| BigTrucker |
What the hell are CN Police? Do they have any jurisdiction or powers outside of CN property? Do they carry a firearm like city police or RCMP do? Or are they more of a glorified security guard?
Also, what purpose does a Peace Officer serve? Are they just a beefed up bylaw officer? |
|
|
| Prorsumgurl83 |
CN police do carry a gun and cuffs and all that jazz. CN is a federally regulated organization and these CN police have jurisdiction only on CN property. They are mainly to ensure the safety of the CN employees and equipment operating within the CN right of way (usually 100ft from any track).
Hope this helps...I worked at CN for a year and they do everything from security passes, to derailments, to native protests on railway tracks, to piss tests for track construction workers.
As to peace officer or bylaw officer...not too sure |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by BigTrucker
What the hell are CN Police? Do they have any jurisdiction or powers outside of CN property? Do they carry a firearm like city police or RCMP do? Or are they more of a glorified security guard?
Also, what purpose does a Peace Officer serve? Are they just a beefed up bylaw officer?
CN Police are.......police. There's a law in Canada, a federal law, that regulates ALL police officers, security guards, bailiff's, private investigators, etc. Part of that law entails defining the word "police" and outlining when and who can use the term for their organization. CN Police, Edmonton Police, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, etc all have something in common: they have "Police" in their name. In the old days, prior to Military Police being given authority over civilians, they were called the "Provost Corps" and the officers were called "provost". Partly out of tradition, wholly because prior to that, it would have violated federal law to call them "police".
So, anytime you see "police" in their name, you can be certain they are, in fact, police officers. CN Police have federally regulated authority, meaning their powers are not limited by municipal or provincial boundaries. The Federal Government granted them authority while the Canadian National Railway was still under governmental control. When the railway was privatized, their authority transferred.
The authority does have limitations. The distance is fixed based on the type of property in question. It extends further from yards and switches then it does from just straight track, but I don't know the exact distances. Within that jurisdiction however, they have full authority: speeding tickets, parking tickets, radar, everything. Plus all the indictible/criminal stuff any police officer can do in or outside of their official jurisdiction.
As for peace officer......peace officer is another name for police officer. Peace is synonymous for "the public" in legal terms. A justice of a the peace is a justice of the public. A peace officer is a public officer. Disturbing the peace means disturbing the public. A peace officer is someone's who's job is to maintain law and order, "keep the peace" so to speak. In Ancient Rome where they were first historically employed, they were known as "prefects" and they dealt with all disputes. If someone stole from you, you went to them. If you argued with your spouse, you went to them. If you and your neighbour had territorial disputes, you went to them. Their entire purpose was to find fair, just, and equitable solutions to problems and to dole out compassionate but fair punishment to prevent riots, street fights or vigiliante justice.
That idea remains today. A peace office is charged with protecting the public. Their job is to attempt to maintain order, preserve life, and resolve disputes. In short, to "keep the peace". Which is one of the reasons you'll find me adamantly defend pretty much any law on the books. |
|
|
| SilverFire |
Another note about peace officers:
You never know who they might be. They don't always have uniforms. I found that out a few years back when I was helping out with traffic control for some marathon or another. Some guy said he lived on the route, and drove up on the grass, around the barriers and onto the course. The lead cop car arrested him and impounded his car. I wound up having to go to court for it 'cause he was fighting it. They had charged him with a bunch of stuff, but one of them was something similar to 'disobeying a peace officer'. I don't remember the exact charge (it was years ago), but when the judge told him that we have the same authority as a peace officer as the police, he just gave up and changed his plea to guilty.
It all comes down to respect. If you respect barriers and people trying to keep things organized you'll be fine. |
|
|
| Fazda |
| FUCK THA POLICE> NWA |
|
|
| little_one_der |
| Does Peace Officer include the secret shoppers in grocery stores? What kind of powers do they have? |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by little_one_der
Does Peace Officer include the secret shoppers in grocery stores? What kind of powers do they have?
If you mean a "secret shopper" who evaluates the store......no. If you mean a "secret shopper" who's there to try and catch shop lifters.....sort of. They are security guards or private investigators and are licenced as such. They can't order you around, but they can arrest you. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverFire
Another note about peace officers:
You never know who they might be. They don't always have uniforms. I found that out a few years back when I was helping out with traffic control for some marathon or another. Some guy said he lived on the route, and drove up on the grass, around the barriers and onto the course. The lead cop car arrested him and impounded his car. I wound up having to go to court for it 'cause he was fighting it. They had charged him with a bunch of stuff, but one of them was something similar to 'disobeying a peace officer'. I don't remember the exact charge (it was years ago), but when the judge told him that we have the same authority as a peace officer as the police, he just gave up and changed his plea to guilty.
It all comes down to respect. If you respect barriers and people trying to keep things organized you'll be fine.
Volunteering to control traffic is not a peace officer. You have similar authority when it comes to traffic control, but you were NOT a peace officer. The law is very clear on what makes someone a peace officer. You had similar authority with respect to traffic, but that's where your authority ended. "Something simliar to disobeying a peace officer" is not the same as "disobeying a peace officer".
