Thanks so much David. I’m a “cop watcher” and “auditor”… I exercise my right to the freedom of expression but the laws are confusing to say the least so I have been learning. Thanks again.
Thank you for this video David, I recently had a bad experience with police and found your video fascinating. One of the channels I recently subscribed to is News Now Victoria, you should do a video on his arrest and prosecution. He sued the RCMP over it.
As a Canadian man with a camera (male photographer) I have many stories of abuse of power by cops that have nothing to do with filming/recording police. I’ve had cops demand I delete photos taken in public or face “stalking” charges. I’ve had cops order me to leave a photoshoot I arranged despite despite showing model releases because someone not even remotely involved in the shoot got paranoid about “man with camera” and so on. I’ve had cops order me to move on while doing astrophotography in the middle of the night, and while storm chasing, nothing to do with safety, just “man with camera” paranoia.
2 years out of date and no updates that I can find. And it’s not ‘honourable’, it’s *marketing.* We all have to play the Law Society’s games. I promise this is recycled from a seminar for which Continuing Professional Education credits were earned. Retired Canadian lawyer here.
@@whatifschrodingersboxwasacofin It's all based on the Birth Certificate fraud and the BAR members control of our public courts and their Maritime/Admiralty 'law' system. Easily thwarted if you know their game...
Confiscating and accessing a citizen's camera is a violation of their property rights. Destroying images on a recording device is felony evidence tampering/destruction.
That is a good point Dan. However, we in Canada, do not have the term felony. There are summary offences, indictable offences and lastly, dual procedure offences. I know it is mostly semantics here, but the two countries are different.
THANK YOU! I know more about American law than my own, because I watch auditors in the US, then actually look up the law. But you don't see too many Canadian auditors. So THANK YOU for going over this!
Very thorough and well explained. I’ve watched a lot of merican Auditor videos so good to learn the subtle but similar legal aspects between the two countries.
Hypothetical: If a bystander is recording an incident of police acting unlawfully towards someone else when they notice the camera and wish to seize it as evidence, would that seizure not in itself be a form of affecting the evidence since the recording is still live? Isn't the bystander the custodian of that evidence in that instance?
I have become so internet infused with American law snd disorder, I sometimes forget where I actually live. Thank you for putting this insightful video together. It's a much needed breath of fresh air and reailty check. In passing, that NB decision was a classic shit sandwich. 😅
I'm happy to finally see where someone of professional stature in the legal realm has the courage to explain the law and the publics charter rights. There ought to be more of this since the justice system is supposedly a public agency . This type of education ought be taught in the public school system along with the constitution and charter of rights n freedoms. Thank you for this.
Yes, chaos and anarchy are preferable, oh wise one. What are you, 15? You won’t like it when I just come over to your house and take your stuff because I can. Or when I charge you $100/gal because I can. Or when your plane drops out of the sky because I didn’t feel like riveting that part properly. Omg. Please grow up. 🤦♂️
Thank you for making this content. There is so many videos from the US but I very much want to know what Canadian law says our rights are. The more educated you are about your rights the better we all are I believe.
While walking down a path in West Edmonton, I was very annoyed to see a pickup truck driving towards me on this walking path. I took out my phone and took a video of the truck as it passed by. Then the truck stopped, backed up, and in a loud voice a beefy Sherriff asked me why I was photographing him in his truck. I told him that I didn’t appreciate seeing a truck on a walking path and also that I was going to post it online. He obviously was not expecting this pushback. That’s where it ended. i walked away.
I was taking pictures at the scene of a traffic fatality where the deceased person was on the ground under a blanket. A young police officer, probably a rookie, was obviously more upset about the situation than I was. He barked orders at me that I wasn't allowed to take pictures during an accident investigation. No police tape was set up, and no obvious perimiter had been established. Even when I asked him how far back he wanted me to stand, he just told me to leave the area. When I objected, he asked me how I would feel if someone was taking pictures of my dead family member laying in the street.There was the truth and the root of his displeasure with my actions. Police are human beings. Training for every situation they face and dealing with the emotions they experience only comes after years of being on the job. As a member of the public, asserting your rights, obviously takes legal priority. There are rights and freedoms, but there is also what is right in the moment or situation. When two parties differ in opinions on that subject, it is common that people take a strong stance to defend their position. A police officer will exert his "authority", and a citizen will exert his freedoms. It becomes an ego trip on both sides. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone knew how to use self control when emotions flair?
