No right to lawyer during questioning, says top court

First Id like to say that the only right that someone cannot take from you is the right to be "silent". Most people assume that if they are innocent, that explaining it can get them out of trouble. Absolutely NOT!

There is a larger game at play, and if you are not aware that you are a pawn in this, then you will be taken advantage of. The name of the game is Language. There are rules for both sides and if you know what to say, and how to say it, you can stop the madness before it starts.

Here is my thread called "How I got off the Grid" www.abovetopsecret.com... There is tons of information for everyone. For the U.S, Canada, and Europe.

Also link to sites where you can find out that they to have to follow rules. If you know what these things are, you are one step ahead of everyone else.

Peace, NRE.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Stephen Harper didn't nominate those judges...

Most of them were nominated more than a decade before Stephen Harper was Prime Minister.

Put your righteous indignation away and grow up.

Originally posted by Soshh

Originally posted by MemoryShock
If a man or woman is truly guilty than there should be no issue. I am concerned with innocent people getting caught in the crossfire and victimless crimes being prosecuted with the same association as impositional crimes.

Too many people assume things based on circumstance and inapplicable, pre-ordained rhetoric...that is the danger...

My main issue with this right is that it allows people who -are- guilty to pervert the course of justice. Also, I don't think that it is sensible to have a law which supports the idea that a police force will try to obtain false confessions, plant evidence on innocent people or otherwise act unfairly. I accept that it happens whether by accident or not, but this law almost condones it.

So law enforcement is too lazy to do a proper investigation and allow the truth to shine?

"Guilty till proven otherwise" is synonymous with oppression/tyranny in my honest opinion.

I often wonder how many people have been enprissoned by false convictions either because vested interests are hampering an honest investigation or the cops can't be bothered. Its easier to pick an ex-convict and drop the book on him.

Someone does a crime but ANYONE can do the time. I bet it happens much more than we like to think......

reply to post by Vitchilo


Calm down, they simply ruled that the American Miranda Law doesn't apply in Canada.

Which, technically, is accurate.

So let the cops ask you questions without a lawyer present..

sit there and refuse to respond.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


And how many weak, dispossessed and infirm would subsequently confess to crimes they haven't committed?

reply to post by Freeborn


Appeal to Pity and Begging the Question fallacies.


However, I'd guess the same number that do here in the States with Miranda Rights legislation.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Well, in Canada, we don't really have as much CIA esque waterboarding as they do in other countries. They (the cops) don't have the ability to inject you with a cocktail of chemicals, the primary method of interrogation is to continue berating you with the hopes of getting you on the defensive. The police can and will deride your manhood, call down your family or anything else that might get a rise out of you.

In Canada, a policeman cannot be held liable for lying to you, or for asking or forgetting to ask any questions. However you are liable for anything and everything you say or do. It is for this reason alone you never answer any questions without a lawyer being present. You can state that you are unaware of what your rights are and as such require council. That is the only thing beyond identifying yourself you ever answer. Anyone who suggests otherwise is giving you bad information.

..Ex

This really isn't that big an issue to me as a Canadian. I understand what the justices are doing, clarifying the law. If this is a fundamental issue write your MP, bring attention to the issue, petitions, referendum (if Quebec can do it why can't we?). If we still can't effect a change at that point...it's game over, we're no longer Canadian, and the only conceivable option is revolution. But really, even my grandmother says you don't talk to cops.