Peace officer isn't a piecemeal thing. You can't be a peace officer with respect to traffic but not in terms of arrest without warrant. You either are a peace officer and have all their powers, or you aren't a peace officer at all.
Don't confuse them. Next time you volunteer, if you tell someone you're a "peace officer and they should listen", you might find yourself on the defence side of an "impersonating a peace officer" charge. |
|
|
| drewb |
| I've always wounder what kind of power security guards actually have, can they use force to detain you, do you have to answer their questions, confinscate personal property, search you ect. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by drewb
I've always wounder what kind of power security guards actually have, can they use force to detain you, do you have to answer their questions, confinscate personal property, search you ect.
A security guard can use force to detain you, yes. But they have to be careful, if they do it improperly they face going to jail for kidnapping and assault.
You do not have to answer their questions.
They cannot confiscate personal property.
They can only search you to ensure their own safety. For example, if they place you under arrest for trespassing, they can detain you until a peace officer shows up. During detainment, than can search you for weapons, and only for weapons, to ensure their own personal safety, and they can cuff you. Getting them pepper spray/asp batons is in the works, so don't be surprised if that comes to pass. A guard with a dog is allowed to let his dog eat you in order to detain you.
And though you didn't ask it, you DO have to do what they tell you. If they ask you to leave, you MUST leave...or you're guilty of trespassing and they can arrest you. If they tell you that you have to take your car around to another entrance to a property, you must. |
|
|
| DivineRight |
I think everyone forgets that as a Canadian citizen, we all have powers of arrest under the Criminal Code Sec. 494:
quote:
Arrest without warrant by any person
494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant
(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or
(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes
(i) has committed a criminal offence, and
(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.
Arrest by owner, etc., of property
(2) Any one who is
(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or
(b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property,
may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.
Delivery to peace officer
(3) Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 449; R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 5.
Keep in mind "criminal" means an indictable offense. So you can't arrest a hooker for trying to sell her body or things like that. The bad stuff like rape, robbery or murder all falls into indicatable offenses. CN Police have full jurisdiction ond execution of their powers on CN property unless the incident is a homicide, then they need to turn it over to either city or RCMP.
As for peace officer designation, there are different levels but its confusing. Take for instance Bylaw officers, UofA Campus Security, ETS Security, Alberta Transportation and Remand Guards, they all have peace officer status. (Have you seen ETS guys drive around in their "Police cars", its sorta funny) The thing is, they are not all the same, their levels of powers are slightly different than Police as they are not able to arrest under reasonable and probable grounds and most don't have the same authority to use deadly force. You'll notice that some of these people can carry batons and pepper spray, some don't. I still don't know myself what the criteria is for arming some and not others.
The Albera Sheriffs are sort of inbetween these areas and the police. In the court house and transport of prisioners they are governed also by the Judicature Act which grants them powers to carry a side arm and refuse entrance of the public into a court house if they deem them a threat (weapons, ect.). They have not expanded to highway patrol. Their role is still a bit hazy as their powers and job roles keep expanding.
Mall security, Loss Prevention Officers and private security (Garda, Baretta, ect.) do not have peace officer status but they do have agent status for their area of responsibility. So they have all the powers under section 494 of the criminal code. Plus they can place tresspass bans. |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
quote:
Originally posted by DivineRight
They have not expanded to highway patrol.
Yes, they have. Alberta Sheriff's patrol highways all around the province now. And they are fully armed while doing it. |
|
|
| DivineRight |
| Oops, that was supposed to say "NOW" not "Not". The Sheriffs are indeed doing Highway patrol now. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
A security guard can use force to detain you, yes. But they have to be careful, if they do it improperly they face going to jail for kidnapping and assault.
Speaking as an ex-security guard.. I have never heard of a guard being hit with those charges... False arrest, use of excessive force.. yes.. but not assult or kidnapping.
With Weapons... Initial Security had, dunno if they still do, the Leg grounds. The Leg ground gaurds where armed hand guns and rubber bullets.. but people didn't know that, people thought they had real bullets.
Most guards aren't allowed by their companies to fully arrest people with out certain training.. they simply detain until the police arrive to determine if an arrest is neccesary. same thing the companies won't let you use hand cuffs with out certain training. |
|
|
| DivineRight |
I have never seen Intial Security guards with anything other than flashlights and handcuffs. I worked with Intial Security for years in the hospitals in the city.
Then again, people have told me that UofA Campus security once upon a time carried sidearms as well.
Silverneonracer, the types of charges that people can lay against those who are doing their jobs is amazing. The Charter now allows slimey defense lawyers to do whatever they want these days. Kidnapping, assault and unlawful confinement are very possible charges with placing someone under arrest, placing them into a holding area to await police. Security guards, Loss Prevention officers and bouncers need to arrest charter and caution people nowadays. |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
| Campus Security is probably getting their sidearms back, and Transit Security will be packing in the next year as well. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by DivineRight
I have never seen Intial Security guards with anything other than flashlights and handcuffs. I worked with Intial Security for years in the hospitals in the city.