And maybe you might feel displeasure and irritation if it was your Mom, Dad or any family member laying perished at a fatality, and some curious person thought it was necessary or appropriate to take pictures or video.. why ?
A friend of mine witness accident. Where a kid was hit and killed. Some people where taking pic of the kid . She was try to tell them stop . Until the cops came. I think people would have some common sense and compassion.
@@Sm-ne8ffthe news agencies do that type of filming all the time my friend. We have rights and our own perspectives as to what’s acceptable but at end of day we have rights and police often react with emotion If they just ignored and did there work it wouldn’t be a problem I would not care if someone film me or any of my family dead under a blanket
The US has "Prior Restraint". Is there an equivalent in Canada? We always see cops order people back so far that any content recorded is of low quality and if something occurred, that footage and sound tends to be inconclusive. Other tactics, to interact and/or consume the attention of the recording device operator, talk over content, and blocking with their body, cars, etc, used to interfere with the sightlines. Let's not forget "officer safety", even when there are several standing around, any one of them could keep the one or two 'safe' while not interfering with someone recording. Yet another, playing copyright music so it wouldn't be able to be disseminated on various popular websites and social media. There has been a lot of discussion about distance. In Arizona, they even tried to establish a minimum distance, apparently to thwart the efforts of a group of copwatchers in Tempe and surrounding areas but a judge struck that down I think. Cops even resorted to taping off areas to push back cameras for simple traffic stops and such, abusing the entitlement to cordon off an area for investigative purposes. I already know the answer to the "distance" question, "it depends", but when it comes to "reasonable distance", it's subjective. The difference between the individual who wants to get close enough to acquire content and the cops to facilitate their job. They also don't want to be recorded, be on social media, be exposed for mistakes or something more nefarious and one certainly could argue these are their actual motives. Either way, opposing perspectives and a vast difference in opinion of a "reasonable distance". The go-to charge is generally "Interference" or "Mischief" for not complying to a police 'order' to 'step back'. No jury available and these low courts favor police heavily making the process little better than a kangaroo court. Oh, and you cant record your own case, suspiciously - more of the same. Between copwatchers, auditors, and random individual's recordings, it has embolden a great many more people to do the same. SHAMING has always been a great learning tool but with the advent of available technologies of equipment, the internet and of course, social media, the more government actors resist, the more will be record. The resistance itself is valuable content. Thanks for your video, it helped me nail down some of that jello to the wall.
a PD is paid for by public taxes and in turn the citizens property aka public property. Meaning you have every right to film any authorized public areas
Tresspassing doesn't have anything to do with filming. If it is tresspassing, it is tresspassing regardless of whether filming is being done or not, no?
@@DirtyMikeTM The term "public property" is an oxy moron. If it is public, it isn't "property". And if it is "property", it isn't public. Property means sole ownership of something where the owning party decides how it is used, maintained, etc. Public is something that is not owned by a single party. So, since government claims ownership of the "public" land and "public property" within some form of boundary - be it municipal or otherwise - and decides what is done and how it is maintained, then it is privately owned by the government corporation. The whole public ownership, public property thing is an illusion people believe. This illusion then allows for "property taxes" to be levied. If your property is taxed by a king or queen, then it isn't your property, right? Same thing with government property tax.
The police record you in your own home. I do not consider police officers in Canada to have any human rights or consider them human beings. They are a publicly-funded street gang and a terrorist organization.
Would you be able to explain what type of police questions a Canadian citizen must by law answer and is it required to provide ID if you have broken no laws.
