“Plaincloths Officer Stopped Me For Not Checking”

I think people get confused with unlawful search of vehicle with stopping a vehicle, because we can be stopped just to see if our documents (driving) are legit. Otherwise, I think that the R.I.D.E. program would be illegal.

If I were pulled over and was puzzled as to why, I'd ask the question too. I think it is common courtesy, common sense, and professional to give a reason. Every time I have been pulled over (not often!!!) I have been greeted professionally, given a reason, and spoken to regarding it. My paperwork was always checked. If I were treated unprofessionally and in a manner which did not speak well of that police service (like a smart ass comment such as "Because I can" coupled with disrespectful and condescending treatment) I would probably take note of the officer's badge and report them.

It does NOT help other officers who are trying to do their jobs and keep society safe if one of their own decides to be ego driven, unprofessional, and discourteous. I know that I would not be rude to an officer out of respect for the job they do, the danger they put themselves in, and because that's not the type of person I want to portray myself as, and I have the right as a citizen to be concerned if attitude gets in the way of professional and effective policing. It's nothing short of bullying considering the authority given to their position. Also, having loved ones in or retired from service, I do not appreciate others representing them in a negative light. Their job is hard enough.

Marquisse,

Thank you for well written post!

HB

Marquisse

You dont seem to understand that being constantly stopped for no reason (and I can assure you some people get stopped weekly ) is interfering with our rights and freedoms.

The reason your 'paperwork' is checked repeatedly is to hopefully find you without a document so that a fine can be issued. They have computers in their cruisers which tell them who owns the car and if it has a valid sticker. So do they really need to see your registration ????

Also have you ever tried calling the police to a genuine emergency ?

The typical responses are:

Sorry ma'am I dont have enough cars...

Sorry ma'am I dont have enough manpower

Sorry ma'am but I can't get anyone out to you for another hour or maybe two.

Looking after public safety is what the police USED to be for. No it is a business. Apparently when they arrest someone the Sgt asks the arresting officer for his paystub/payroll number...... Pretty much sums it up now doesn't it !

Coolchick,

Our rights and freedoms with respect to the Charter are not being infringed upon by being stopped and our paperwork checked, and I refer you to Section 1 of the Charter to back up this assertion. Further, Section 8 and 9 guarantees that we have the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure and arbitrary detention/imprisonment. Nowhere does it say that we have a right to not be stopped while exercising our driving privilege. It also does not fall under section 12, unless one has a creative lawyer that can prove in a constitutional challenge that being pulled over equals cruel and unusual punishment (and a drunk justice).

However, if you are asserting that your rights are being violated contrary to Section 15, then you have the right to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to "obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances" (the latter part of the quote referring to Section 1 as the benchmark of appropriateness in a free and democratic society, and assuming that you satisfy the burden of proof (three step test)).

I've been driving for 18 years and I've been stopped 3 times and about 3 times for R.I.D.E. I don't know what your reference to "repeatedly" is in terms of actual frequency, but 6 times in almost two decades isn't even a blip on my radar. To be honest, I find your application of our constitutional rights peculiar, and to be frank, do not appreciate your condescending remark assuming (incorrectly) my level of knowledge concerning our constitutional rights as citizens. I'm all for debate and the exchanging of ideas, provided that it is conducted in a mutually respectful manner. I sincerely hope that we can accomplish from this point forward.

Marquisse wrote:Coolchick,

Our rights and freedoms with respect to the Charter are not being infringed upon by being stopped and our paperwork checked,

Actually when people get stopped several times a month it is an infringement......

and I refer you to Section 1 of the Charter to back up this assertion. Further, Section 8 and 9 guarantees that we have the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure and arbitrary detention/imprisonment.

Nowhere does it say that we have a right to not be stopped while exercising our driving privilege.

Driving as a driver is a job in commerce.... people in general who travel from point A to point B are not acting in commerce....therefore not a Driver. Travelling is a RIGHT not a privilidge.

It also does not fall under section 12, unless one has a creative lawyer that can prove in a constitutional challenge that being pulled over equals cruel and unusual punishment (and a drunk justice).

I find your acceptance of such detainment quite abhorrent.... your quoting that something does NOT fall under something is assinine in itself.

However, if you are asserting that your rights are being violated contrary to Section 15, then you have the right to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to "obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances"

A court of remedy would be a common law court and not a commercial court that bases itself on Maritime Law !!!!! We are on dry land my friend.... not at sea !!! We do not need to enter the dock or consent to anything... least of all consent to being a name on a piece of paper !!!