Then again, people have told me that UofA Campus security once upon a time carried sidearms as well.
Silverneonracer, the types of charges that people can lay against those who are doing their jobs is amazing. The Charter now allows slimey defense lawyers to do whatever they want these days. Kidnapping, assault and unlawful confinement are very possible charges with placing someone under arrest, placing them into a holding area to await police. Security guards, Loss Prevention officers and bouncers need to arrest charter and caution people nowadays.
This was back in 98 99 ish.. It was only on the leg that they packed.. and it was only rubber bullets, not real ones. |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverNeonRacer
This was back in 98 99 ish.. It was only on the leg that they packed.. and it was only rubber bullets, not real ones.
I wish we carried on our thighs, it's a lot more comfy. When we get our automatics, I'm buying a thigh holster, regs be damned. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
I wish we carried on our thighs, it's a lot more comfy. When we get our automatics, I'm buying a thigh holster, regs be damned.
I ment teh legistlature or how ever it's spelt.. It's time for bed so I don't care if I spelt it wrong... I'm getting a thigh holder for geeks.. holds stuff like PDA's, Cell phones, etc
They have the shoulder under the arm pit ones too.. but that's a different issue.. :P |
|
|
| Invalid Zero |
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
I wish we carried on our thighs, it's a lot more comfy. When we get our automatics, I'm buying a thigh holster, regs be damned.
Uhhh... don't you mean semi-auto? |
|
|
| DivineRight |
Are you kidding me? Transit Security with guns? UofA Campus security with guns? I can't see that happening in the near future, they don't have the training or authority to use firearms.
95EagleAWD, where are you getting your info from? |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverNeonRacer
Speaking as an ex-security guard.. I have never heard of a guard being hit with those charges... False arrest, use of excessive force.. yes.. but not assult or kidnapping.
With Weapons... Initial Security had, dunno if they still do, the Leg grounds. The Leg ground gaurds where armed hand guns and rubber bullets.. but people didn't know that, people thought they had real bullets.
Most guards aren't allowed by their companies to fully arrest people with out certain training.. they simply detain until the police arrive to determine if an arrest is neccesary. same thing the companies won't let you use hand cuffs with out certain training.
I've seen a cop nailed with kidnapping and assault. If you detain someone, it IS kidnapping. It's only false arrest if you execute proper arrest procedure on someone who shouldn't be arrested. If you do not follow proper arrest procedure on someone who shouldn't be detained at all, it's kidnapping. People don't realize how broad kidnapping is. If you sit on the hood of someoe's car so they can't leave because they owe you something, or whatever, it's actually kidnapping.
Not allowed to fully arrest? That's bullshit. Security Guards use citizen arrest procedures, a company cannot tell you that you are not allowed to exercise your civic duty. And I would hope if any company tried they'd get slammed by the law.
Not using cuffs I can see, but there are many statutes that allow security guards to use force to detain a suspect. In fact, if you read the most current supreme court decisions on citizens arrest, you must physically contain the situation for the arrest to be legal. Put a hand on the guys shoulder while you inform him of his arrest or something of the sort is now virtually a requirement.
Having said that, there's a common trend developing here that I do not agree with. A weapon does NOT define anything. Compus Police are full-on police, they are Special Constables appointed by the province. The real deal. Not having a weapon does not detract from that fact. A decision was made that places of higher education should be the one place problems can be solved by reason and not force. Besides, there are very few weapon offences occuring on universities in Canada. They're actually more common in high school, so if it isn't needed, why incur the liability and cost of arming the police? I'm sure if they decided the need existed to arm them now, they would send them for training. I doubt they'd just show up one day and say "Here's your gun now, have a nice day." Not being trained for it now is no surprise, why train on something you don't have?
Then look at Ryan. He carries a gun, is he a cop? No. A weapon means nothing. It's a tool. For a while, the Military Police were the only one with asps, then RCMP got them. Before it trickled down to provincial and municipal forces, were they MP's and RCMP "better cops"? Not at all. A tool is just a tool. Some cops don't get cars, some don't wear uniforms, and some don't have guns.
As for standards and requirements of peace officer "levels"...it's based on the statute. There is the Police Act of Alberta and the Criminal Code of Canada that define "police", then there is the Peace Officer act of Alberta that define "peace officers". In addition to those, each statute may further list additional peace officers that are valid only for the scope of that piece of legislation.
quote:
Originally posted by Invalid Zero
Uhhh... don't you mean semi-auto?
Here's the exception, the grammar police might be called police, but they aren't really, especially when the intent of the message was clear and the general slang is accepted. |
|
|
| SilverFire |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Volunteering to control traffic is not a peace officer. You have similar authority when it comes to traffic control, but you were NOT a peace officer. The law is very clear on what makes someone a peace officer. You had similar authority with respect to traffic, but that's where your authority ended. "Something simliar to disobeying a peace officer" is not the same as "disobeying a peace officer".