I am not a lawyer but I successfully defended myself (self represented) against a charge of “obstructing a peace officer” in an Ontario court. I would not answer any questions and did not produce my ID at the time of my arrest. You are required to answer three questions and only three questions AFTER you have been lawfully arrested AND promptly informed as to why you have been arrested! The three questions are NAME, DATE OF BIRTH, ADDRESS. After that ask for a lawyer and shut your mouth!
So… lawyer or no lawyer?? And I’d love to see this 3 question rule in writing. I must have missed that in Civil Procdure I. And in Crim Pro. It ain’t baseball.
Good question. That's a classic 4th Amendment issue south of the border but the US Constitution has no authority up here. However, I would be interested to know what - if any - section of the Canadian Charter of Rights would apply.
Not directly related to the topic of this video, but in regards to the statement of needing to follow ‘lawful orders’ given by an officer. When it comes to ‘natural’ disaster or the like, can an officer force you to leave your home or not allow you to return to your home? For example: if there were an out of control wild fire, could the police force me to abandon my home if I feel I have the proper equipment (pumps, hoses, etc) to protect my property? I bring this up because of many 1st hand accounts I’ve heard from friends and associates regarding their experiences during the Nova Scotia wild fires that happened a month or so ago. In one instance, a lady who owns a dog boarding business had gone out for supplies and on her way back was told the area is blocked off and she would not be permitted to go into the area. She explained that there were over a dozen dogs along with several staff at the address she was returning too. She was then told that they will try to get the poeple out but can do nothing for the pets. Obviously as a human with a soul, this was not acceptable so she drove to the other route into the area and was again refused entry… she then was left with no option other than to park the car and run through the forest to get back where they were fortunate enough to reach someone with a brain and vehicles were brought in to retrieve all souls in the building. In another instance my spouses coworker and her husband were monitoring the situation closely and knew the fire was getting reasonably close to their property. They have many acres with a nice big cleaning for their house. They had been keeping the house and lawn wet to protect it from embers. They were on a well so depleting much needed city water wasn’t a concern. They were told it was a mandatory evacuation, to grab what they could in 15 minutes and get out or be removed. Then when they were finally allowed to return a week later, I offered the use of a couple of my drones to survey the property from above to ensure there was nothing smoldering that could reignite. They had been proactively told that drones could not be used in the area until further notice. (Thank God their house was spared less some melted siding on their garage. And a 3rd instance was a friend of mine who owns a construction company and several friends of his in the same industry loaded up their heavy machinery (bulldozers, graders, caterpillars, etc) to get ahead of the fires and create a fire break to prevent their businesses and the many houses in their area from being burned. They were turned away and not permitted to assist. I remember distinctly when I was a young man in NB, there was a Forrest fire near my home and not only did they call in surrounding fire departments, but they actively requested over the radio that anyone with equipment and any able bodied men over 16 to volunteer if possible… I was only 15 at the time but I lied, got my fire jacket, hard hat, mask and water tank and off I went with hundreds of others to stop this fire before it could level the town. Only one house was lost thanks to the men creating fire breaks, the young men marching with water packs and the women and kids all at their homes spraying down houses and cars to reduce the chance of them burning. Now 35 years later I simply can not fathom getting a call at work that my community is on fire and allowing anyone to prevent me from getting there to personally insure that my spouse, pets and home are protected at all costs… sorry for the long winded question, but it’s something that I have been thinking about increasingly with the NS wildfires, the west coast fires now, Maui, etc…. And I keep coming but to the horrible question, would these men have so little honor as to actually try to stop a man from saving his loved ones? And if so, how many bullets could I take before succumbing to their dishonorable actions.
Re: 24:51 what regulates the conditions an owner of the private property could put on entry? What if they demand to take off your clothes before entering a store? Or give them your camera for storage?
