jsherk wrote:

My point was that they can't make up charges and give you invalid tickets for having a bad attitude. If they charge you for something, then it had better be a valid charge.

That isn't what you said

I know that's not what I said, but it is what I meant to say which is why I clarified it.

My fingers don't always type what my brain is thinking.

Here is another good article on the Right to Silence:

http://robichaudlaw.ca/right-to-silence ... n-sinclair

jsherk wrote:

Here is another good article on the Right to Silence:

http://robichaudlaw.ca/right-to-silence ... n-sinclair

No, i'd disagree. This forum deals mostly with run of the mill Highway Traffic Act charges. You've linked to something barely relevant to continue your "stick it to the man" routine here on the forum. Anyone seeking advice for criminal charges where they find themselves in an interrogation room, in jail, or need a criminal lawyers checklist, shouldn't and wouldn't be seeking the advice of this forum.

I still don't understand why people think I am trying to "stick it to the man" ... the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees us the Right to Remain Silent and the Right to Not Incriminate ourselves and this right applies even to minor traffic violations.

The article gives a great overview (albeit from a criminal charge perspective) of those rights and the advice can be easily applied to traffic stops as well.

You can disagree and you can talk to police all you want (whether at the side of the road or an interogartion room), but the law says I have the right not to talk to them and I think most people do know about this right and/or do not understand this right.

I am not suggesting that anybody ever be rude or impolite to police, and I am not trying to stick it to anybody... just letting people know what their legal rights are, even in non-criminal situations.

I don't think a criminal charge and a minor traffic matter are analagous.

I find the whole "I don't have to talk to you" attitude of some people as akin to teenage angst and thumbing their nose at authority. The danger in advising people to exercise their rights in this manner is that if they do not understand what they are REQUIRED to do they may find themselves in a jackpot by refusing to cooperate with a police officer in the lawful execution of their duty, and as a result may find themselves facing a MUCH MORE SERIOUS jackpot such as an obstruct charge.

I'm all for being aware of your rights, but there are circumstances where exercising them seems foolish, and just complicates matters.

I choose to try and educate people on what their rights are, including what is also required of them. This is what I said in my very first post:

jsherk wrote:

So I have been doing some research about my rights and realized that I do NOT ever have to talk to the police and I NEVER have to answer any of their questions.

I may be compelled/required by statute to show my drivers license, insurance and registration but I do not have to say anything or answer any questions.

I may be compelled/required by statute to provide my name, address and date of birth if I am being charged with a crime, but again I do not have to say anything or answer any questions.

Just my opinion, but the best thing you can do is say NOTHING ... do not give them the evidence they need to convict you!!!

Mugwug wrote:

I'm all for being aware of your rights, but there are circumstances where exercising them seems foolish, and just complicates matters.

You don't see a problem in this country when exercising your legal rights becomes "foolish and complicates matters"?

You don't see a problem in this country when the police are allowed to lie/deceive you when questioning you, but if you lie to them you can be charged?

You don't see a problem in this country when the police using the law to charge somebody is okay, but when the average person uses the law to try and get those charges dismissed they are "sticking it to the man" or "thumbing their nose at authority"?

Being questioned by the police on your doorstep and being stopped by the police in your vehicle are two different things. Driving is not a right, therefore you are not afforded some of the same rights and are required to follow certain orders by an officer. Posting links on what to do during a criminal investigation interrogation is getting a bit ridiculous...

And yes, your "stick it to the man" routine is dangerous. In this post here you tell a user who has hit another vehicle and took off to not talk to the police and don't answer their questions while linking to this thread. It's not her luxury to avoid the police anymore. You told the user to commit a hit and run, plain and simple. Your advice to her was to break the law and put her in more trouble than she was in before. Quite frankly, you should have been banned as it goes against the rules of the forum.

Not the first time either

jsherk wrote:

You don't see a problem in this country when exercising your legal rights becomes "foolish and complicates matters"?

You don't see a problem in this country when the police are allowed to lie/deceive you when questioning you, but if you lie to them you can be charged?

You don't see a problem in this country when the police using the law to charge somebody is okay, but when the average person uses the law to try and get those charges dismissed they are "sticking it to the man" or "thumbing their nose at authority"?

I guess we'll do this one at a time;

a) The Police lying to you. I see a problem with people suggesting that ALL police are seeking to jack the populace on all sorts of provincial and federal matters and that I should surrender any societal obligation to assist the police as they protect us all. That the police can lie to you during their investigation is merely a fact of life endorsed by the courts subject to certain restrictions, and is balanced by the fact that you do not need to submit to questioning. Refusing to cooperate with ANY police because you could conceivably have your words used against you sounds more like paranoia than the noble fight for civil rights.

b) The police keep the peace, a large part of that is enforcing the laws that are passed by the elected representatives of us all. If you get charged odds are good that you committed the offence. If they made a procedural error OR if the evidence does not support the charge then the courts will sort that out. Exercising your rights when you are being charged is prudent, exercising your rights in a routine interaction with the police screams of angst and thumbing your nose at authority - and undoubtedly extends your interaction with the police (as has been previously discussed at length).

Robert Peel said the police are the people and the people are the police. I happen to believe that, and it's based on my experience from both sides of that equation. We all have rights that are guaranteed by the charter, violations of those rights are addressed by the courts in the fullness of time. "Freedom from minor inconvenience" is not listed among them.

I was pulled over by a NY state trooper once. I got you for 72 in a 55 he said. "Yes", I said " I'm grossing 80,000 lbs today. I must have a loose wire in my jake brake harness because I hit a pot hole half way down the hill and my jake stopped working. Next thing I know I looked at my speedo and I'm going 72. Sorry about that. I have a clean record."

Trooper gave me a ticket for 72 and noted on the ticket that I admitted to speeding and having a faulty jake brake. Now I don't say so much.

Not talking is going to pretty much guarantee you get the worst possible ticket and guarantees a court appearance.

Talking might get you a lighter ticket.... but you might hang yourself too.

Perhaps I need to learn how to talk without saying anything.

bend wrote:

In this post here you tell a user who has hit another vehicle and took off to not talk to the police and don't answer their questions while linking to this thread.

It has not been my intention to offer any advice that is illegal or perceived as illegal. I will try to be more diligent in the future and consider my answers more carefully to avoid this.