I think there's some confusion here. The charge definitely used the words "peace officer" it's the "disobeying" I'm not sure of. It could have been any other synonym for "not obeying". It was a few years ago...
quote:
Don't confuse them. Next time you volunteer, if you tell someone you're a "peace officer and they should listen", you might find yourself on the defence side of an "impersonating a peace officer" charge.
Just to clairfy, It didn't even occur to me that I could be classified as such until the judge said that I was. I thought I was just there as a witness for some other charge. Maybe there's some other factor there that neither of us are aware of... Maybe the judge made the mistake...
Anyway, I'm not trying to be an ass, the whole point of the post was that peace officers aren't always obvious, so respect everyone that COULD be one... even if they're not, they have SOME reason for being there and telling you what to do. I guess that's getting OT though... |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverFire
I think there's some confusion here. The charge definitely used the words "peace officer" it's the "disobeying" I'm not sure of. It could have been any other synonym for "not obeying". It was a few years ago...
Just to clairfy, It didn't even occur to me that I could be classified as such until the judge said that I was. I thought I was just there as a witness for some other charge. Maybe there's some other factor there that neither of us are aware of... Maybe the judge made the mistake...
Anyway, I'm not trying to be an ass, the whole point of the post was that peace officers aren't always obvious, so respect everyone that COULD be one... even if they're not, they have SOME reason for being there and telling you what to do. I guess that's getting OT though...
http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/catalogue/c...;search_by=link
Volunteering does not make you a peace officer. My entire point is to ensure the CORRECT information gets out. And the CORRECT information is that a volunteer is NOT a peace officer. If you want to think you are next time and perhaps claim to be, like I said, don't be surprised if you end up sitting on the wrong side of an impersonating a peace officer charge, because you are NOT. |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
quote:
Originally posted by DivineRight
Are you kidding me? Transit Security with guns? UofA Campus security with guns? I can't see that happening in the near future, they don't have the training or authority to use firearms.
95EagleAWD, where are you getting your info from?
From the people that work there.
AFAIK, Transit has already put in the paperwork to the government so they can carry.
Training is easy to adapt, especially since Transit already has a very good relationship with EPS.
Both Transit and Campus should carry a sidearm. They deal with the same shit that EPS and the RCMP does and should be properly equipped to do so. A sidearm simply gives them that much more protection. |
|
|
| MightyMidget |
| wow.....I'm sure glad someone knows what they are talking about *cough* dtjohnst *cough* because half of what he is saying is BULLSHIT! |
|
|
| DivineRight |
I am not sure about this, but can someone clarify if Transit Security, Campus Security and Bylaw officers are goverened under the Police Act?
My buddy doesn't share the same views as you 95EagleAWD in terms of the EPS and ETS. They are wannabe police officers. They drive around in police cruisers that have "PEACE OFFICER" all over them, hanging out in places no where near ETS property. They give stupid fines, things that Police officers can't even do like a swearing ticket. I'm not kidding, you can be fined a $40 dollar bylaw ticket for swearing on ETS property. A retired EPS guy went over to run the program over at the ETS and now he figures that he is going to turn them into police officers. What they should be doing is riding on the transit system on the buses and trains like they do in every other metropolitan city.
I don't agree with djohnst that guns should be viewed as simply tools. Any reasonable person will know that they represent deadly force and as such the responsibility to carry them is a lot more heavy than Batons or Pepper spray. I think part of what makes police officers so scary is the fact that they have guns. It is a huge intimidation factor and often gets people in more trouble than anything.
My buddy's training officer had a complaint once at a traffic stop a few years back, because he was resting his hand on his gun and thumbing the strap on his holster. He was just playing with it, not being mindful of what picture he was portraying. He got called to task on that, the guy he pulled over complained to IA that the cop was intimidating him for no reason and purposely showing him his gun.
I tend to think the way the British think, their patrol police officers don't carry firearms. Where as the Americans, everyone and their dogs carry firearms. I truely believe that if you arm these other "Peace Officers", many of whom have been deemed unfit to be police officers then you will see more gunfights between law enforcement and bad guys. The regular Joe will have a more likely chance of having a pistol shoved in his face for mundane occurances. If people think things like tint tickets are unfair now, you should see how the police work in the States. |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
quote:
Originally posted by MightyMidget
wow.....I'm sure glad someone knows what they are talking about *cough* dtjohnst *cough* because half of what he is saying is BULLSHIT!
What's bullshit about what he's saying?? |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
quote:
Originally posted by DivineRight
I am not sure about this, but can someone clarify if Transit Security, Campus Security and Bylaw officers are goverened under the Police Act?
My buddy doesn't share the same views as you 95EagleAWD in terms of the EPS and ETS. They are wannabe police officers. They drive around in police cruisers that have "PEACE OFFICER" all over them, hanging out in places no where near ETS property. They give stupid fines, things that Police officers can't even do like a swearing ticket. I'm not kidding, you can be fined a $40 dollar bylaw ticket for swearing on ETS property. A retired EPS guy went over to run the program over at the ETS and now he figures that he is going to turn them into police officers. What they should be doing is riding on the transit system on the buses and trains like they do in every other metropolitan city.