@@privacylawyer Life is hard already, its very hard to figure out how to navigate life. Every once in a while someone shares something that might not change the circumstance immediately, it gives hope that at least some other people at least inform others... Its a great quality, I just thought finding this when I had a question was helpful and in plenty supply. Thanks again
I've spent a considerable part of my life working hand in glove with police in canada and i know the job, so i'm heavily conflicted in an emotional sense. that being said, the best officers wear there honor openly, and the worst ones display all the reasons they dishonor the uniform.
Sitting in a quiet police station, going idly through someone's phone and deleting the photographs on it, is not "making a split second decision in the heat of the moment".
PIPEDA regulating commercial activity leaves a huge gap for charities. Under the Charities Act, everything a registered charity does is non-commercial, so PIPEDA does not govern or constrain the actions of charitable organizations.
Because you’re SO compliant with law enforcement put in place to protect the rest of us, riiiiiiight?? If you got beaten, you got yourself beaten. I’ve not been punched once in 60 years. 🤷🏼♂️
Totally legal to film cops in public....and would encourage every Canadian to do so...from traffic stops to out in public pullout your phone and record ever thing, they can and do lie to the public all the time.
Thank you so very much as in North Bay Ontario Canada the Local Police Force are breaking the law regarding treatment of the Citizens of the City !! I’ve been harassed by six Police Officers who in my opinion just passed Police College and Have a very Bad Attitude to the people ! Myself I’m always Civil with the Police as I have a Brother in-law and a Nephew who’s a Mountie and another Nephew a Police Officer and Partner Police Dog and I’m proud of them as long as they Still Serve the People Not Corporate and illegal immigrants and Thug’s with Guns and not protecting our Border’s crossing not main one’s the one’s Trudeau is having Police and Medical Tent’s set up for Criminals for breaking the Canadian immigration Act never a problem with the People who are doing everything by law and their upset about the Canada Federal Government Justin Trudeau and Kristen Freeland ! Those two have done so much Crime’s Against Humanity the People of Canada and Military Veterans and Native Indians (Help Build housing and Clinics and Military Engineering to Correct their Water’s issues with Local Band Leadership and Split the Cost with Native’s and Federal and Provincial Governments as Native’s Bend Leadership receiving Large Amounts of Federal Payments and Native Casino and Pot and Cigarette’s which is all tax free wouldn’t put a Dent of the Money in Bank Account’s as even band members living on the reservation complaining to Trudeau government about the Chief’s of serval Reservations have Mansions and paying themselves large amounts and their tribe members are starving no clean water or medical or schooling both native and English education so they keep their Heritage and English for dealing with rest of the World
I’ll bet you’re just an angel, aren’t you? I’ve managed to go 60 years without a police interaction. Maybe ask yourself why you get treated the way you do. Introspection is your friend when you can’t change a system.
@@whatifschrodingersboxwasacofin Perhaps the writer is First Nations. If so, they have probably been stopped and interrogated for the suspicious activity of _breathing,_ more than once.
this proves that our legal system is corrupt as when in public an expectation of privacy is unreasonable, if the cop is to unprofessional to carry out their duties without harassing the person simply recording is a huge problem we have and our charter is routinely ignored at every level
Saying that you work in your lawfirm but can't give advice about law where my question lies, um are all the lawyers equipped with the no advice kind of institution or just hypocrites in general?
Some like the SPVM say body cams cost too much. Pardon? More like it would be too expensive to weed out the bad apples from the service before even considering full disclosure.
A third party video and audio recording an interaction between a police officer and a suspect in a public situation for publishing on a RU-vid channel is he breaking the law because it is not for his personal use and is he violating the law that does not allow the recording of a conversation to which he is not a part? Could such an action be considered hampering an investigation because he is providing evidence to the public which could be edited and not in RAW footage.