Therefore a competent JURISDICTION would be only a common law court..... point me to one... !!!!!

(the latter part of the quote referring to Section 1 as the benchmark of appropriateness in a free and democratic society, and assuming that you satisfy the burden of proof (three step test)).

We are not in a free and democratic society.... havent you noticed ? Do you feel free? Surveillance cameras at every turn... mandatory vaccinations.... guilty until proven innocent ??? doesnt sound very FREE to me....

I've been driving for 18 years and I've been stopped 3 times and about 3 times for R.I.D.E. I don't know what your reference to "repeatedly" is in terms of actual frequency, but 6 times in almost two decades isn't even a blip on my radar.

Lucky you.... but I can assure you many people get stopped frequently..... and as a cab driver once told me...they like to pull over certain cars...usually flashy ones or the other end of the spectrum as in a beater. So your blipping radar is not a good example.,..

To be honest, I find your application of our constitutional rights peculiar, and to be frank, do not appreciate your condescending remark assuming (incorrectly) my level of knowledge concerning our constitutional rights as citizens.

Are you a citizen or a human being that is the question? I do not appreciate your view that I have a peculiar take on our rights.... so i guess we are even. You may know your rights as a CONSENTING citizen...but obviously know nothing of rights in Common Law and as human beings. Feel free to live in the confines of commerce...but many are now freeing themself of those chains.... Freedom is at stake.

I'm all for debate and the exchanging of ideas, provided that it is conducted in a mutually respectful manner. I sincerely hope that we can accomplish from this point forward.

I am quite respectful ... and I would like you to be also... and remember that not everyone will agree with you and that others may have something that could educate you further. I see where you are coming from and I actually see many people liking the confines of Commercial law..... But personally I prefer Natural Law......the Law that precededs government and is irrefutable and superior to Commercial Law (which incidentally is for businesses and corporations...which I am not )

Cool chick, your bait and switch is clever. However, come back with case law and statute to back up this assinine take on the law that you have, and show all of us just how wrong we are.

I have no interest in statute law and will refuse to consent to any of them....

Common Law re: No harm, No Loss and No Injury is all that I consider to be Law.... the rest is a commercial machine that is acting fraudulently for revenue....

This may help you a bit Marquisse... \\Even gives a few case laws for your perusal....

Contrary to common belief "the man" really isn't out to get you

I am sure 'the man' isn't !!!!!

Snide comments that attempt to thwart the matter are futile in all honesty. Facts are facts, more and more people will gradually realise it.....

I watched the videos.

You assault someone contrary to law, you will be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada. You cause injury, and you can be sued in civil court.

Your dog attacks someone on the street, and you will be subject to the Dog Owners' Liability Act.

You pollute, and you will be charged according to the POA.

Your operate your vehicle while impaired, and you will be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada.

You work and pay taxes, according to the Income Tax Act.

You operate your vehicle on provincial highways, and you have consented to be subject to the HTA.

You are born or become a Canadian Citizen, and you are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

You have failed to provide case law and statute to back up your claim. Your argument is false, and you know it. You cannot prove it, and insisting on it just makes you look unstable. So please get some legal education because if you try to assert that you are above and beyond the law of the land, you will find yourself involuntarily committed.

You are free to disengage from these laws. So forfeit your license, your job, your dog. Don't pollute, and don't drive. You are free to jog across Canada as we have the right to be mobile within our country. But this freedom does NOT include a right to operate a vehicle - even if you drive for a living. You do not have the right to punch someone else in the nose and expect not to be held accountable by law.

These are social contracts that are implied. That is what legislation is. There are plenty of psychopaths and anti-social people out there who would like to excuse themselves from the laws of our society. This would leave them free to drive drunk and kill families sharing the road with them. This would allow drug dealers to shoot through walls and kill a sleeping child on the other side. Of course you'd say that this is not why you wish to not be subjected to our laws - but it would still hold you unaccountable if you did. That is unacceptable to us as a collective.

In the end, our laws protect the freedom of ALL. It protects you from me and me from you. It legislates common sense because sense isn't so common. If you are so opposed to rules, then write or visit with your MP and take the appropriate channels. Make sure you remove your aluminum hat, first.

I'm done here. G'day

Marquisse....

