[lone wolf]

If you know how to play the Law, you can play it forever. Ask any lawyer.....

 

[Tonington]

You need something else too. Either cash or influence, or some combination of the two...

 

[lone wolf]

You need something else too. Either cash or influence, or some combination of the two...

Agreed!... It doesn't take any to start - but a watertight sure thing case doesn't always stand up well against loads of money

 

[Tonington]

OJ Simpson. 'Nuff said.

lol, kinda sad really, but it's easier on the blood pressure I'm sure to at least realize the way things are.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

My emphasis. That is for a court to decide. Besides which, that wouldn't disqualify the very reasonable seizure of cocaine in the first place.

I think the proper place for this is the court. I don't know if the SCoC has looked at incidents where the police refused a request by a lawyer to speak to their client, after the client has already accessed counsel. In this case, Jaffer called two, and then spoke to legal aid. So that satisfies at least the part of our justice system that says access to legal counsel is a requirement.

It's also a requirement for law enforcement to conduct tests. They were in the process, and I think they would be justifiable in this case with finishing the test.

Anyways, the arguments about this are a matter for courts. That's why we have them. The judge told Jaffer he got a break, so I don't think it's as cut and dry as the Crown made it look.

Quite so, it should have been argued in the courts. If the courts had decided that the police behaved inappropriately and let Jaffer free, at least it wouldn’t have caused such an outrage. Then the blame would have gone to the police where it belonged, and the whole affair wouldn’t smell of patronage and corruption.

Particularly when politics is involved, I think it should have been left to the courts.

 

[CDNBear]

I think this is a load of crap. I've been reading through the SC decisions on this matter, and so far nothing is coming up which would compel the police to stop a test already in progress, after the right to retain and instruct counsel was already satisfied.

My point exactly Ton.

It seems to me, that once counsel has been obtained, and Jaffer is aware of his rights, the rights of law enforcement, and the consequences of his actions if he should refuse to give a sample, then the two hour evidenciary presumption of the crown has precedent over another lawyer telling Jaffer the same thing.

Yep...

If the police do not have this right, then a savvy criminal could call every lawyer in the phone book, and speak individually to each one until a time when the blood alcohol is below the threshold.

Bingo...

I've also not found anything that supports dropping charges on cocaine possession after an unwarranted search (which again is still a matter of legal debate).

You're on a roll.

Try for yourself here, you can enter search terms and the cases will pop up by relevance.

And you know what? People oft over look a simple call to the local precinct. Police are our friends, and they can be quite friendly and helpful. You can even call a Lawyer and ask them. You'ld be surprised as to how forthcoming these people can be if you actually tell them what and why you are calling for.