A London Ontario lawyer told my dad and I people are allowed to take pictures and videos of people in a public place and don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Which was mentioned in this video, but if you're on your own property and can see into your neighbors yard. There have been cases where it has been considered unlawful to record people that the court claims have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Personally I don't consider it to be a reasonable expectation of privacy when anyone is clearly visible to another person, without them (the potential cameraman) having to go to great lengths to magically see whatever someone might not want recorded. But if I look out my window and see my neighbors doing stuff, or if a security camera around my house for that matter picks up some activities. Is that unlawful. I consider the interior of a house or apartment, or an office space controlled by someone else, like spaces where one might have a reasonable expectation of privacy especially is the change room, or the bathroom and for that reason they don't allow pictures or cameras in those places. However, if I am at the public library and can clearly see people and the recording isn't of a sexual nature, and not up someone's skirt. But rather just a general recording of what one might observe while wondering around the library. Certainly the library can set limits on taking photos and videos while being inside the library. But some libraries allow use of Internet and while someone is using their laptop or camera phone to say video chat the images captured or visible to the other person are similar to publishing a photo or something. And if there is a prohibition it makes sense if someone gets arrested. But if there isn't anything clearly stated as you enter any establishment regarding taking photos or video recording. I question the validity of any argument about it being an unlawful recording. As long as it isn't done In bathroom, or bedroom of someone's house. But if you see 2 people dancing for example and record their dance. Is it unlawful to do so. Even if they don't want a recording or their dance done in their private house. The other person can see view the dance. Which is not the same as taking Inappropriate photos or videos of someone on the toilet, or in the shower, or changing their clothes. So, to me the concept of privacy and the right to record something should relate to whatever anyone can clearly see without going behind enemy lines so to speak. Even at the mall that may be private property, but it is open to the public and has common areas that everyone has access to. Then there are washrooms, or private offices and storage areas that aren't generally accessible to the general public. So, those areas of a private property would come with a reasonable expectation of privacy. But the common pathway in and around the mall that leads to the food court and the stores etc. is accessible to everyone permitted to enter the mall. If someone wants to not be see by anyone else and not caught on video or no photos of them they could stay inside always, but that is a bit unreasonable one might argue. But again if someone is clearly visible to another person unobstructed view and it isn't in a change room and not in a toilet area. Then what's the problem? Like the corridor of mall that leads you around the mall is to me the common or public area and so is the food court. So those areas should not be off limits for photos and videos. Unless clear signage stating the prohibition on taking photos and videos while being in the mall. If that warning is not clearly displayed where everyone can see it. Then how can a anyone know it is prohibited beforehand.
Police stations have signs no recording in the police stations there is no ordinance law attached to these signs public lobbies are public and we should be able to record in them what’s the law prohibiting recording in police stations in public lobbies
You’re unfamiliar with the ‘equity’ part of ‘law and equity’, aren’t you? Some of us graduated from good law schools and actually know what we studied. Others, like you, pretend to know stuff based upon cobbling together media misportrayals, you tube idiots, and personal preference fantasies. You will NOT like it when I record you being processed for a misdemeanour. Try extending the same respect you demand to others who are *equal* to you. You’re not special, and confidentiality is a vital concept in today’s society. Sorry for all the big words.
They might have 2 years ago when this was recorded. Dude’s not interested in updating what he gives you to rely upon. Sounds dangerous to me, as a retired lawyer. But maybe he makes enough to pay out over and above what his professional insurer will pay for negligence. I dunno. I’ve never rendered out of date legal advice on the assumption that it would always apply. 🤷🏼♂️
TOTALLY LEGAL, here in Ontario a few years back it went to court and the cops lost. you can record them in their official duties as long as you don't interfere in "LEGAL" activities.
Even if it's a "public" building, there may be rules posted that would have to be taken into account. In every courtroom I've been in, filming is prohibited while court is in session.
Yes, but it would have to be for a legitimate purpose. Collecting information including video is a Charter protected activity, but can be subject to reasonable limitations that can be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. They'd have to have a good reason. For example, a public hospital could likely justify a policy of no recording in the general waiting room to protect the privacy of other patients.
The charter does not regularly change, neither does a public space, Cops need to remember, they are in our public, it is not thiers, It's ours... There can be no privacy in public unless you make it, yet plain view dictates that privacy, Law enforcement does not own public spaces, All of them, inside and out. Cops have no qualified Immunity in Canada, All are bound to law, including the PM..
