Les élus montréalais demandent la fin des interpellations policières sans fondement

Try to file a police report... " Are you sure, you might have to go to court" "well you know we can't do much even with the plate number and a witness"
 
Je me suis déjà fait pull out a Drummond a presque 1h du matin. J'étais le seul qui roulais dans la rue .

Je répondais a un bootycall. Lol

Envoyé de mon CLT-L04 en utilisant Tapatalk
 
How wrong you are with "they can pull me over I have nothing to hide" that's how we end up with more police power.

Also remember friends you are only required to provide a driver's license while driving a car. You DO NOT need to provide any form of ID walking down the street, through a park or such. All you are required is to give a name.
I was once intercepted while riding a mountain bike at midnight around my house. They asked for my name and address after they told me they were looking for some dude who did a crime at the dépanneur. I had my ID, nothing to fear and hide, I gave them my driver license to proof name and address. They wished my a good night and I was on my way back home.

But on the other hand, don't you must always have your ID on yourself? I understand your point but in case you get injured or killed...

Envoyé de mon SM-A520W en utilisant Tapatalk
 
I was once intercepted while riding a mountain bike at midnight around my house. They asked for my name and address after they told me they were looking for some dude who did a crime at the dépanneur. I had my ID, nothing to fear and hide, I gave them my driver license to proof name and address. They wished my a good night and I was on my way back home.

But on the other hand, don't you must always have your ID on yourself? I understand your point but in case you get injured or killed...

Envoyé de mon SM-A520W en utilisant Tapatalk
That's false about ID being a legal requirement. Canada has no national ID card or mandatory law to carry ID. Medicare cards and Driver's License are defacto ID but you are not required to hand over or required to carry.. unless obviously driving a car or hospital. When I ride my bike I sometimes dont Carry my wallet but I have a bracelet attached to my watch with my info.

You also have the right to know why you are being asked to identify yourself. However you don't have to answer any questions. The usual is "oh the dep got robbed" or "there was a break in"

Not attacking you!
 
That's false about ID being a legal requirement. Canada has no national ID card or mandatory law to carry ID. Medicare cards and Driver's License are defacto ID but you are not required to hand over or required to carry.. unless obviously driving a car or hospital. When I ride my bike I sometimes dont Carry my wallet but I have a bracelet attached to my watch with my info.

You also have the right to know why you are being asked to identify yourself. However you don't have to answer any questions. The usual is "oh the dep got robbed" or "there was a break in"

Not attacking you!

Lol @ "The Usual"

How well acquainted with the crime stats in your neighborhood are you to be so dismissive of these contextual interactions? Two post backs you said, rightly so, that the average department barely had the ressources to investigate crimes... Fast forward to now and they're killing time making up reasons to stop people for shits and gigles?

You do realize they get paid on an hourly basis, right? Not by tickets/arrest/street checks or other metrics.

In your experience, what benefit do you foresee from them making up crimes in the "vicinity" and asking for ID for essentially random/deceitful reasons?

If a public complaint was made, they would have to provide additional context to the interactions. They would be liable to disciplinary measures if the explanation isn't above board. Knowing that people are lazy and selfish, what is there to gain exactly? Clearly, there would need to be a motive of sort.
 
Where did I post they don't have the resources? But you bring up a valid point... They sure do have resources for endless speed traps and people rolling stops on streets.

I'm familiar with the crime stats in my area and my recent interactions with vandals will just add to that. But to walk into a station with neighbours that have suffered the same crimes only to be brushed off saying "we don't have time" is not valid in my book. My neighbor's and I are slowly solving the recent vandal incidents..

Absolutely in some areas the cops are killing time. There is nothing to do. Source? Family members in law enforcement. Go out and find stuff...
 
Where did I post they don't have the resources? But you bring up a valid point... They sure do have resources for endless speed traps and people rolling stops on streets.

I'm familiar with the crime stats in my area and my recent interactions with vandals will just add to that. But to walk into a station with neighbours that have suffered the same crimes only to be brushed off saying "we don't have time" is not valid in my book. My neighbor's and I are slowly solving the recent vandal incidents

Absolutely in some areas the cops are killing time. There is nothing to do. Source? Family members in law enforcement. Go out and find stuff...

To be fair, it's not so much that you said that resources are an issue, but that is what the situation you described earlier likely came down to. The system would rather have hundreds of guilty parties get away with it than have an innocent person convicted.