reply to post by v3_exceed


Wake up!
Sweety in canada we are policed by a paramilitary "0ccupation type force called the RCMP.
They are trained more modelled on the idea of a british type colonial police attitude.
Their arrogance, and readyness to react to non threatening situations with brutal violent force instictively is ample evidence they are not yer average town police. nor do they consider themselves such.
Have you not noticed that the RCMP detachment buildings are all self contained little forts with the capability of being locked down into blockhouses?
The Force is also well capable of soft torture techniques to coerce "confessions" out of those who come into their clutches.
I can testify to being denied crucial medical attention for fourteen days.while being kept in a cell with the airconditioning running full blast, and being allowed nothing but jeans, sox , a t shirt and one thin wool blanket, which i had to keep completely huddled under head and all in order to stay warm. This treatment lasted ten days 24/7 all the while being monitored by closed circuit TV.
Finally in desparation to see a doctor, i did "cop a plea" as they say, and within minutes was transported to the local emergency ward where i recieved treatment,Two weeks after being arrested.!
I could relate further tales of the sick side of the canadian justice system, but i doubt it would do a lot of good.
This warning is the first ive been made aware of this supreme court decision.
The judges of the court are lifetime appointees in canada.
The opportunity for setting political agendas through interpretation of the law and manipulation of its final arbiters.is obvious to all the political parties.
Though Harper himself did not appoint any of these people, there is no reason that a previous conservative goverment couldnt have done so years back.......with lifetime memberships, a cnservative or liberal judge may sit through the terms of several changes of political goverments, and still be there influencing the policies and scope of the current party in power.
Though we do not apear to have a hereditary nobility in our democratic society, in reality it is only the names that have evolved, and not the structure.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

Calm down, they simply ruled that the American Miranda Law doesn't apply in Canada.

Which, technically, is accurate.

So let the cops ask you questions without a lawyer present..

sit there and refuse to respond.

Simply sit there and be silent?

Have you studied how the Chinese and Russians used to interrogate people? Their work, along with that of the Nazi SS, was very inspiring to modern law enforcers.

Certainly, if you are being questioned by someone who does not have negative intentions for you, sitting silently is a reasonable defense against self incrimination (or just saying something to stop the suffering).

But if the person asking the questions is trained in these techniques, then the game changes entirely. Read up on MKULTRA, and maybe browse around a "Manchurian Candidate" search. The world is not bunnies and roses.

Originally posted by Vitchilo

No right to lawyer during questioning, says top court

www.thestar.com

OTTAWA—The American Miranda rule that gives a suspect the right to have a lawyer present during questioning has no place here, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday.

In three related decisions, a sharply divided court fine-tuned the rules on suspects’ right to counsel.

In the main case, the justices ruled 5-4 that the Charter of Rights does not confer a right to have a lawyer present during interrogation.

That means Miranda, a staple of TV cop shows where lawyers whisper to their clients while detectives ask questions, does not apply.

(visit the link for the full news article)

No problem...Just tell them NOTHING.
You don't need counsel, honestly.

You still have the right to remain silent.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

Calm down, they simply ruled that the American Miranda Law doesn't apply in Canada.

Which, technically, is accurate.

So let the cops ask you questions without a lawyer present..

sit there and refuse to respond.

Simply sit there and be silent?

Have you studied how the Chinese and Russians used to interrogate people? Their work, along with that of the Nazi SS, was very inspiring to modern law enforcers.

Certainly, if you are being questioned by someone who does not have negative intentions for you, sitting silently is a reasonable defense against self incrimination (or just saying something to stop the suffering).

But if the person asking the questions is trained in these techniques, then the game changes entirely. Read up on MKULTRA, and maybe browse around a "Manchurian Candidate" search. The world is not bunnies and roses.

Of course.
A strong mind will be able to withstand this kind of BS all day long.
However this POV depends on the person, which depended on their environment as they grew up.

If this scenario did happen (to you) and you had no lawyer representation...
Would you have folded under duress just to escape the psychological torture?

Originally posted by stirling
reply to post by v3_exceed

 

I can testify to being denied crucial medical attention for fourteen days.while being kept in a cell with the airconditioning running full blast, and being allowed nothing but jeans, sox , a t shirt and one thin wool blanket, which i had to keep completely huddled under head and all in order to stay warm. This treatment lasted ten days 24/7 all the while being monitored by closed circuit TV.
Finally in desparation to see a doctor, i did "cop a plea" as they say, and within minutes was transported to the local emergency ward where i recieved treatment,Two weeks after being arrested.!

And did you call a lawyer? Did you sue the RCMP? And why not? Everyone else does.

It seems to me that the only people who have 'issues' with the police are those who
a) get caught doing something illegal or violent,
b) are involved in organized crime, or
c) didn't bother reading up on their 'rights' so they get handed through the system just like any other hardened criminal.

Did you want tea while you were waiting for the paperwork to get done, too?

And to your issue about the detachments being fortresses. Well, yes, that's to prevent some cowboy crew coming in and smashing the front door with their truck and start shooting at everyone inside. AND it's to protect those who have been remanded inside from those seeking revenge.