Jurisprudence and legal reasoning change. Why are you only looking at the parts you cherry pick? Here’s a thought: the Crown owns public spaces. Law enforcement is a branch of the Crown. Now, what were you on about? Edit: worry less about inches and more about IQ
@@devilsoffspring5519 There is no qualified immunity, thats american, read the charter, then continiue to the criminal code, somewhere through that you will learn the law, for all.
A caveat is when you are encountering the military police on military property, then a statute called the Defence Area Access Control Regulations takes over and the photos can be erased as you need permission to take photos on base property. Usually not enforced unless it's something more sensitive...but a caveat nevertheless
Another caveat is that this video is 2 years old with no signs of having been updated while the courts are pumping out jurisprudence. Be careful what you read on the internet. Retired Canadian lawyer here.
I had a motion detect camera on a surveyor style tripod collecting traffic data because the city was making claims of what I knew was exaggerating traffic to support their bike route grant. The camera was on the side of the city street, a city manager phoned me and told me they would remove my camera if they saw it on "city property? on the grass edge on the side of a city street. One would find surveyors typical equipment in similar locations in the scope of their work,,,, I am sure no city employee would be phoning them to say they would remove their equipment. Did the city have the right to take my camera?
You expect the city to remove surveyors’ equipment from city property? Do you know what surveyors do on road allowances? For our purposes, they protect the delineation of government (ie public) and private property. It is crucial for retaining value in real estate holdings, most people’s greatest asset. Or do you want the government just hacking off the front 20’ of your yard. See, some things add or retain value for society. And some things are just fluff, like inherently unreliable home-made ‘evidence’. You want a study? Commission a study. Otherwise you’ve just got home video. You don’t see the difference between surveyors and your stuff being on city property?? Are you ok?
Go film your local police station of the police coming and going and see what happens.. i recommend bringing a friend or 2 to help document everything that happens..
You say there is a level of accountability with the police. How? In Alberta the police investigate themselves and when you file a complaint against them and it finally reaches the police chief's desk after almost a year he uses a loophole in the law so a person cannot appeal to the Law Enforcement Review Board; the only unbiased third party in the province. City council members, the Ombudsman and local MPs will not investigate or even make inquiries into police misconduct. How do we as members of the public get accountability for police wrongdoing? The police chief actually admitted fault on the part of the officer in my case and yet according to the police chief it was still okay for him to assault and detain me. The crown prosecutor even dropped the charges of trespassing against me and said the officer's statements did not match what he saw in the video footage, and that the officer's actions were not reasonable. It all seemed pretty damning to me and yet the officer's resultant punishment was for his wrongdoing to put it on his record for one year and than be expunged forever. Nothing was done about him violating my Charter Rights. I submitted a request under FOIA for video footage and received it, I filed a statement of claim and even testified before a judge and prosecutor that proved my claim had enough merit for charges to be filed against the officer. The officer was served with the charges but two months later the case was handed off to another prosecutor who simply dropped all the charges, he never even looked at all the available evidence. I personally have no faith in accountability in the system when it comes to the police. It would be really helpful if you could do a video on the best course action for someone dealing with police misconduct because the complaint process is a complete farce IMO.
Any police officer can claim there was a legal complaint/crime and that they can legally take your phone/camera, and demand the password to inspect the content, etc. How does one determine if the officer is being truthful? There is the fundemental issue with law enforcement in Canada; many do not trust them. Many police officers have given the general public reason to not trust the police.
Repercussions? What happens to police who violate citizens’ Rights? Suspension with pay? i.e. vacation? ‘Member of media’ is a term that I hate. Who is a member of media? Member of media should be changed to citizen. We are all members of the media. Can a citizen physically defend themselves from an unlawful assault by a police officer?