Cars and licence plates don't get charged for criminal offences, people do. It's an investigative lead but it is not strong evidence in itself. The burden of proof is high and investigative resources are limited. There is definitely triage taking place in the first instance..

Lots of people want other parties charged because they feel strongly about it at the time, but then don't want to lose a day's work to go testify.. When witnesses don't show up, charges against the offender are dropped. Prosecutors don't want to spend time and effort in bringing matters forward when the victim/witnesses won't follow through.

Does this make it right? No, but it is reality

Investigators don't usually do follow up interviews at 02:00 in the morning on property crimes. So yeah, this means that there are times without much going on in between calls for the folks on patrol / traffic. I'd be surprised if there was so little going on that they're investigating bogus break ins.

People want police to be visible, people want them to be proactive and feel safe on the roads (up and until the point where they get inconvenienced or charged for something they feel is not important.)
 
I'd show up to court just like if we had castle doctrine I would defend my property with deadly force.

The only good from the cops telling us to get lost was I finally went out and bought cameras.
 
There's a disconnect between what people want and what they're willing to support to get there. They want crimes to be solved but they don't want to increase funding or pay more taxes to the city. They want safe roads but they don't want traffic cops cracking down on them. People want some low level enforcement and a feeling of safety but they want police to be unobtrusive: Out of sight, out of mind.

Montreal's city council shows this to be more true than ever. They don't want crimes, but more importantly they want to cater to interest groups and avoid hurt feelings from a vocal minority. Let's face it, they get voters out.

Most people say distracted driving is a threat, but traffic enforcement is a cash grab. Even speed enforcement is quite lenient in Quebec. Thankfully, it's not like in some states where double digit (16kph) over the speed limit will get you a ticket and 25 kph could get you a trip to county jail.

They do go for the lower hanging fruits more than what most people would like, but it remains a necessary evil.

Compared to the rest of Canada, lots of Quebec municipalities have some of the lowest crime severity indexes. Clearly there's significant room for improvements (just like the average Quebeccers, cops in quebec can have a bit of an attitude) but they must also be doing a few things right.
 
I agree with you there. Montreal for a city of its size is very safe. Any large city will have crime. However that's not to do with policing but has alot to do with access to services
 
Dude, tu tombes mal avec ton petit message de gars qui se trouve donc brillant de me parler de sécurité. Je me suis faite agresser sexuellement une fois dans ma vie et c’était précisément par un fucking cop de merde qui m’a droguée dans un party et qui s’est fait backer par sa gang de gros caves alors plz, quand tu connais pas la vie de la personne à qui tu t’adresses, tu te gardes une gêne.

Je suis pas certain a ce moment là qu'un forum de discussion soit l'endroit idéal pour venir discuter de sujets qui te sont aussi sensibles.

Le fait que tu allègues qu'un policier ait mal agit ne fait pas que les milliers d'autres sont des salauds.

On voit clairement que ton raisonnement est teinté et n'est pas tout a fait rationnel. Ça fait pas que mes arguments sont invalides et que je devrais me garder une petite gêne... au contraire.

Par contre, par prudence, ignorer tes interventions à l'avenir me semble plus approprié.
 
On est solidaire entres agents de la paix :p
Valérie Plante est une agente de la paix aussi

Try to file a police report... " Are you sure, you might have to go to court" "well you know we can't do much even with the plate number and a witness"

Apparently there's a procedure to lay charges privately if the police doesn't bother. No idea how it works though, teacher said forget about it, it never happens.
 
Last edited:
Valérie Plante est une agente de la paix aussi



Apparently there's a procedure to sue someone for a crime yourself. No idea how it works though, teacher said forget about it, it never happens.
Can't sue someone that has nothing and expect something.
 
Can't sue someone that has nothing and expect something.
Criminal law is meant to prevent crime, not to compensate victims. But if you want justice, have fun. Or civil procedures if you don't fear retaliation and don't mind wasting your time.
 
To be fair, it's not so much that you said that resources are an issue, but that is what the situation you described earlier likely came down to. The system would rather have hundreds of guilty parties get away with it than have an innocent person convicted.

Cars and licence plates don't get charged for criminal offences, people do. It's an investigative lead but it is not strong evidence in itself. The burden of proof is high and investigative resources are limited. There is definitely triage taking place in the first instance..