I don't agree with djohnst that guns should be viewed as simply tools. Any reasonable person will know that they represent deadly force and as such the responsibility to carry them is a lot more heavy than Batons or Pepper spray. I think part of what makes police officers so scary is the fact that they have guns. It is a huge intimidation factor and often gets people in more trouble than anything.
My buddy's training officer had a complaint once at a traffic stop a few years back, because he was resting his hand on his gun and thumbing the strap on his holster. He was just playing with it, not being mindful of what picture he was portraying. He got called to task on that, the guy he pulled over complained to IA that the cop was intimidating him for no reason and purposely showing him his gun.
I tend to think the way the British think, their patrol police officers don't carry firearms. Where as the Americans, everyone and their dogs carry firearms. I truely believe that if you arm these other "Peace Officers", many of whom have been deemed unfit to be police officers then you will see more gunfights between law enforcement and bad guys. The regular Joe will have a more likely chance of having a pistol shoved in his face for mundane occurances. If people think things like tint tickets are unfair now, you should see how the police work in the States.
Yes, many ETS Officers are "wannabes". It's a great stepping stone to the EPS or RCMP or wherever you want to go. But they do have Peace Officer status, and they can and will arrest and charge you under their jurisdictions. Campus especially should be armed. They do traffic stops and ANYONE doing traffic stops should be armed.
If you think it's bad that Peace Officers like Campus Security and ETS might carry guns, consider that Armoured Car Officers like myself pack heat.
Think about that for a second. Brinks hires retards. I'm not gonna deny that; the quality of people that we're hiring right now is subpar. I got on 3 years ago when it was actually a challenge. Anyone can walk in right now and get a job, since we're dying for people.
If you think a sidearm is intimadating, good. That's what it's for. A gun should scare the hell out of you; because if you scare the hell out of ME, that gun will probably kill you. But you're in the minority. We get comments all the time. "I'm gonna rob you." "I'm gonna take all your money." Blah blah blah. Does that mean we should draw a gun on them? We could, but it never happens. So judgement comes into play. And ETS and Campus Officers have much better training than us; having them carry sidearms for self-defense (which is what they're for) is perfectly accetable.
If I get smartasses or shady looking people, my hand is on my gun. If you don't like it, too bad. Turn around and walk away then. I tell people to back off all the time. Nobody takes us seriously. You know why? Because we're not cops.
Is carrying a sidearm a big responsibility? You bet it is. Lots of people at work are terrible with it. They can't shoot worth shit. I enjoy shooting; it's a challenge and it's fun. I don't like guns all that much, I don't own any, but I do enjoy blasting away at targets. So I consider myself a damn good shot. I take it very seriously, because if I EVER have to shoot someone on the street, that bullet better hit the guy I'm aiming at and not Billy in the wheelchair behind him.
I can't imagine more gunfights between LEO's and bad guys. We don't shoot people on a regular basis. No ETS Constable is going to open fire in a train; they all have better judgement than that. |
|
|
| MightyMidget |
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
What's bullshit about what he's saying??
there is TOO much to get into....
ftw- don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about because I have been there and done that! |
|
|
| MightyMidget |
quote:
Originally posted by DivineRight
I tend to think the way the British think, their patrol police officers don't carry firearms. Where as the Americans, everyone and their dogs carry firearms. I truely believe that if you arm these other "Peace Officers", many of whom have been deemed unfit to be police officers then you will see more gunfights between law enforcement and bad guys. The regular Joe will have a more likely chance of having a pistol shoved in his face for mundane occurances. If people think things like tint tickets are unfair now, you should see how the police work in the States.
if you believe the above then you honestly are a TOOL.
Please show evidence and facts that these "...Peace Officers", many of whom have been deemed unfit to be police officers...." are unfit to be police officers.
There are sure a lot of people on here that are GREAT at talking out of their ass. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by MightyMidget
wow.....I'm sure glad someone knows what they are talking about *cough* dtjohnst *cough* because half of what he is saying is BULLSHIT!
If it's bullshit, correct it. If you can't correct it, or don't want to, then shut your trap. Either contribute or leave. Don't sit there and say half the information is incorrect but then not correct it. |
|
|
| MightyMidget |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
If it's bullshit, correct it. If you can't correct it, or don't want to, then shut your trap. Either contribute or leave. Don't sit there and say half the information is incorrect but then not correct it.
awwww....
there is too much to correct....and no I am NOT going to "shut my trap"!! |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by DivineRight
[B]I am not sure about this, but can someone clarify if Transit Security, Campus Security and Bylaw officers are goverened under the Police Act?
They are not. However, I believe the trend in most provinces currently is to move Campus Police into the Police Act and award them full powers. Manitoba did that (I think).
quote:
My buddy doesn't share the same views as you 95EagleAWD in terms of the EPS and ETS. They are wannabe police officers. They drive around in police cruisers that have "PEACE OFFICER" all over them, hanging out in places no where near ETS property. They give stupid fines, things that Police officers can't even do like a swearing ticket. I'm not kidding, you can be fined a $40 dollar bylaw ticket for swearing on ETS property. A retired EPS guy went over to run the program over at the ETS and now he figures that he is going to turn them into police officers. What they should be doing is riding on the transit system on the buses and trains like they do in every other metropolitan city.