You assault someone contrary to law, you will be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada. You cause injury, and you can be sued in civil court. Harm Loss or Injury = Crime = Common Law (as I said)

Your dog attacks someone on the street, and you will be subject to the Dog Owners' Liability Act. Harm, Loss or Injury =Common law (if owner incites dog to cause harm) = Crime = Common Law (as I said )

You pollute, and you will be charged according to the POA.

Your operate your vehicle while impaired, and you will be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada.

You work and pay taxes, according to the Income Tax Act.

You operate your vehicle on provincial highways, and you have consented to be subject to the HTA.

You are born or become a Canadian Citizen, and you are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

You have failed to provide case law and statute to back up your claim. Your argument is false, and you know it.

My argument is extremely factual and if you don't know it ...you should!!!

You cannot prove it, and insisting on it just makes you look unstable. Actually it is your own opinion that I look unstable..... Many many peoplle are researching and living by the facts i state right now....

So please get some legal education because if you try to assert that you are above and beyond the law of the land, you will find yourself involuntarily committed.

You are free to disengage from these laws. So forfeit your license, your job, your dog. Don't pollute, and don't drive. You are free to jog across Canada as we have the right to be mobile within our country. But this freedom does NOT include a right to operate a vehicle - even if you drive for a living. You do not have the right to punch someone else in the nose and expect not to be held accountable by law.

We do actually have rights which have been slowly hidden from us..... we can have a dog and unless we incite it to do harm have not broken the law. We cannot pollute if it causes harm. We can travel by whatever means we choose, so long as we do not cause harm loss or injury.

And of course we cannot assault people as that alsp falls under a Common Law crime....... so what is really your point ?

These are social contracts ((( hereby lies the crux of my argument my friend, SOCIAL CONTRACTS))) that are implied. That is what legislation is.

There are plenty of psychopaths and anti-social people out there who would like to excuse themselves from the laws of our society. A lot of those you mention are controlling government right now and working in police forces ....your point ????

This would leave them free to drive drunk and kill families sharing the road with them. People do this even with a licence....so again how does a licence prevent this ?

This would allow drug dealers to shoot through walls and kill a sleeping child on the other side. Governments do this repeatedly i Iraq and Afghanistan and many other places... Are they excusable then ??? How does a statute prevent slaughter ?

Of course you'd say that this is not why you wish to not be subjected to our laws - but it would still hold you unaccountable if you did. That is unacceptable to us as a collective. Any harm loss or injury is unacceptable.... you miss the point entirely !

In the end, our laws protect the freedom of ALL.

It protects you from me and me from you. HOW ?????

It legislates common sense because sense isn't so common.

If you are so opposed to rules, then write or visit with your MP and take the appropriate channels.

Make sure you remove your aluminum hat, first. Well of course it might react with the aluminum that is in the forced vaccine and we couldn't possibly have that now could we...?

Keep those blinders on !!!!

You operate your vehicle on provincial highways, and you have consented to be subject to the HTA.

Yes CORRECT if you have consented....... but what if you don't consent ?

Your consent is your signature on your license.

A lot of those you mention are controlling government right now and working in police forces ....your point ????

I, personally, have no issues with any of the 5 police departments, who's roads I traverse everyday.

This would leave them free to drive drunk and kill families sharing the road with them. People do this even with a licence....so again how does a licence prevent this ?

Ask Mr. Bear, he'll tell you that there are an extremely disproportionate number of "charged" drunk drivers that are repeat offenders, license or no license they will continue to offend.

Any how, are you two done?

Reflections wrote:

You operate your vehicle on provincial highways, and you have consented to be subject to the HTA.

Yes CORRECT if you have consented....... but what if you don't consent ?

Your consent is your signature on your license.

So best not to have one then !!!!

A lot of those you mention are controlling government right now and working in police forces ....your point ????

I, personally, have no issues with any of the 5 police departments, who's roads I traverse everyday.

Thats good.... do they give you a break because you are an ex cop or have a friend whose one ?

This would leave them free to drive drunk and kill families sharing the road with them. People do this even with a licence....so again how does a licence prevent this ?

Ask Mr. Bear, he'll tell you that there are an extremely disproportionate number of "charged" drunk drivers that are repeat offenders, license or no license they will continue to offend.

Yes I am sure.... so the licence is of no real value then.... aside from revenue ???

Any how, are you two done?

I certainly hope so..... I hope Marquisse is googling the facts right now lol

Yep, Reflections, I'm done. I'm not into arguing facts with someone who doesn't know the meaning.