You are using Legal and Lawful interchangeable, they are NOT. Lawyers only deal in LEGAL, which is acts, statutes, regulations, rules, notices. LAWFUL is for living individuals that are not corporate entities. Legal does not pertain to living men or women. Crimes must have a victim, so an individual who refuses to comply with a legal act or statute is NOT A CRIME
You couldn’t really be more wrong about crimes requiring a victim if you tried. The first bit is unclear, but you seem to be trying to say “Lawful refers to something that is in accordance with the law, while legal refers to something that has been established by law”. How pedantic. I promise you we used the words interchangeably in my law office, in accordance with modern, non-pedantic standards, on a daily basis. Language is an evolving, living thing, Daddy-O! In many cases, society (ie. the Crown) is the victim. Or do you like paying higher taxes because people make off with public property, fail to pay their taxes, drive way overweight trucks on public highways, drain crap into the rivers emptying into our drinking water, etc.?? Oh, I’ll put my economics and law degrees up against your … candy wrapper?? … any day. 🙂
Color of law (legal stuff) is too complicated to be under-stood by any of us, regular people and ignorance of those laws is a reasonable excuse to not stand under (under-stand) them. I'm not taking about real crimes (Lawful stuff) here that are understood by almost all of us (criminals excluded) : murder, injury, fraud, thief and property damages. In "legalise" (the legal jargon), you are not a "person". You have a "person".
Oh, and also, your "person" may be a "citizen", but you are a Resident. Never imply that you as a Human being are a "person" nor a "citizen". A "citizen" is a title of nobility that is just above a slave. You are a Human being residing on the land.
Back in the day, it would be 2 warning shots 2 the bACK. In the old days the Toronto police use 2 take us out to Cherry beach and throw U in the lake making U swim back to the mainland. Guess it saved the paperwork.
Yeah, yeah. The Pukka Orchestra sang all about it. Sometimes you get what you deserve. I never had a single involuntary trip down Cherry Street. Ever notice how those are the days that *everybody else* likes?? Hmmmm food for thought for you. The police were OUR friends. But don’t take it personally that you made poor life choices. And yes, everybody has choices. It’s Toronto; I have friends from every colour of the spectrum, every place on the financial ladder, and all ages. YOU pick what YOU’re gonna get. And not. 🤷🏼♂️ Edit: oh, and Cherry Beach isn’t even on an island. How you gonna “swim to the mainland”, other than across the 50’ channel?? Maybe you were so drunk you just swam in circles for a while a whole 10’ from shore. There’s no way they tossed you off the steel-sided concrete embankments; you would have drowned and/or frozen in minutes. Seems the honesty lessons didn’t quite take. At least an Irish person had the sense not to play the race card in Toronto after 1895; I used to live right near Corktown (yep, named for County Cork).
well the so called charter got burned and made a moot document a couple years ago in Ottawa when we started putting people in jail for political reasons and holding people without bail for mischief charges this is no longer a free and democratic country
No government or any other man or women gives me my rights, they come from God, God tells me I may use force to protect myself, as a lawyer you should know that, yiu should also read the legal definition of firearms verse the english definition of the same word, and should know that legal and law are 2 ends of a spectrum, they are not related and do not go together in any way, the legal system uses policies for corporate entities, hence the name "police" and not living men and women, the law relates to there being a victim, no victim, no crime. If the guy that broke in to the home was leaving or showing no sign of a threat when he was shot, it is murder, if he was coming towards or going towards the mother, it was a justified killing. Any time the police charge a man or women, they convert them to a corporation on paper, a fake false entity, the police are a corporation and without getting people to claim they are this corporate entity, they would habe no meeting of the minds, if you as a lawyer don't know that, I suspect you and every other lawyer out there is taught this, that's why you are officers of the court and not the people.
“Most people” have no clue what their rights actually are. They’ve watched far, FAR too much American television and movies. Retired Canadian lawyer here. Don’t know what the basis of your opinion is, but I think mine is pretty clear. Edit: oh, and this video is more than 2 years old, so I’m not even clear on why you’d watch it. Page 1 of the disclaimer expressly says “This is a complicated area of law that is constantly changing”, and I can find no evidence of any updates having been made. Just saying. 🤷🏼♂️