Why can't they say "peace officer" on the car if they are peace officers? No, they aren't police, but they are peace officers. If the fine is valid, there's not much you can say. And I found ETS Security to be really decent for the most part.
quote:
I don't agree with djohnst that guns should be viewed as simply tools. Any reasonable person will know that they represent deadly force and as such the responsibility to carry them is a lot more heavy than Batons or Pepper spray. I think part of what makes police officers so scary is the fact that they have guns. It is a huge intimidation factor and often gets people in more trouble than anything.
A firearm is a tool. Period. Reread my post, my point was that a weapon does not define a level of peace officer in the least, and it doesn't. It's a tool that SOME have and others don't, and some people who have it are NOT peace officers. Yes, it takes more responsibility to carry one, but it is NOT a badge of authority, it is a tool for doing a job.
It's intimidating, but it means NOTHING.
quote:
My buddy's training officer had a complaint once at a traffic stop a few years back, because he was resting his hand on his gun and thumbing the strap on his holster. He was just playing with it, not being mindful of what picture he was portraying. He got called to task on that, the guy he pulled over complained to IA that the cop was intimidating him for no reason and purposely showing him his gun.
And rightfully so. A weapon is not a toy, it's a tool. You don't walk around with a shovel over your shoulder if you're not going to be digging, so you shouldn't be touching your gun unless you have reason to believe you might need it.
quote:
I tend to think the way the British think, their patrol police officers don't carry firearms. Where as the Americans, everyone and their dogs carry firearms. I truely believe that if you arm these other "Peace Officers", many of whom have been deemed unfit to be police officers then you will see more gunfights between law enforcement and bad guys. The regular Joe will have a more likely chance of having a pistol shoved in his face for mundane occurances. If people think things like tint tickets are unfair now, you should see how the police work in the States.
I disagree with that. That would be the case if you provided no training on firearms other than how to shoot. Training would have to be MUCH more in-depth than that. Consider a fresh security guards training: paperwork, arrest procedures, basic criminal code. Eventually maybe speed-cuffing and basic use-of-force then he gets issued some cuffs. After that maybe defensive tactics and more use-of-force training and then he gets issued a baton or spray. Move on to K9, he gets K9 handler training, specific K9 laws, and even more in depth use-of-force.
In other words, to upgrade these guys to firearms, they'd have to redo pretty much ALL of their use-of-force training, they'd have to take in-depth conflict resolution training, and they would be held accountable for their actions. If a pattern forms of unlawful use of firearms, they will be taken away very quickly. You won't see the wild west come back at all. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by MightyMidget
there is TOO much to get into....
ftw- don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about because I have been there and done that!
Ok, so we'll believe you that half of what I said is wrong because you've "been there", which incidently I have been too, however, we still don't know which half is wrong. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by MightyMidget
if you believe the above then you honestly are a TOOL.
Please show evidence and facts that these "...Peace Officers", many of whom have been deemed unfit to be police officers...." are unfit to be police officers.
There are sure a lot of people on here that are GREAT at talking out of their ass.
Why should he show evidence and facts when you refuse to even point out what you disagre with let alone show evidence or facts? |
|
|
| MightyMidget |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
If you mean a "secret shopper" who evaluates the store......no. If you mean a "secret shopper" who's there to try and catch shop lifters.....sort of. They are security guards or private investigators and are licenced as such. They can't order you around, but they can arrest you.
you mean LPO's
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
They cannot confiscate personal property.
They can only search you to ensure their own safety. For example, if they place you under arrest for trespassing, they can detain you until a peace officer shows up. During detainment, than can search you for weapons, and only for weapons, to ensure their own personal safety, and they can cuff you.
Search for their safety and means of escape. They are not "detaining" you....most likely they have arrested you. Arrest and detain are VERY different.
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Compus Police are full-on police, they are Special Constables appointed by the province. The real deal
NO....a full peace officer(police officer) has MUCH more authority than a S/Cst. And Campus cops are not FULL peace officers. |
|
|
| MightyMidget |
from another thread...
quote:
No, it's not.
Perhaps next time I'll be too lazy to answer.
As an aside, in-vehicle radars usually aren't technically "laser", but they fall under "laser" when filling out a ticket.
how the hell does RADAR fall under LASER while writing a ticket? If they were caught on radar that's what will be listed. |
|
|
| MightyMidget |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Ok, so we'll believe you that half of what I said is wrong because you've "been there", which incidently I have been too, however, we still don't know which half is wrong.
so where have you been? EPS, CPS, RCMP?
And ok maybe "bullshit" was the wrong word....it should have read incorrect info. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by MightyMidget
you mean LPO's
I used the words of the person asking the quesiton. And LPO's are licenced as security guards.
quote:
Search for their safety and means of escape. They are not "detaining" you....most likely they have arrested you. Arrest and detain are VERY different.