Sorry, I work for them and frankly, they don't get paid enough to handle the sh#t that goes on out there.

Originally posted by abe froman
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Then how can the police force you to take a breathalyzer test and if you refuse charge you with impedeing a police investigation?(automatic 1 year liscence suspension here)Isn't making someone submit to the breathalyzer the same as making someone give evidence against themself?

Not sure where you're from but over here in California, in order to obtain a driver's license, you must agree to submit to testing when an officer has reasonable doubt with regards to your sobriety.

Originally posted by juniperberry
And did you call a lawyer? Did you sue the RCMP? And why not? Everyone else does.

It seems to me that the only people who have 'issues' with the police are those who
c) didn't bother reading up on their 'rights' so they get handed through the system just like any other hardened criminal.

Sorry, I work for them and frankly, they don't get paid enough to handle the sh#t that goes on out there.

(1) A person who knows his rights (as you noted in choice C) would have no need for a lawyer
because they are a party to the de facto court system. (Don't need a lawyer to sue)

(2) Speaking of *C* Most law enforcement officers do NOT know they are peace officers who swore
specific oaths, for their office let alone have no clue what the law says, yet they feel compelled
that they can interpret the law whenever they please.

(3) No one gets paid what they feel they are entitled to.
The fact you work for them means you chose to work there.

A cop NEVER has the right to search a person's car.
A cop CANNOT lawfully detain someone when there hasn't been a breach of the peace.

Originally posted by Chinesis

A cop NEVER has the right to search a person's car.
A cop CANNOT lawfully detain someone when there hasn't been a breach of the peace.

A) yes they DO have a right to search a car so long as there is reasonable belief that that the car is being used or has been used in a criminal or misdeamour offence. or that the person driving the car is wanted for a breach of parole conditions, etc.

and B) That is exactly right. Think about it for a minute. There was obviously a 'breach of the police' we haven't been told about or the case would be all over the news. Just like any others would be.

It should be obvious to anyone that the media in Canada would be ALL OVER the RCMP for ANY little infraction, whether it be rumour or truth.

reply to post by Chinesis



The problem with the idea of "a strong mind can withstand" is that often, the interrogator knows facts about the mind and human consciousness that you are unaware. "Tricks", if you will.

Me? I see through them better than most....but no, i could not withstand an MKULTRA interrogation. I doubt you could, either. It would be like thinking that you could not cut your arm off if you put it in a chipper/shredder. We are what we are biologically, no matter how much will power you may think you bring to bear.

Consider Rasputin.

Wow finally a moment where America is more just than canada? i think my heads going to explode!! yea i had some cops questioning me in may and i told them i wanted a lawyer because i didnt want to implicate myself in a crime i had no idea about right? like who knows if i say oh i saw that guy come into our house or whatever what they would try to do but these cops were telling me i'm an asshole and # just for protecting myself and practicing my rights so weird. Yea thats especially scary after all the G20 nonsense that barely anyone in the US paid attention to so so sad.

reply to post by Soshh


what is this about?

Under your logic a law enforces a thought onto the free will of an individual.

That is not only a fallacy its basically stating a law predetermines the act. Whereas this isn't a possible event as the the event, i.e the crime, occurs and is prosecuted or protected against by the law. The event originally occurs followed by the law not the other way around.

Besides these logical inconsistencies in your posting it should always be a basic human right to be protected from the inhumane constructs of man, in whichever form they may come.

reply to post by LurkingSleipner


Rights? Rights mean nothing when you're the hands of the RCMP and they need to justify their imprisonment of you. I have many friends who have been in entrapment operations by undercover RCMP officers, usually consisting of undercovers asking my drunk friends at clubs if they want to buy large amounts of drugs; even after refusal, the agents have tracked down my friends via license plates and months later attempt in implicate them in a crime that has never even happened. In my own personal experiences, I've been slammed against cruisers, searched and harrassed by RCMP for victimless crimes like having an open package of beer cans in the middle of nowhere late at night. They are trained to be sh*t disturbers of the patriotic Canadian people who pay for their protection and service, so in other words, they are the organized, legitimate, and well armed mafia of the Canadian elite.