Randy McKeen nailed it! I entirely agree — Charles you should concentrate on your poor-unfortunates, NOT the FPD!
I disagree a lawsuit has little chance of success:1. Judge admits a police officer committed perjury and infringed on Charles rights,condemns the crown for proceeding in SJ case.2. Charles is ticketed for cycling on a sidewalk based on a complaint by head of security. Charles has pictures of police being right next to people cycling on the sidewalk and not ticketing them.2. He WAS cycling without a helmet, even the report questions whether the ticket was appropriate behaviour in the circumstances.3. In the bullhorn adventure, police are required by law to resolve issues with the least impact on individual rights. There is precedence from BC where police took the bullhorn from demonstrators-WITHOUT arresting them. 4. This case doesn't need to be re-analyzed, Richard is pretty clear and by not pursuing these charges, the government has virtually admitted they stepped over the line. All of these show a pattern of harassment, and Charles reputation has suffered for it, and that can be considered in damages. You can argue this was Charles own doing, but it was a result of this harassment-as Charles often says "I haven't been the same". On the other side, damages are the same as criminal charges-a way to 'send a message' that certain conduct won't be tolerated. Lawsuits don't have the same burden of proof as criminal charges. You don't have to 'prove' police lied on a form, all that is important is the form and the repercussions of that. I'm no lawyer, but I've certainly read of successful lawsuits with a LOT less. I doubt Charles WOULD sue, mainly because it would probably FORCE him to stop blogging his issues with the police for the duration-which would be a long time.
mikel:1. Irrelevant. You can't take legal action against the city of Fredericton for something that happened in SJ.2(a). Irrelevant. He was on the sidewalk and has admitted to it.2(b). Irrelevant. A ticket is a legitimate response for biking without a helmet.3. Irrelevant. The police tried a number of times to resolve the situation without resorting to charges. If they had simply confiscated the bullhorn, you'd be on here, all puffed up, indignant that a citizens property had been seized by the brownshirts.4. I agree. The report does not need to be re-analyzed. It wasn't needed in the first place.Legal action will go nowhere. It will simply be seen as another emotionally disturbed person clogging the legal system with their nonsense.There was no harassment. There was only consequences for harles own behaviour.
Charles needs to deescalate the situation and the police will follow… Example: Before calling the FPD fascists — STOP and don't do it.Example: Before posting photos of Dan on a honey wagon — STOP and don't post it.There is no value kicking the hornets nest…Example: See someone being abused by the FPD outside iRock — go ahead, newsworthy…Helmets: I don't understand why things get so out of hand for a law that was legally passed with all due authority, and only has a $50 fine. It doesn't matter that Charles may have been targeted — HE WAS RIDING WITHOUT A HELMET! The police officer had every authority to ticket him! Life would have been alot easier if Charles had paid the $50 and went along his way — instead he chose to be a martyr!
No offence but what would Randy McKeen know? It's not like he's anybody...just a low market radio "personality" and a failed politician. Randy McKeen...oh please, like his opinion matters.
McKeen has some wise words for you Charles....hopefully you will pay attention. Time to become a little less self absorbed and focus your stories on those in society that are over looked....forget the fpd and the small frenchman who works at the ledge. You've surrounded yourself with some people who like to use you to stir the pot.....get back to reporting on local matters.
That is only YOUR opinion, and not a legal one. The only one that matters is that of a judge and jury. At the time I supported his arrest when he had the bullhorn, and even criticize his behaviour towards some of the officers who had to follow the orders to arrest him. Then I easily found out about the BC case, so obviously if your choice is "which would you prefer, to be arrested or have your property seized", which would you pick? He can't sue the Saint John police, its past the date. However, it helps establish a case against the crown, because the crown proceeded with the charge even AFTER video footage showed what had happened. Its true that Charles broke those bylaws, however, the WAY he was ticketed shows a pattern of harassment. So its hardly irrelevant just because you say so. The police can charge you at any time for DOZENS of laws. Loitering is a crime, so anytime you are standing on a sidewalk and not moving a police can ticket you for loitering. If you happen to have a cup in your hand then they can say you were panhandling. Heck, if there was a robbery somewhere they can also say you 'fit the description'. If the police MARK you, they can make your life VERY miserable. And its virtually impossible to sue an individual officer, because not only do you have to prove the intent, but that the intent was wilful, which is almost impossible. In two of those cases I agree that no harm was done to Charles Human Rights, however, even Bernard Richard questions their legitimacy, so again, just because YOU say its irrelevant doesn't make it so. MY saying it is relevant doesn't make it so, only a judge matters. And a protest is a public act. There is a reason that when fracking demonstrators show up at the legislature they aren't all arrested. Even if they have bullhorns. Again, the police are required by law to infringe on your rights as little as possible, which taking charles bullhorn would have easily accomplished (whether we huff or puff is irrelevant because the precedent has already been set in the BC case). In human rights legislation it is NOT incumbent on the victim to prove harm, it is incumbent on government to prove that it acted with the minimal amount of force necessary. As for the final case, I didn't bring it up for very different reasons than you. YOU may think it wasn't necessary, but the report says otherwise, and frankly, unless you are a judge, your opinion isn't worth much. Its VERY clear in this case that Charles human rights were infringed on, Richard says so, which is the only opinion that matters. It should NOT be assumed that 'de escalating' would mean the police would do the same. Charles was GREAT pals with police up to being arrested on false charges in Saint John. And its no surprise that his arrest and his banishment from the legislation happened LONG before his cartoons of Dan Bussiere's and his vehement criticism of police.
Mikel, why do you ALWAYS writer CERTAIN words in upper case?? I PRAY that you don't talk in the SAME manner!
9:16 "...ALWAYS writer CERTAIN words in upper case??"...nice English skills. lol
Randy McKeen made observations on a very superficial level. No journalism whatsoever.
Post a Comment