Yes, they are different, hence why I specified both. If a citizen arrests someone under section 494, they have the right to detain the person. Arrest meaning the act of arrest, detain meaning to keep them put, usually using force. Check out a dictionary.
quote:
NO....a full peace officer(police officer) has MUCH more authority than a S/Cst. And Campus cops are not FULL peace officers.
Campus Cops are authorized under the Peace Officer Act. And all S/Cst are peace officers. True, they don't fall under the Police Act, but they are definately 100% peace officers. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by MightyMidget
from another thread...
how the hell does RADAR fall under LASER while writing a ticket? If they were caught on radar that's what will be listed.
Yes, if he was caught on radar it would be checked as radar. But the check was in laser.....you figure it out genious. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by MightyMidget
so where have you been? EPS, CPS, RCMP?
And ok maybe "bullshit" was the wrong word....it should have read incorrect info.
Most of what you argued was semantics. And since this isn't court, I try to keep things rather general and simple.
Where I've been is common knowledge. Where have you been? |
|
|
| MightyMidget |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Yes, they are different, hence why I specified both. If a citizen arrests someone under section 494, they have the right to detain the person. Arrest meaning the act of arrest, detain meaning to keep them put, usually using force. Check out a dictionary.
no need to check the dictionary.....but you need to check the Criminal Code of Canada....NO WHERE does it say 'detain'. Maybe you should check the dic too....
Arrest without warrant by any person
494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant
(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or
(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes
(i) has committed a criminal offence, and
(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.
Arrest by owner, etc., of property
(2) Any one who is
(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or
(b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property,
may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.
Delivery to peace officer
(3) Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer. |
|
|
| MightyMidget |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Most of what you argued was semantics. And since this isn't court, I try to keep things rather general and simple.
Where I've been is common knowledge. Where have you been?
It may be semantics but it's still incorrect!
oh and fyi Cst and S/Cst. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by MightyMidget
no need to check the dictionary.....but you need to check the Criminal Code of Canada....NO WHERE does it say 'detain'. Maybe you should check the dic too....
Arrest without warrant by any person
494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant
(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or
(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes
(i) has committed a criminal offence, and
(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.
Arrest by owner, etc., of property
(2) Any one who is
(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or
(b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property,
may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.
Delivery to peace officer
(3) Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.
Thankfully we live in a common law nation. R. v Whitfield, as I've already stated, is the hallmark case for citizen's arrest in Canada.
quote:
the actual seizure or touching of a person's body with a view to his detention. The mere pronouncing of words of arrest is not an arrest, unless the person sought to be arrested submits to the process and goes with the arresting officer.
Consequently, there are two requirements to affect an arrest: 1) actual seizure or touching of the suspects body with a view to detention and 2) pronouncing "words of arrest" to the suspect.
Detention is the act of being detained. |
|
|
| MightyMidget |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Yes, if he was caught on radar it would be checked as radar. But the check was in laser.....you figure it out genious.
I think you're the genius (proper spelling)....
you said quote:
As an aside, in-vehicle radars usually aren't technically "laser", but they fall under "laser" when filling out a ticket.
it doesn't fall under laser when filling out a ticket....if it was with radar..... |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by MightyMidget
I think you're the genius (proper spelling)....
you said
it doesn't fall under laser when filling out a ticket....if it was with radar.....
Who said it was with radar? They aren't "technically" laser, but they are classified as laser. They are not classified as radar. |
|
|
| MightyMidget |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
I used the words of the person asking the quesiton. And LPO's are licenced as security guards.
but those security guards aren't secret shoppers....they are LPO's.
Secret shoppers are people Shell gas stations hire to go around to different locations to check customer service. |
|
|
| MightyMidget |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Who said it was with radar? They aren't "technically" laser, but they are classified as laser. They are not classified as radar.
how is that? they are TOTALLY different machines! |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by MightyMidget
but those security guards aren't secret shoppers....they are LPO's.
Secret shoppers are people Shell gas stations hire to go around to different locations to check customer service.
No shit. but what's this thread about? I made an assumption of what the guy who asked the question meant. I highly dount he was asking about people who Shell (and most major corporations) hire to test customer service. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by MightyMidget
how is that? they are TOTALLY different machines!
Laser and radar are different. I'm not talking about radar. I'm talking about in-car lasar installations, which aren't "technically" laser, but are even less radar. Is this confusing you in some way? I feel like I'm saying the same thing over and over.
It's NOT radar. It's classified as "laser", but it's not really laser if you take the unit apart. |
|
|
| MightyMidget |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Laser and radar are different. I'm not talking about radar. I'm talking about in-car lasar installations, which aren't "technically" laser, but are even less radar. Is this confusing you in some way? I feel like I'm saying the same thing over and over.
It's NOT radar. It's classified as "laser", but it's not really laser if you take the unit apart.
you can't have 'in-car' laser....Laser requires a solid mount or something stable to shoot from.
it seems like it is confusing to you....it is radar but just solidly mounted inside the car.....and it's classified as RADAR because it's RADAR, not laser. It's also not 'even less radar'...if you were to take those out of the car they would function just like a hand held Radar unit. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by MightyMidget
you can't have 'in-car' laser....Laser requires a solid mount or something stable to shoot from.
it seems like it is confusing to you....it is radar but just solidly mounted inside the car.....and it's classified as RADAR because it's RADAR, not laser. It's also not 'even less radar'...if you were to take those out of the car they would function just like a hand held Radar unit.
