The Langley Times is reporting that "Heavily-armed members of the ERT (Emergecy Response Team) took part in a raid on a Townhouse complex at 5210 203 Street in Langley City around 10:30 a.m. Thursday (This morning). RCMP said it was a pre-planned execution of a search warrant on a unit in the complex and the ERT was there as a safety measure."
"A video posted online by a resident of the complex shows officers ordering the occupants of a two-storey townhouse to give themselves up. 'This is the police, we have your house surrounded,' one ERT member shouts. 'You are detained for investigation.' Three young men were escorted from the suite by officers in body armor. One person was taken from the scene in an ambulance, a witness said." I'm a bit confused.
A search warrant is different than an arrest warrant. You can't detained someone for investigation unless they are charged with an offense. It must be a typo. There must have been an arrest warrant issued as well as a search warrant. Surely someone wouldn't post a video of them boldly violating the Canadian Charter of Rights. One would at least hope not.
Update: The Langley Times is reporting that A 35-year-old man and a 31-year-old woman were arrested at the townhome. Both had outstanding arrest warrants from several other firearms-related charges in B.C. A variety of weapons were seized, including assault rifles, shotguns, sawed off shotguns, handguns and antique firearms. Officers also found a large amount of ammunition, a silencer and many different drugs, including cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin and marijuana, which were “consistent with possession for the purpose of trafficking,” police said.
"We're the Police, we can do whatever we want."
ReplyDeleteSeriously, in Canada, what recourse do you have? File a complaint? Good luck with that, they investigate themselves and decide they did nothing wrong. Having "another department" do the investigation is a joke they got away with playing on the Canadian public for YEARS. No one ever calls them on it. "Oh yeah, OK, that's acceptable, no conflict of interest there." LOL.
Maybe you'd sue them? The chance of winning is small, and even if you do, you guys aren't like "those Americans", when the cops down here get caught violating people's rights, they have to pay. Up there? Man they'd have to be caught red handed, on video, doing stuff that was so far beyond the pale.....and even then they'd give you chump change for your trouble and send you on your way.
In a case I'm personally aware of, VPD illegally entered a residence without a warrant. The judge rules that they had enough time to call for a telephone warrant and should have done so. Legal penalty? Nothing. "You violated the accused rights but that's OK, you meant well." In the States all evidence would have been thrown out after the fact that the cops violated the suspects rights was established in court. In Canada? "Yeah, you can go ahead and use the evidence you obtained illegally". Canadian justice I guess.
So, tell me again, their motivation to follow procedure and observe your rights (unless it happens to be convenient for them) is what exactly?
That's right, nothing. Suckers....
Just to clarify...."We're the police, we can do whatever we want"....I often refer to this as the unofficial motto of the VPD. Like "Servum us" doesn't sound bad enough already. Yes I know they say it means something else in Latin...I think it's a decades long running inside joke myself.
ReplyDeleteAny-who, the reason I say this is as follows: In the years I lived in the Lower Mainland, I heard a VPD member say this to another VPD member on not just one, but TWO separate occasions. One the second occasion the speaker was well aware that a member of the public (me) was well within earshot and couldn't help but hear it. That was pretty much the point. And he DGAF that I heard it, he WANTED me to hear it.
The iceberg principle applies. How much more do you think they say it among themselves? It's pretty obvious they're not joking, and the "consequences" handed out by a judge on the rare occasion when a "member" gets hauled into court on a charge is no deterrent. Remember the cops who took that guy for a ride to Stanley Park and beat the crap out of him? Yeah, they just got carried away, but they meant well. LOL. Still on the job. They'd be in jail here in the states. How about the three brave hero cops (including a 'use of force' instructor) who drunkenly robbed a newspaper delivery guy of his cash and his cell phone? Seriously, I can't even say that sentence without a part of my brain going "WTF??" The guy who got the crap beaten out of him on his own doorstep by a couple of plainclothes vigilante cops who thought they were avenging a beaten wife. (They had the wrong address, LOL if not for the consequences, which were anything but LOL.)
I could go on all day with the examples, but it would be needlessly repetitive. But you know what the funny part is? I'm pro-law enforcement. At least I'd like to be. But it's hard when you're always waiting for the next incident of excessive use of force, misconduct of all types, perjury to cover up sloppy police work, etc.. And they always say, "Ah it's just that 10%". Wow, really? One out of ten? See, it's not the 10%. It's more like 90%. The reason I say that is because the 80% that won't yank the choke chain on that 10% ("the blue wall") ARE JUST AS GUILTY.
"We don't lie, cheat or steal, nor do we tolerate in our company those who do."
Wow, that sounds a lot better than
"We're the police, we can do whatever we want".
Yeah i was one of the three. Were my rights violiated? They said i was being detained for investigation of investigation. Brought to cells and held for 9 hours. I have never been at that place before and had just arrived moments before the door being kicked in.i was brought there to purchase a item off craiglist they advertised.why was i detained i dont understand?
ReplyDeleteGood question. The updated press release claims that two people had outstanding arrest warrants. Were you arrested? What was the charge? Those are the key questions to ask the cops detaining you. If they are going to arrest you they have to charge you with an offense. If they detained you without arresting you then yes your rights were violated.
DeleteSometimes there is a bit of a grey area when they say we're not arresting you we are just asking you to come down to the station for further questioning. Oh well then thanks for the clarification. If you aren't arresting me and are simply asking me to come down to the station for further questioning my answer is no.
Usually you have to always make clear formal requests to speak with a lawyer. When they arrest you they have to charter you and tell you you have a right to speak with a lawyer. If they don't arrest you you have to be pretty vocal demanding your right to speak with a lawyer otherwise they'll just say you never asked for one.
They did that to a friend of mine at the border once and they just about pulled a Rodney King on me when I went there the next day to complain. It's worse at the border because they claim Canadians aren't protected by the US Constitution. We sure are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights on Canadian soil though.
Yeah they're FOS, if you're on US soil you have Constitutional rights. That's why they've wanted to keep all the camel humpers at Gitmo, so they can deal with them without that inconvenience. Which I fully support as a method of keeping those guys out of circulation. Many of them when released have returned to the activities that got them there, to no one's great surprise.
ReplyDeleteNot according to the border agents I spoke with at the Truck Border crossing. They flat out said my client was not entitled to a lawyer because they are government by immigration law not the Constitution. I kid you not. That's when I came unglued and they circled around behind me ready to pull a Rodney King.
Delete