Lots of people want other parties charged because they feel strongly about it at the time, but then don't want to lose a day's work to go testify.. When witnesses don't show up, charges against the offender are dropped. Prosecutors don't want to spend time and effort in bringing matters forward when the victim/witnesses won't follow through.

Does this make it right? No, but it is reality

Investigators don't usually do follow up interviews at 02:00 in the morning on property crimes. So yeah, this means that there are times without much going on in between calls for the folks on patrol / traffic. I'd be surprised if there was so little going on that they're investigating bogus break ins.

People want police to be visible, people want them to be proactive and feel safe on the roads (up and until the point where they get inconvenienced or charged for something they feel is not important.)
The other day I was at the court (chambre criminelle) for leisure and the prosecutor had a bunch of cases without proof. They just said "no proof for x case", judge says "non guilty you're free to go, next". Why do they even press charges of they don't have proof? Can't the crown drop the charges without wasting the judge's and defendant's time?

Going back next week for a moot court (defense side), it's going to be fun.
 
Valérie Plante est une agente de la paix aussi

Apparently there's a procedure to lay charges privately if the police doesn't bother. No idea how it works though, teacher said forget about it, it never happens.

Most criminal proceedings are initiated by the crown prosecutors or a police officer laying an information (la denonciation) In the case of a "private information" a regular joe can initiate proceedings by laying a "private information." It's basically the start of a "private prosecution." There's a certain evidentiary treshold for the judge to consider the merits of the information initially. (IE Does the information set out/meet the elements of the offence and are there reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the accused has committed the offence.)

They may shut it down if it's not substantiated or compel the other party to court. Crown gets the prerogative to take over or quash the proceedings if they are not in the public interest.

https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/private_prosecution.php

Freeman of the land and other loonies like pursuing these. More so against cops they feel have "wronged them" It's usually vexatious and doesn't go anywhere.


Doesn't sound like gregster is anywhere near reasonable and probable grounds / beyond a reasonable doubt of anything. All I've seen is that a vehicle was used by an unidentified offender. He has an investigative lead, but likely does not have the ability to pursue it.
 
Most criminal proceedings are initiated by the crown prosecutors or a police officer laying an information (la denonciation) In the case of a "private information" a regular joe can initiate proceedings by laying a "private information." It's basically the start of a "private prosecution." There's a certain evidentiary treshold for the judge to consider the merits of the information initially. (IE Does the information set out/meet the elements of the offence and are there reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the accused has committed the offence.)

They may shut it down if it's not substantiated or compel the other party to court. Crown gets the prerogative to take over or quash the proceedings if they are not in the public interest.

https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/private_prosecution.php

Freeman of the land and other loonies like pursuing these. More so against cops they feel have "wronged them" It's usually vexatious and doesn't go anywhere.


Doesn't sound like gregster is anywhere near reasonable and probable grounds / beyond a reasonable doubt of anything. All I've seen is that a vehicle was used by an unidentified offender. He has an investigative lead, but likely does not have the ability to pursue it.
All I'm saying is that it's possible.
 
The other day I was at the court (chambre criminelle) for leisure and the prosecutor had a bunch of cases without proof. They just said "no proof for x case", judge says "non guilty you're free to go, next". Why do they even press charges of they don't have proof? Can't the crown drop the charges without wasting the judge's and defendant's time?

Going back next week for a moot court (defense side), it's going to be fun.

IDK, it was my understanding that in Quebec, the DPCP is supposed to review / approve the charges beforehand. Something has to go south for them not to present any evidence. Could be an issue with the evidence or witnesses?

They could have simply entered a stay of proceedings (arret des poursuites) The accused doesn't need to be present for this to take place.

Some defence counsel like to take a gamble by setting a matter over for trial and banking for witnesses (or even police) to be no shows.
 
IDK, it was my understanding that in Quebec, the DPCP is supposed to review / approve the charges beforehand. Something has to go south for them not to present any evidence. Could be an issue with the evidence or witnesses?

They could have simply entered a stay of proceedings (arret des poursuites) The accused doesn't need to be present for this to take place.

Some defence counsel like to take a gamble by setting a matter over for trial and banking for witnesses (or even police) to be no shows.

That's what I think too (dpcp shouldn't go to trial empty handed), but on 10-12 files there were maybe 3 like that, with the accused present. Maybe you're right about witnesses not showing up, although the judge can ask the police to bring him by force if it's a serious case.

It was the violence conjugale room I think.
 
Back
Top