RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:stockman 2021 You Owe Me An Apology
yeah I am rusty with my Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom and I bet the Canadian Criminal Code as well. The presumption of innocence in the Charter is 11 d not b. I was thinking it may have been. It's been over 17 years so I am a bit out of practice lol. Yeah I take the presumption of innocence quite seriously if you don't have law you will have chaos. Is it perfect of course not. There is a saying it is better to let 10 guilty people go then to convict 1 innocent one. That is how stringent the presumption of innocence and upholding it is. As a Criminologist if one acts in that capacity and they happen to talk to shaddy people who happen to profess their crimes to them a very upright person will not divulge that information linking the person to those crimes and the reason behind it is to build trust and to have the ability to learn and disseminate information in an aggregate way so as to be able to understand and possibly better prevent Criminal activities...crazy I know but a real staunch criminoligist will not divulge these things even in the face of being charged. I will not go to that extent and while being certified as a Cruminologist I left that life behind but the law is such where the courts are extremely concerned with not bringing the administration of justice into disrepute meaning that the law can not be seen by the public as unfair and untrustworthy however in doing this like I said the law is definitely not perfect especially when people get off on technicalities like a person's Miranda's rights not being read, police not having warrants when needed or not following them properly, trial days passing...in all circumstances all these cases will get tossed out. As far as admissibility rules that is probably 50 50 meaning if things are seized in an unlawful way the court will determine and weigh the seriousness of the breach in this case how the evidence item was obtained vs the seriousness of the crime. The law is by far not straight forward and it is very concerned about being seen as fair to all people and not as though it is "police state" which is really called crime control however like I said ones rights not read the person will surely walk everyone has the right to be free of any unreasonable search and seizur. Section 8 comes after section 7 everyone has the right to life liberty and security and the right not to be deprived thereof. Where I get pissed is on freedom of speech people absolutely abuse this and I think the law needs to come down tougher on this especially when it creates violence and aggression as well as hate towards people. What people don't understand despite the legal officials doing a lousy job in Canada there is what is called the non obstante clause or limitation clause section 1 which states if there is something of question where the state needs to act it is allowed to do so as long as it commits as little harm as is possible. For instance despite section 7 and 8 life liberty security as well as free of unreasonable search and seizure when the police conducted drinking and driving road checks they are legally within their rights to do so and nobody can say their rights were violated because the state deems the potential harm from drinking and driving and deems the road checks as a reasonable inconvenience in proportion to the harm that otherwise comes without it...ok sorry I get a bit passionate to something that has long died years back which I call another life as I am no longer in the field. Hopefully now you understand where I come from when I speak about Robert it is all a legal perspective whether you either agree or even dislike it is the way it is...sorry...it is strictly a legal perspective I am not defending Robert the law is just as it does all of us Period!!! There you go. I unfortunately am not too well versed with the Amandments although at one point I was trying to learn them and see how Canadian and American law are similar and how they differ. Quite fascinating stuff to say the least.