We had in-car LIDAR. :dunno: And we definately aren't cutting edge. We also had in-car microwave for heavy-traffic situations. LIDAR was a pain because we had note at least a dozen different factors when used, nonetheless....it was there. LIDAR is "laser", but doesn't use a laser. Radar is radar. The 2 are separate. |
|
|
| Stainless |
Jesus dtjohnst, did you sleep with this guys wife, or beat him up in middle school?
:lol: |
|
|
| DivineRight |
MightyMidget, you obviouslly don't know too many people in the Law Enforcement Industry then.
quote:
if you believe the above then you honestly are a TOOL.
Please show evidence and facts that these "...Peace Officers", many of whom have been deemed unfit to be police officers...." are unfit to be police officers.
There are sure a lot of people on here that are GREAT at talking out of their ass
Go down to the law courts, go speak with "county mounties" and ETS security, ask them if they have applied for a municipal police agency or the RCMP. Find out how many of them received deferals and life-time deferals. I am not trying to bad talk any agencies here but if you can't read between the lines then you are, as you so politely put it "a TOOL".
Then again, you can simply look at the requirements, the amount of training and the difference in responsibility to see the obvious. There was a reason that the POPA/PARE requirement for sub-policing roles was something rediculous like 4:30, while CPS and EPS requires nothing slower than 4 mins and you need to do a whole barrage of strength, agility and endurance tests after. Then of course there is the Polygraph. I was one of 30 people that my friend used as a reference when he applied with the EPS 3 years ago. Go ask other "Peace Officer" designations how many references they required.
However, you are correct about the difference between detaining and arresting. I consulted with my friend who works with the EPS and he told me the following:
"When you have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed then you are able to place someone under arrest.
Investigative detention is different since it is based on reasonable suspicion. Suspicion is not the same as reasonable and probable grounds. "
This is why even LPO's and security guards need to announce to the person their reason for arrest (I am arresting you for shoplifting from my store), then they need to read them their charter right for legal advice and representation and caution them that they have the right to not say anything. When they are under arrest, they must disclose their identity as well.
That is the difference between say Transit Security, Campus 5-0 and the Police, when ETS or Campus Security has someone who won't identify themselves, they are screwed, where as if it is the police then they can charge the guy for obstruction. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by DivineRight
However, you are correct about the difference between detaining and arresting. I consulted with my friend who works with the EPS and he told me the following:
"When you have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed then you are able to place someone under arrest.
Investigative detention is different since it is based on reasonable suspicion. Suspicion is not the same as reasonable and probable grounds. "
As I already pointed out too, a citizen's arrest involves detaining the person. If you arrest someone but they fail to comply and you make no steps to detain them, they have not escaped from lawful arrest. You must detain them in addition to arresting them for the arrest to be lawful, unless they accept your verbal arrest and come with you.
quote:
This is why even LPO's and security guards need to announce to the person their reason for arrest (I am arresting you for shoplifting from my store), then they need to read them their charter right for legal advice and representation and caution them that they have the right to not say anything. When they are under arrest, they must disclose their identity as well.
Everyone, not just security guards, need to provide someone with Charter 10 rights on arrest. That means you must inform them they are under arrest, the reason for the arrest, and that they have the right to retain and instruct council without delay. In addition, as mentioned above, detention or compliance must be assured. Following that, the person must be turned over to a lawful authority.
In Canada, you do not have the right to "not say anything." Your sole rights are those outlined in part 10 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. From the Constitution Act, here is your charter 10.
quote:
Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
quote:
That is the difference between say Transit Security, Campus 5-0 and the Police, when ETS or Campus Security has someone who won't identify themselves, they are screwed, where as if it is the police then they can charge the guy for obstruction.
No, they are not screwed. You can arrest someone who refuses to divulge their identity. The requirement is that the arresting person must identify themselves if acting as something other than a citizen. If acting as a citizen, the person being arrested must be informed the arrest is a citizen's arrest. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
Silly Q time...
So if say I, now Joe Civi, see Jow Robber rob a 7-Eleven... So you got me and the clerk as witnesses, and I grab the guy and pin him to the ground til the local law enforcment agency shows up, whether be EPS or RCMP, are they really gonna give two shits that the only words I spoke to Joe Robber were "You ain't goin no-where til the cops show up"? |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverNeonRacer
Silly Q time...
So if say I, now Joe Civi, see Jow Robber rob a 7-Eleven... So you got me and the clerk as witnesses, and I grab the guy and pin him to the ground til the local law enforcment agency shows up, whether be EPS or RCMP, are they really gonna give two shits that the only words I spoke to Joe Robber were "You ain't goin no-where til the cops show up"?
No. But you also didn't arrest him. You detained him. |
|
|
|
